Mesmer

He is European. They have a fascination with celebrities.

Some fathers are involved in toxic overbearing ways tbh, they try to ensure their children to best but drive them to the other end, especially in terms of motivation to do well.

Nothing uglier than a women's arms legs and face covered in an inky mess.

Some Tattooists may be very good. But the indelible scars are permanently bad.

The odd small tattoo that can be easily covered is Ok I suppose..... But unnecessary.

So what's the big deal with self-disfigurement?

I understand the distinction you are making.

• So when Ronald Greene was beat to death by six Louisiana State troopers on May 10, 2019 that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because no law allowed those troopers to beat an unarmed man to death as punishment for resisting arrest.
  
• And when those troopers lied on their arrest reports and lied to Greene's widow saying that Greene had died in an auto accident, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because no law allowed those troopers to lie and cover up their murder of Greene.
  
• And when those troopers turned off their body cameras or else lied about having any body camera footage of the murder that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law clearly states that those troopers must have their body cameras running at all times.
  
• And when the County Coroner falsely attributed Greene's death to car accident and made no report of the many deep lacerations and bruises and taser prongs stuck in Greene's body, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law clearly requires the County Coroner to make accurate statements during an autopsy.
  
• And when Troop F commanders threatened internal investigators who wanted to charge the troopers that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because by law police commanders are supposed to charge known murderers and not cover up when the murders are committed by co-workers.
  
• And when the Louisiana State Patrol refused to release any body camera footage or discuss Greene's death for two years that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because  state officials are not allowed by law to knowingly cover up internal investigations or conceal evidence in  a murder.
  
• And when the Governor of Louisiana backed the LSP's refusal to release body camera footage or discuss Greene's death because investigation were still active two years out that was not SYSTEM RACISM because Governor's are not permitted by law  to knowingly conceal evidence of a murder.
  
• And when the LSP decided to scapegoat one officer and that officer then died in a car accident a few hours later that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because state officials are not allowed by law to scapegoat one man for a murder done by six men.
  
• And when the LSP slapped a different officer on the wrist and refused to charge the rest of the murderers with anything, in spite of the recommendations of internal investigators and in spite of the active cover up, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because police officers are required by law to charge people with murder when detectives have determined that a murder has been committed.
  
• And when evidence emerges that Troop F has a long history of accusations of racially motivated violence against black motorists around Monroe, LA and a long history of cover-ups and most of Troop F command resigns to avoid any backlash, that is not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law does not allow for racially motivated violence against motorists and the law requires the State to prosecute those officials who cover up such incidents.
  

So, while any reasonable person might conclude that Troop F, the Louisiana State Patrol and the highest-ranking state officials all worked together as an institution to promote racist violence, created a system that covered-up racist violence and therefore forgave if not actively encouraged racist violence no person might reasonably call that system of racist violence SYSTEMIC RACISM so long as the definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM only accounts for the TEXT of current statutes and procedural policies and never accounts for the conduct of racist institutions and systems which may only  be properly seen as large interdependent hierarchies of  officially appointed individuals, independently breaking the law en masse and never as part of any inherently racist system.

I understand the distinction you are making.

WIKI: Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or on a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest.

...

What people?  Eugenicists?  Is it an ad hom to call a Eugenicist a Eugenicist?   Are you denying that taking money from parties with a political interest in a particular outcome exposes the data to skepticism when that particular outcome is published?  If a study stating that smoking is good for you comes out and I complain that the study was sponsored by RJ Reynolds, is that mere insult or is that a legitimate cause for skepticism? 

Out of labor for 1 month is one bad life out indicator.  The original data is so old-fashioned that they only counted men, expecting women to drop out of the labor force regular for birthing and raising children.  I'd argue that if our priorities were straight, all parents would drop of the labor force for at least month as part of bonding with infants and other childcare responsibilities.

Had an illegitimate child: is another bad life indicator.  I understand why white supremacists are very interested in controlling breeding for the purpose of enforcing racial purity but 40% of all US mothers now have children deemed "illegitimate" by the old-fashioned standards of the early '80's.  Are we really still calling this a bad outcome.  Naturally, this bad outcome is only counting women as responsible for children born out wedlock.  Fathering illegitimate children is not considered a  similarly negative outcome, apparently.  [...] Again, better than 40% of US  women are having babies without a marriage license these days.  Are you really lumping all those women into a bad life outcome.

Lives in poverty: There's the classic indicator of classist bias, measuring positive life outcomes according to money made. Many people choose low-paying jobs out of a sense of civic duty- teachers, nurses, military, clergy, social workers, etc or because their priorities supersede financial considerations- artists, athletes, farmers, etc.  Many highly intelligent people choose poverty, experience contentment, yet end up the bad outcomes list.

