I think I understand. You misunderstood me. I said that IQ tests, the standardized ones, anyway, do measure one's intellectual potential. But, as we all know, functioning intelligently requires more. It requires one to focus! Fully realizing one's potential means taking care to know what you mean, and to reflect on life's major events, to take the trouble to acquire knowledge, etc., etc., etc. So IQ doesn't determine who will succeed in life.

IQ tests are actually painstakingly created, with many stages of testing and re-testing to be as sure as possible that they are objective measures. They must show re-test reliability, so that the same individual doesn't make wildly different scores when re-tested. They must show internal consistency, so that, say, half the sub-tests aren't at the 95 percentile when the others are at the 40th. They must show face-validity, (your measuring what it sets out to measure) in having long-term and strong correlations with academic performance, career success, and other, proven measures of IQ, etc.

Now don't think that because career success and academic performance are well correlated with IQ, they are not independent of IQ. IQ as a potential should be correlated with success in career and academics, etc., even though it doesn't cause them. As I said, potential may be in-born, but putting it to good use--actualizing it--is up to the individual. It can still be of value to know what an individual's potential is.

I don't see any conflict between the "clause 1" and "clause 2" you attribute to me.

Maybe this will help: the term "potential" doesn't mean an ineffable something, it is the actual, present ability of the individual to perform a specific, standardized set of tasks. Couldn't be more concrete. Even the way the tests are explained to the subject, and the time allowed to complete them, and the sort of "helps" or prompts allowed are all strictly controlled.

The fact is, different people show very different ability to do these tasks. And, their specific ability to do them one day is highly correlated with their ability to do them weeks, months, or years later. Those are facts. Roughly the same bunch of kids get A's and write good papers and are able to answer questions in class, throughout their school career. Performance of this kind clearly isn't random. So, psychologists and educators set out to see what measure of this more or less stable capacity to learn and solve problems they could create. Like so many statistical measures, IQ scores are widely misunderstood, and then denigrated for failing to live up to inappropriate expectations.

Also, there's a big issue of envy with IQ measurement, as you'd expect. IQ and other standardized tests come in for a big dose of sour grapes. (That's from Aesop's Fables, Olivia.)

As for potential energy, I've forgotten the question.

--Mindy

Potential energy -----> to gravity. Yes.

You did say no outcome:
Clause 1:
"IQ is only a measure of potential."
Clause 2:
"It doesn't set out to say who will function to the fuller extent of their potential, or who will succeed in life!"

There are two issues here:
The one we have been discussing which is: how do you measure the potential of intellect when it does not correlate with actual outcome such as success (U mentioned) and "fuller function" (U mentioned).
What is the outcome then?

Another issue which I will introduce is:
What is the specificity and sensitivity of the I.Q test it self. Colloquially, is it really measuring what it has set out to measure?

...are delightful. One of the best known is "Deja vu all over again." 

--Mindy

p.s. Take comfort that ARI said the same thing in their press release on the violent animal rights protesters, or did you know?

I don't know what you are saying. Is "potential gravity" potential energy?

What is the "no outcome?" It is Olivia who says IQ can only be estimated, not me. You might try reading it all one more time.

--Mindy

Have you not just given credit to my query? "There is no sense in speaking of probabilities unless you have facts to base it(them) on."

So, no outcome means there are no facts. Your I.Q test is an evaluation of a probable and can only be an estimate. An invalid estimate because the potential is meaningless when it says nothing of success or outcome.

Flip side.
Potential gravity is met with actual gravity, the moment the restraint releases the object. You have a potential which corresponds to the facts of reality.

How can a figure on potentiality be made when there is weak correlation to reality - to outcome?

Delusional.

I'm not sure where these "foul mouthed" comments are my Dear, but I can assure you if there is one thing I am not, it is thin-skinned. Neither is Kasper and he's a young man who I know very well.

I have no idea what you are talking about with these Yogi-isms, but I'm sure your "congrats" is meant in a very sarcastic vein, so save it.

There is potential energy, you know, and it can be measured just fine.

After your and Kasper's (and others') foul-mouthed comments, I'm shocked to find you are so thin-skinned. I do realize, however, that the truth hurts.

You'll hate this, but: the relation between "estimate" and "measure" is the same as the relation Rand points out between "probable" and "factual." There is no sense in speaking of probabilities unless you have facts to base it(them) on. There's no sense in speaking of estimates unless measurements are possible!!

What shall you call me now?

--Mindy

p.s. That "gratuitous condescension for reasons that will never be known"  is what we state-side call a Yogi-ism. That's a good one, too, congrats!

 "..just gratuitous condescension for reasons that will never be known."

Yep, that's Mindy.

 Same again here.

"Do you really agree with Dr. Graves, that there are no races?"

Well what do you think Mindy? Actually never mind, your level of annoyance supercedes any interest I have in what you say...

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

have much validity. They've gone out of fashion here - they're politically incorrect. (I don't hear of them but I may be wrong.)

Part of candidate selection was a trip into the psychologist for the chat and test. A poor score is a definite indicator. I get around the cost of this by having the candidate graph some sets of figures and similar tasks. Foreign candidates have to be more thoroughly screened as their qualifications are harder to ascertain.

Mindy has just provided a very good example of potential vs outcome.

She has the potential to answer a question straight, with sound reason and clarity of communication being the basic point of the interchange, but the outcome was just gratuitous condescension for reasons that will never be known. See how very different they are?

And you are right to be skeptical about IQ tests because you cannot measure potential, you can only estimate it.