[Schmidt and Hunter point] Yes, "mental ability" seems to claim a much wider range than "general intelligence"

Valid but not "best."  You claimed Huffcutt & Arthur supported "best predictor" but Huffcutt & Arthur said that Hunter (1980) badly underestimated the value of the job interview as the predictor of job performance and that when the job interview was highly structured surpassed IQ as a predictor.

You seem to be assuming that Huffcutt's "ability composite "represents IQ but I don't see where Huffcutt made that connection.

In 1950, the youngest people to be born into slavery and performing some sort of labor around the time of emancipation would have been in their 90's.  Martin Luther King Jr. was only 21, and he did not graduate from Boston University until around 1955. 

What do you consider noteworthy about him not 'owning' slaves?

this is really begging the question of WHY you would bother to mention this "information".

it seems obvious that your only possible motive would be to pre-emptively DISCREDIT any FUTURE arguments (specifically from the person in question).

any comment on the SPEAKER and not specifically on their WORDS is an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

Is this measured or spontaneous?

For example, if I'm learning piano for the first time, I would classify my first training as measured. Me learning the music keys would be excruciatingly painful as a first-time music learner. I think measured activities require a lot of work. That's different from a spontaneous act of drinking and getting drunk on a random night. 

So, is the general coming together as a result of similarity spontaneous or measured?

What? I think that sounds more of a genetic than behavior kind of thing. Not to interject a stereotype but women gossip about things and men talk about sex. But I'm not talking about actions borne from laziness or "spur of the moment". I'm talking about things that require plenty of thought. A coptic christian choosing to love a baathist muslim would definitely require more work than a typical high school romance or whatever.

Forethought of generalized rules without exceptions can never be made into actual laws of nature. My opinion.

Well, your best guess? Or do exceptions mean nothing to you?

I think thats a spurious correlation. Granted, there's an argument that arab nationalists draw a lot from islam in their hatred of western values.  I think they consider nationalism as interchangeable with islam. So, If I'm an arab, the best argument in favor of this is that over time, i develop some form of genetic disposition that allows me to associate Islam and nationalism. That disposition then becomes hereditary, but is still probably open to manipulation. Well, okay not sure what to make of that other than to say that I have very little faith in spurious correlations. I'll check your source when I get home.

Why ?

Why do you think this is "important" ?

If you're not proposing any particular policy, why should anyone care ?

AD HOMINEM ATTACK

Um... if you are doing a science experiment, the source is literally the graphs

this isn't a science experiment - or something that can be repeatedly reproduced to expose fraud, this is a paper marking several claims regarding a source who is INSANELY biased, and has obvious motivation for lying... so yes, we need a source.

Um... yes I did? I literally followed up the thing with two sources getting into how your source was insanely biased and was propagandized? Do you need the sources again? 

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/federal-bureau-investigation-fbi

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/mlkreport.pdf

...

Just in case, here's a third source since you don't seem to get the history here:

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/mcarthyism-red-scare

...

Um.. actually it is sufficient, because I don't care if you agree or not, I know that i have the evidence to support my claims.

...

 It is Mccarthism, and if you disagree, then check the sources

What? No, this is logical critique of a source - which is just a way to look and dismantle sources, like presenting a logical fallacy - THAT'S something you don't source. And... I explained it? It was written during a time of the red scare, and presented actual sources reporting how insanely biased the FBI was against King. Like... literally, two posts ago, do you actually check the links that people give you? Cuz' if you actually want "proof" then check it.

Also... again... what???  Yes I said "I don't take it seriously" I literally just reiterated what I meant! They mean the exact same thing, I don't take the source seriously, i.e, I trust it less.

Just because America wants it doesn't mean it's a good thing.

you are talking about lenisim, which isn't the same thing as communism, if you're going to criticize something, then make sure you aren't criticizing an offshoot. 

No, because the "source" is not primary, it is not backed by any other sources, it has no data or offcial record to back it up. You see, with scientific data, there are things called "photos" and "graphs" which give credence to it, this is not a "looking at a duck", this is a "looking at a paper, claiming a duck did X, whenever the writer of the paper had ample reason to lie about what Duck did, and then expecting me to believe said paper uncritically."

Also... the bible supports orgies, the bible supports mistresses, and the bible supports drunkness. Oh, did you not know?

And you also completely ignored my argument, the bible is also against eating pork dude, you're not being consistent with the bible, cuz' you can't. 

Actually, I did have sources, three, you didn't read them. Tu quo que doesn't actually address criticism

As I said, he had no sources, claiming that he "sourced himself" isn't a good way to give the paper any credence.

And yes, the book itself is propaganda.

Furthermore, I'm saying it is LIKELY the FBI lied given: their is no actual evidence that the claims were true, and they had an extremely high motive to lie, therefore it is likely to be a lie.

Again, I was using that to settle the credence of the paper, the writer was obviously discriminatory in nature, no?

Further-furthermore, to say it is a "non-sequiter" is actually a fallacy-fallacy. I was not connecting logic specifically, merely saying that the word-usage made me trust the claims less, since it increases the motive to lie, we've been over this.

Furthermore.... even if it true that he "associated with communists", so what? You do know that there were communists patriotic to America right? there is literally nothing wrong with that, you see, you buy into the red scare as much as the guys writing this... but ya know, considering this was a Mccarthinson era report, with no actual evidence, and a counter report (which you failed to read), which detailed it as exaggerative.

While it is "technically" correct, that is true, whenever making a claim that is contested it is the burden of the maker of the claim to provide adequate evidence of said claim. If 2 + 2 = 4 was in contention, the maker of the claim would have an intellectual burden to prove said claim. However, that does not apply here, as math itself is an axiom due to it's self-fulffilling nature, so this is a false-equivelency, as these claims are specific and falsifiable, you must provide evidence of their credence. 

Or... if you're saying that it doesn't matter if we have sources for our claims

Nope, I didn't, I merely said that claiming anyone isn't a christian because of actions they took is stupid, because doing that you could claim ALL christians aren't christians...according to the bible, actually. Since by your logic, if someone does someone "unchristian" than they aren't christian, and the bible says all men fall short of the glory of god, so... yeah, no.

You see, you aren't actually critically thinking through this stuff. You just throw out fallacies you think apply when you have no idea what you're actually addressing. This is why skilled interloquitors don't do this "quote" and respond stuff like this. It often leads one to conclude that you aren't considering the entire thing in context. 

No you haven't. 

Well by Mesmer’s standards he is a racist. 

i think white people are open minded towards black people. it's just that there's a lotta baggage with black culture. so, they whites might be less likely to hire blacks or place them in housing, or whatever. i would call that discrimination. not racism. it's discrimination because the factor that is being used to make a decision is skin color, not the content of the person's character. but i dont think it's prejudicial in an unreasonable way. white people are only human and often fear blacks, and it's understandable that whites dont want to associate with much of black culture given there's so much toxicity included often times. 

i think it's reasonable to say if there's discrimination there has to be racism as if they're one and the same. i just dont like to say there's so much racism given how open minded whites are. i can even understand if someone thought my distinction between discrimination and racism was a stupid distinction. 

(IFF) jewish asians are unquestionably "more intelligent" than everyone else (THEN) what the heck do you propose we do with this "information" ???

The core disagreement is, whether or not we should hinge any particular POLICY on "skin-tone".

What is your proposed conclusion if your contention is accepted ??

hahahahahahah! oh my fucking god, 60 year old propaganda got you!

This was during the time of Mccarthyinism, not only that but your source references exactly ZERO other sources

On top of that the FBI was openly against MLK, meaning that he had explicit reasons to lie. 

Furthermore, this paper calls homosexuality a "sexual perversion", and black peoples "n*groes". So no, I don't take it seriously. 

You can wax lyrical about it being "FBI" papers all you like, that doesn't make them any more credible neccessarily, especially because they were published in 1968.

Neither of your sources have any actual references funnily enough!

He was a hero without doubt, who cares if he "wasn't christian"

But then when I ask for a definition of INTELLIGENCE you give me the definition for GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.  I say that IQ doesn't cover all of what we recognize as  intelligence.

• You disagree with me by saying that perception correlates well  with test outcomes but in a later post agree that Dennison found that the correlation was weak for starters and only improved over time.  Dennison only claims correlation to objective intelligence, which more or less agrees with my contention.
  
• You agree with me by limiting your definition of INTELLIGENCE to the smaller subset, GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.  
  

My contention was only that GENERAL INTELLIGENCE or objective intelligence is not the same thing as intelligence generally.  Huffcutt & Arthur would seem to agree with my point as does Dennison, as do you at some points in spite of your objection here.

Integrating multiple cognitive abilities in the service of solving a novel problem is also learned. Understimulated children often demonstrate cognitive deficits.

I don't think most would agree with your assertion that IQ tests are only or even mostly interested in the heritability of general intelligence.  Yes, that is the primary interest of the eugenicists you cite, which makes sense because their mission is to justify their assertions of political supremacy with some kind of objective measure of genetic superiority.  However, the general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to the APA is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late adolescents and adults.  Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.9 in adulthood.   That is, stripped of influences of environment, genetics only show a weak correlation to IQ.  I think its fair to say that most psychometrists, absent those tainted by political agenda,  are trying to assess the whole picture, not genetic general intelligence alone but also the influence of environment and the relationship between the two.

I think you have circled around to agreeing with me.  IQ can't capture all of what we call INTELLIGENCE including things like leaderships skills.

I can see that some important qualities might be reflected by IQ.  I have never seen an IQ test variant that quantified humor or empathy.  I don't agree that such qualities must necessarily or naturally flow from general intelligence.

I'm not demanding an explanation, I'm illustrating the limitations of objective intelligence assessment. We are able to perceive differences in intelligence that we have no hope of quantifying within the limited scope of verbal measurement.

You'd have to define performance more specifically.  The bell curvers were defining performance as holding a job for men and bearing children within wedlock for the ladies.  Kirkegaard's survey was looking at education level, occupation level (*), and income level as measures of performance.  I think IQ probably is a better or best predictor for educational, occupational, and financial attainment but again, all those measures fall within a certain Western paradigm.  We want to be careful not to mistake such metrics as a measure of human worth or an indicator of superior ability.

*I do wonder how "occupational levels" were measured and what biases revealed therein.

So, there's is a racial component to your assertions.  I don't know how you could possibly make such an assertion while failing to control for Western values.  Your definition of general intelligence may correlate with educational, occupational, and financial attainment but I assume that Bushmen are just as able to demonstrate their fluid ability to integrate multiple cognitive abilities in the service of solving problems within the context of the Kalahari as we are in the context of some Western metropolis.  I likewise assume that if the Mbuti were running the tests for cognitive abilities, big city white boys might take a significant hit in the scoring.  

 I may not be able to find a specific example of a Mbuti  neuroscientist, but the stated avg IQ score across all of sub-Saharan Africa is only 71 and nevertheless we see some prestigious neuroscientists excelling in Western cultures.  I do assume that some excellent individual Mbuti are entirely capable of such achievement given the right environment but if I'm reading you right, you don't. 

• Let's note that the Southern Poverty Law Center defines Gottfredson as a promoter of eugenicism, scientific racism, and white nationalism.
  
• Gottfredson has taken more than a quarter million dollars in grants from the White Supremacist Pioneer Fund to advance eugenics research.
  

• The table also appears in "The Bell Curve"
  

• Ultimately, this data comes from the  National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 which began in 1979 with 12,686 men and women born in 1957-64 (ages 14–22).  Members were interviewed annually from '79 to '94 but this table was published in '94 so this data cover outcomes over a 14 year period.  Oversamples of military and poor white respondents were dropped after these stats were generated.
  
• For these statistics, only white non-Hispanic respondents were included.
  
• Only a few of the people in the sample took IQ tests in high school.  Of these, a median correlation of .81 was inferred between IQ tests and Armed Services Vocational Aptitude test.  That is, in spite of your claim, that top number is not IQ but an estimated IQ inferred from the ASVA.  
  

• Your claim, " there is a researched table that shows the percentage of undesirable life outcomes occurring, relative to the IQ of the person" is false.
  
• This is a highly abridged table, showing selected results from a table intended to show that intelligence is a better predictor of individual outcomes over 14 years than socio-economic status.  Obviously, using the Armed Services test as means of quantifying intelligence introduces significant bias (nobody's looking at musical aptitude or sense of humor in an Armed Services aptitude test) and confining data to non-Hispanic whites obviously distorts the assessment of socio-economic status.
  
• The data is so old fashioned that to qualify as middle class you had to have a high school diploma, never been incarcerated, remain married to first wife and never give birth to a child out of wedlock.  Better than 40% of modern women have children out of wedlock but Herrnstein and Murray throw all of these women into the failed end of socio-economic outcomes.
  
• Super old fashioned, kind of racist, and not using IQ.
  

• You claim that  "Schmidt and Hunter (1990) examined the correlation between job performance and IQ" but that is false.
  
• But Hunter and Schmidt explain, "The hypothesis was tested that the standard deviation of employee output as a percentage of mean output  increases as a function of the complexity level of the job."  The paper broadly found that as a job grew more complex, a wider variety of output was delivered by employees.  Nothing about intelligence or IQ at all.  In fact, a quick search for terms "IQ" "Intel" and "Quotient" all came up zero.
  
• The table you snapshot and the data you describe are not in the paper you linked to.
  

 Huffcutt & Arthur (1994) Interview.pdf (radford.edu) 

• You claim that Huffcutt & Arthur found that IQ was the best predictor of job performance but that is false.
  
• Huffcutt & Arthur found that Hunter & Hunter (1984) had totally under-represented the value of the job interview and went on to conclude, "highly structured interviews provide essentially the same validity as ability tests"
  
• The paper concluded the opposite of what you claimed it concluded.
  
• Huffcutt & Arthur did not specify Intelligence as the ability tested, nor IQ as the test of Intelligence.
  

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004 (emilkirkegaard.dk) 

• You claim "with education, occupation and income levels, IQ consistently produced the best correlation." 
  
• We should note that more than a hundred different types of intelligence tests were used- which raises plenty of questions regarding the correlations between one kind of intelligence test and the next.
  
• This data claims that neither intelligence nor socio-economic index correlates very strongly to income.
  
•  I would think socio-economic status would correlate with income far more than claimed here.
  

Antecedents and consequences of peer‐rated intelligence - Denissen - 2011 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library

• You claim "this heuristic guess correlates very well with IQ"
  
• but, in fact, Dennison only reported  "weakly correlated with objective intelligence"
  

(PDF) Perceptions of Intelligence in Leaderless Groups: The Dynamic Effects of Shyness and Acquaintance (researchgate.net) .

• As you say, this study reduces the value of perceived intelligence because shy people's intelligence is consistently undervalued in the first few meeting and talkative people's intelligence is consistently overvalued in the first few meetings.  This weakens further Denisson's "weak correlation"
  

I took the American SAT once. Irrelevant, I know, but I just want to say that it made absolutely no sense to me. I failed it while international schools enjoyed a huge jump because there was a sizeable Australian expats scoring high in the SAT. I'm guessing non-whites mingle with them to score well on it too. My point: tests are region-specific. They have no validity outside of their intended audience. The IQ test doesn't measure intelligence because if it did, the test would score accurately across different cultures. 

A fraud? Not for most part ergo topic is meant to mislead and distract from the more signifcant facts in regards MLK:

1} more courageous and brave then Trumpet or his cult of Trumpeteers,

2} more courageous than any president since MLK"s shooting,

3} largest crowd every recorded at the  --not like the false claims of Trumpet--- ..." The March on Washington was a massive protest march that occurred in August 1963, when some 250,000 people gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Also known as the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the event aimed to draw attention to continuing challenges and inequalities faced by African Americans a century after emancipation. It was also the occasion of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s now-iconic “I Have A Dream” speech."... uhh it was also peacful.

4} this organization was done primarily by a  person who used those little 3 x 6 library like cards of the time,

5} and with all of the above, consider, the threats on this man and his families life, to find a just and fair USA.

This topic is a Trumpeteer cult mind-set   ---lies, distractions from truth, more repeated lies, more distractions, more lies, more distractions etc---  attempt to distract away from integrity, justice, fair play etc. of a man { King }who was far above and beyond what USA has seen in Washington Republicans before president Biden, and current republicans.

All of these Trumpeteers need to be sent to a prison designed for special-case educations of morality, truth and justice.

Interesting if accurate.

But just exemplifies human nature.

He became a charismatic figurehead who enthralled the masses.

A bit like D Trump

A bit like A Hitler

What does this really say about the rest the dimwits who allow themselves to become spellbound......Human nature too, I suppose.

A typical use of the word behavior is in relation to "the way in which someone conducts oneself," i.e. directed human action. To say that defining racism in terms of beliefs about differences in behavior is "nonsense" because of differences in sweating-rates, is in my view a fringe application of the concept of behavior. Likewise, if we said that two people were "behaving differently" although their intentional actions were identical, because their hair grew differently, or because their hearts beat at different speeds, this could be seen as a fringe use of the term also. Therefore, if someone called a psychological theory about behavior nonsense because it did not capture differences in hair growth or heart rates, this would not be a valid objection.

If I were to list various instances of "racism" / "racial hatred" and asked whether these constituted a "personal grudge against a race" it would surely come down to your own opinion which instances you would deem appropriate and which not. Many leftists would claim that Charles Murray's motivation for writing his books was a personal racial animus, while those on the right will say that Critical Race Theory advocates have a personal grudge against the white race. How do we determine who is right?

[...]

But this is the problem as I laid out above: your attribution of "racial animus" depends totally on your own personal opinion. If we asked advocates of ethnic cleansing throughout history, they would say that they were not acting out of emotion, but that their policies were totally necessary and unavoidable. Who should we believe? Will we need to administer psychological tests to determine people's emotional state before we can condemn any of these policies?

It seems that by your standard, the only racial disparity we should have tools to condemn, are examples involving people being murdered, purely and explicitly for the reason of an emotional reaction to their race, and anything short of this is deemed trivial nonsense.

Yet slavery in the US was racialized. What should we call that? Of course, many slave owners did harbour deep racial resentment, but what if they had been cold and calculating? Your argument seems to be that we should not use critical language to describe the racial dimension of this at all.

I agree that average racial IQ scores likely are not identical down to the last decimal. 

I will decline that because I do think your arguments have conservative implications. You basically seem to be stripping away any language we could use to criticize racial imbalances or injustices beyond the most extreme examples of explicitly racially motivated hate crimes. You prefer personal criticism of the motivations of individuals over broad social critiques - this is deeply conservative.

I don't have the time for responding to all your bullshit,

while you are correct to say that that is the "origin" it is not the only source that comes to this conclusion.

Also... what? No, we are talking about genetic diversity, not difference - they are not "sub-species" they are varied humans - the only difference genetically speaking is a level of melatin.

Your racist is showing. 

What I'm saying is that typically, white and black people are more genetically similar than black people are to other black people.

So most differences you view today, are indeed due to environmental changes. Have fun being a racist. 

The form of your argument implies that, in order for a term to be meaningful, it must apply strictly under the most liberal use possible according to documented definitions of the term.

My argument is that the definition of almost any term can be applied in such a loose way that would contradict common usage - especially in e.g. social sciences.

In other words, in my view it is impossible to constrain usage of these kind of terms by a strict jargon which would make their usage uniform. To rebut me on this, you could provide such a definition of "racial hatred".

Animus is a synomym for hatred, so you have restated the term in its own definition.

Also, hatred is an emotion. What if we imagine a cold and calculating serial killer, who only kills victims of a certain race, but without any emotion? What if Hitler was such a psychopath, who did not feel any personal feelings of animus toward Jews? Then by your terms we would have no language to condemn such actions.

Further, this term does not apply to an insitution such as slavery, ethnic cleansing, or any other societal racial injustice. We would constantly need to be tying such institutions back to some theoretical emotion felt by the people responsible for them. Do you believe that such societal-level injustices are unimaginable, or that we should not need language to condemn them?

I can reject the entire construct, or even accepting it I can suspend judgment on what any group's IQ is.

It follows by implication, that if you think the behaviors of groups innately tend to be different, then their roles in society will naturally be different.

You argued that the term itself is nonsense on the basis of the first sentence of its Wikipedia article.

The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on X isn't a valid definition -> X is nonsense

If you're not a just a cowardly forum troll who doesn't believe their own words, issue the debate challenge.

I am Caucasian by definition, but sweat freely.  Does that make me a racist?

Though, am I racist because I am not Korean.

No.

Racism is about unreasonably discriminating on the basis of perceivable difference, and not about ones particular propensity to perspire.

Everyone discriminates internally but not everyone allows their internal judgements to manifest externally.

For sure, there is currently a whole lot of malicious PC racism going on....But that's largely  based upon the possibility of a cash reward.....Fraud.

Interestingly my wife sweats very little....So does that suggest that she is Korean?

Life outcomes are influenced by a plethora of social factors.

IQ is influenced by life outcomes and inherent predisposition.

Therefore research would suggest that life outcomes + predisposition = IQ = life outcomes.

Though a high IQ is no guarantee of social success.

Research and statistics are  indicative of  trends and expectancies....The normal expectancies relative to a particular social environment, as it were.

So basically, IQ is a valid metric of IQ expectancy, relative to social and physiological  factors that might or might not positively or negatively influence life outcomes.

So are we proving anything that we didn't already know?

What was this "degree"?

Let's scrutinize these correlation coefficients as it concerns I.Q.:

Correlation with education level:

I.Q. : .49

Correlation with occupation level:

I.Q. : .41

Correlation with income level:

I.Q. : .22

And while the strength of correlation coefficients varies among researchers' metrics, these coefficients are weak to, at best, moderate.

I.Q. does not measure intelligence... It, at best, gauges classroom discipline.

I.Q. is as "valid" as a dance score, or rating of attractiveness.

I do not disagree that IQ is a valid metric of something, just not intelligence.

I think the results are repeatable enough to conclude that IQ measures some aspects of the human intellect but hardly encompasses what humans mean when we say intelligence. 

We were just recently discussing Bobby Fisher's high IQ although that sad bastard was an unemployable schizophrenic who pissed himself to death because he wasn't smart enough to go to a doctor.  Was Bobby Fisher therefore intelligent?

I know a fair number of brilliant manic depressives but the people I know with a real genius for living an admirable life would probably score about 100 on that test.

I think IQ is over-rated and fairly slanted towards a 19th century European male model of success- lawyers and doctors and engineers.  What of empathy?  What of self-awareness? What of leadership and problem-solving?  What of wit and humor- clearly signs of intelligence  that no IQ test can capture.  What of instinct- which is often the smartest part of us though we don't understand how or why?   IQ might correlate with job performance because it favors those  intellects which dot their i's and cross their t's, but tidy thinkers are seldom inspired and the truly creative seldom score high in IQ.

We can recognize that dogs are smarter  than sheep but an IQ test can't tell us why.  Or why some dogs are smarter than others.  Clearly adults are smarter than children in most ways so intelligence changes and adapts as we grow and age.   Obviously, there's more to intelligence than can be expressed in letters and numbers and in fact those abstractions came along only recently, long after humans had distinguished themselves as more intelligent than any other species.

Overall, I'm IQ skeptical and my experience tells me (hey, what about experience?)  that applying numbers to people's capacity is often self-defeating or at least self-limiting.  Tell people that a 4 minute mile is the limit of human capability and for some reason everybody believes it until one day that record is broken and suddenly thousands more find that ability within themselves.

How would you define intelligence?

Just pointing out that you stopped responding just when I challenged you to provide an absolute criteria for "racial hatred". If you could not provide such a definition then your case really doesn't make much sense.

I'm just not sure that "racism" is any more "evil" than hating and or discriminating against someone for their religion (and or non-religion) and or hating people because they believe the earth is flat and or because they don't want to be forced to accept a "vaccine".

Why is it ok to make fun of people for one thing and NOT ok to make fun of them for some other thing??

I'm curious. In your argument, where would you place exceptions to such a generalized claim? I believe attraction is contingent on time and place. I want to know where the exceptions lie in your argument. If I met a stranger in an unfamiliar environment, I am more likely to develop feelings of attraction toward him. Similarly, 2 travelling individuals have a better chance of developing a do-or-die romance together than 2 teachers living under the same school. I argue that this will happen irrespective of the target sample's genetic similarity (as you've mentioned).

Plus, I think infatuation is love and love requires a steady dose of pleasure.  What you're talking about in your reply to me sounds a lot like marriage. I believe that's completely different than infatuation.

I think my learned values could very well originate from my genes as is my decision to remain an apostate. But, I'm not an evolutionary psychologist. Again, you're talking about marriage. Marriage requires careful compromise and calm, small doses of romance to keep it afloat. It merely requires small embers of happiness to survive its grueling and punishing outbursts of disagreements. Again, I appreciate the source, but I want you to include what happens when an armenian fell in love with a turk? I'm pretty sure they have nothing in common and their parents would probably threaten them at gunpoint if they choose to love one another.

I think that counter-examples still run contrary to the study's results.

Im confused. What are those genes you speak of? Is there an actual gene that correlates to religiousness?
 
As far as I know, the studies themselves assume a situational disposition, not a genetic disposition.

For the record, I don't intend to disagree with how we're genetically built. What I want to know is where mathematicians or whatever you call them include extremely complicated phenomena like infatuation, altruism and trauma. Are they coded in our genes? Or are we built to have some sort of psychological resilience in which flexibility in attraction,friendship is encouraged?

When you say "racial differences" are you talking about "skin-tone differences" ?

...

OR someone might simply point out that while there may be some INCIDENTAL correlations between "skin-tone" and other human characteristics, "skin-tone" itself is not the most efficient indicator of individual fitness for any specific task.

It is impossible to discuss "I.Q." without mentioning the efficacy of the specific "I.Q." test used to make your hasty generalization.

For example, a native of Papua New Guinea might not score well on your SAT, but inversely, YOU probably wouldn't score well on their "hunting and survival" test.

Black and Hispanic or Latino students routinely score lower on the math section of the SAT — a likely result of generations of exclusionary housing, education, and economic policy — which too often means that, rather than reducing existing race gaps, using the test in college admissions reinforces them. [**] 

Wealth doesn’t just impact SAT scores. According to a recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, “Born to Win, Schooled to Lose,” being born wealthy is actually a better indicator of adult success in the U.S. than academic performance. “To succeed in America, it’s better to be born rich than smart,” [**]

BUT LET'S GRANT YOUR PREMISE.  ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE SHOULD PRIMARILY SELECT JEWISH ASIANS FOR POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY ?

False. Often individuals of the same race are more varied genetically than between races 

black people on the whole are the most genetically diverse group of people.

Any commonalities would therefore be a result of environmental conditions, if you were to say, begin selectively breeding humans then that environment would change drastically.

Ultimately, this would mean any studies or experiments conducted pre-natural selection to determine the strengths and weaknesses of races would not hold any water post, as any statistically major differences would likely be null and void. 

In fact, when it comes to humanity, natural selection would be very difficult to pull of at all. First of all - as Ragnar pointed out - any list of traits are going to be subjective to whatever you come up with,

even if your list is objective with a certain goal in mind - that goal is ultimately subjective.

Second, doing such a thing to human beings is begging to be fought back against, revolutions have been fought against for less buddy.

Finally, my point, most studies conducted in such an environment as the human one, abound with variables that one can simple not account for most of them when determining groups specialities, that it would most likely result in very slow, if any, results. 

So, yeah, no. That statement you so boldly proclaim is not correct. Please think through your positions more clearly. Your conclusion is reliant on assumptions and a lack of nuance in mind, more simply put, bullshit. 

See the opening of post #2.

In some of these examples I have ignored where you have misunderstood my words or simply said the opposite of what I said without much argument.

Intelligence itself is not a behavior, but it determines behavior. Sweating is literally surface-level and has no implications for behavior.

Then I would challenge you to provide the absolute criteria of the terms "hatred" and "racial hatred" .

This is a false dichotomy: either I make broad sweeping judgments about the comparative intelligence of different races, or I believe that all races have an exactly identical average IQ score. 

Then I don't understand why this argument would be important, unless it is being used to argue against things like affirmative action.

The first sentence of the wikipedia article on hatred uses the relative word "very" in the definition:

"Hatred is a very angry emotional response to certain people or ideas."

It would be up to interpretation whether someone is "very angry" at someone because of their race. ...

Apply that logic to your own case.

While engaging in wall of text syndrome,

you've failed to actually respond the criticism of your flawed grasp of the English language with anything more than non sequiturs. 

You're of course welcome to challenge me to a debate on if the term racism has no meaning and/or conveys no intelligible ideas (AKA, the definition of senseless).

And the fact that you seem to think this self-evidently indicates some kind of hypocrisy is surprising. Anti-racists do not need to argue that all people of all races are identical in every respect. But they do argue that the claims of racists - that races differ in ways that are significant enough make broad claims about their comparative merit,

and that this means their roles in society should naturally be different - are unfounded.

I didn't say that, I said that it determines behavior. Therefore if you believe one group is more intelligent, then that implies that you believe "that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance".

For the rest of it you are contradicting my statements about definitions.

My point is that for any definition you give, especially for broad subjects like politics or psychology, I could give an example which seems to fit the term but doesn't fit your given definition, or vice versa. It is impossible to provide a completely airtight definition for terms like racism. Ethics and moral philosophy have the same problem, but we do not say that all ethical distinctions are meaningless for this reason.

The null hypothesis in psychology states that different groups should be assumed not to vary unless sufficient concrete evidence exists to prove otherwise. Therefore it is not my question to answer, instead if some racist wants to argue that case, they would have the burden of proof in doing so.

Your argument seems to be that since the first sentence of the wikipedia article on racism cannot support a strict, all-encompassing division between what is or is not racist, therefore the entire concept is illegible. Even granting that we found some case of a behavior differing between races which was not considered racist, this still would not mean the entire concept of racism was senseless.

That is simply not how definitions work - no word has such a strict definition, especially in softer sciences like psychology or sociology.

The same wikipedia article verifies this, since it does not offer the first sentence as an all-encompassing definition, but continues:

"It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[2][3] Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities."

So I think these debates about the scope of the definition are somewhat beside the point anyway. In order to use the word racism, nobody is required to provide an absolute criteria by which in every situation we can say what is or is not racist. Instead, we require only to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate uses of the term commonly enough to make practical use of it.

I think this debate would be more productive if conservatives could get away from this attempt at refuting the idea that "all people are exactly identical in all respects" - which nobody has ever said, and is a ridiculous strawman even to bring up, but the falsehood of which conservatives seem addicted to reminding us all. Instead, it is more useful to see racism as involving those differences being relatively significant, especially when relating to that person's virtue or value to society. Racism also has the connotation of a personal prejudice toward a group on the basis of race.

You have entirely missed my point. You are attempting a reductio of wikipedia's definition of racism by using a fringe application of the term "behavioral trait".

Black people have darker skin - is this a behavior? Would that be a reasonable reductio?

Yes, intelligence is not a behavior, but it is a capacity which determines behavior.

If you claim that one race is more intelligent than another, then it is reasonable to infer that you believe that those races "possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance" and that they "can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another".

(1) that it is a outdated framework (and why that would matter)

the creator the the IQ test

literally

doesnt value the IQ test

(2)--https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3390414

(3) there is no empirical standard for intelligence

(3) there never has been one

there never will be one

(3) animals are seen to be incredibly unintelligent compared to humans but that is due to certain applications of frameworks

(3) those of which being incomplete

(3) you cant exactly put faith in a framework thats trying to measure something with no many causes, factors, processes,

especially without the understanding of intelligence or medical/scientific  approaches of sophisticated value that we just dont have

one person can consider foraging in early anprim societies

to be insanely intelligent

compared to how humans now even with technology and rapid scientific testing/scientific method

still believe anti-vax for example

An instinctive action is not the same as an automatic biological process

It is not controversial that the skin of different races has different biological traits.