You make it too easy, Kasper. You, for example, always have the potential to think things through and be reasonable in your judgments, choices, and opinions. The outcome is not, however, that you do so (not always, of course.)

--Mindy

Clause 1:
"IQ is only a measure of potential."
Clause 2:
"It doesn't set out to say who will function to the fuller extent of their potential, or who will succeed in life!"

If that is the case of the I.Q test with clause 2 then how is clause 1 validated? Statistically or reasonably?

How can you measure potential when it does not line up with outcome?

I am very skeptical about these I.Q tests.

As a psychologist, I did IQ testing. I also studied IQ as a variable and the construction and validation of IQ tests in graduate school. Memory is definitely tested for!! Also, the ability to define ideas is a sub-test in the WISC. Don't be too dismissive of standardized IQ tests.

Also, IQ is only a measure of potential. It doesn't set out to say who will function to the fuller extent of their potential, or who will succeed in life! It is a valid measure, with huge statistical backing, if it isn't interpreted beyond its aim.

Musical ability is a volatile variable in the population. It is well correlated with IQ, so I question whether "musical intelligence" makes sense.

Do you really agree with Dr. Graves, that there are no races?

--Mindy

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Glenn: your arguments about race are uninformed.  Jared Diamond argues convincingly in his book Guns, Germs and Steel that the material differences in nations (ie Western Europeans and Asians obtaining the highest level of technology and cultural development) can be explained in toto by differences in geography, climate, and the availability of productive plants and animals, and minerals.

As a brief sketch to illustrate his main thesis, Europe was blessed with abundant metal deposits, animals such as the horse and auroch (which became the cow when domesticated), sheep, goats, etc.  They also had wheat, apples, apricots, plums, grapes etc.

Compare this situation with Australia, which had no similar mammalian animals which could be ridden, milked or farmed.  Mineral deposits were few and far between (you can't make axeheads out of yellowcake) and the climate was poor except in certain areas near the coast.  Edible plants were even more lacking.  Thus the Aboriginals did not develop metallurgy or advanced agriclture (although I hear they did have more agriculture than we are told about).

The other part of the equation is germs.  Essentially, Europeans (and Asians) lived in close proximity to livestock and their associated poo and parasites.  Subsequently they developed excellent immunity to a huge range of nasty diseases.  The relatively clean-living natives of America and Oceania lacked such immunity and, during the first decades of contact with Europeans, were struck down in numbers approaching 90% in some communities.

Guns, Germs and Steel is a great read.  IQ doesn't enter into the equation at all.  It just doesn't need to.

And another thing about AAAAAAAALLLLL this:

It's getting strung up on collectivism. Is race X better than race Y? Don't know, don't think so and don't really fucking care.

You give me one person, one individual, and ask me to determine that person's character, on the list of things I'd observe, waaaaaaaaaay down the bottom of the list in the TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT section will be their race. Along with other items such as gender, sexuality, parentage, wealth.

Yes wealth! Oh my! I must be a closet socialist right? Wrong, wealth doesn't tell me a good god damn thing about a person. Just because good chaps can make money, doesn't mean money can make chaps good.

The rest of this thread appears to be a handful of people, with much more patience than I, arguing semantics with Glenn, who is seemingly out to prove that whatever odd definition of "race" (nationality, culture, religion, geography so far)he comes up with is a determining factor in a man's character.

And just plain weird shit like this:

Do you have a problem with that?

Uhhh
a) He can do whatever the fuck he wants whether any of us have a problem with it or not.

b) I've said it before and I'll say it again: If race is used as a primary factor in determining a man's character then the more fool that person. Note well:"PRIMARY"

This does NOT mean you are racist because you cross the street because a hoodied Samoan kid and his friends are walking in your direction late at night in South Auckland.

The round about rationalisation and point scoring going on in this thread is flabbergasting.

Oh Glenn, ha ha! of course chaps are not born equal...but there are many solo-ists who think saying that (and having it read by others) will make them seem like an a**hole...so they put on a great politically correct act to reassure people and 'pretend'..ha ha...so amusing...(thank goodness some people have more self respect than that!)...ha ha!

You've lost the plot Elijah.

It's this level of utter bullshit that has kept me from commenting in this thread. Why on earth would I want to get drawn into it?

Start actually backing up the crap you spout instead of ranting baseless nonsense. As it is you're acting like a fucking child.

"Oh Glenn, ha ha! of course chaps are not born equal...but there are many solo-ists who think saying that (and having it read by others) will make them seem like an a**hole...so they put on a great politically correct act to reassure people and 'pretend'..ha ha...so amusing...(thank goodness some people have more self respect than that!)...ha ha!"

So, Elijah where are the Solo-ists saying this? No one is saying that 'chaps' are born equal-you were probably born a retard, for example. :) We were talking about 'races' as a whole, as you know.

It's worth noting here too Elijah, a difference between you and Glenn.

Compare:

Glenn: 'That it may just be, objectively speaking, that certain races are more intelligent than others.'  There is his position, straight up, no bullshit.

With:

Elijah: "If I did send it, and Joe can show this, I am more than happy to say "yes, I said I believed in an elite...and so what?"

Weasel words-you conveniently omit 'white elite' here, for example- and generally present your own position in the girly way that you accuse your detractors of.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

Oh Glenn, ha ha! of course chaps are not born equal...but there are many solo-ists who think saying that (and having it read by others) will make them seem like an a**hole...so they put on a great politically correct act to reassure people and 'pretend'..ha ha...so amusing...(thank goodness some people have more self respect than that!)...ha ha!

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/ 

Let's look at some races based on their contribution to civilization:

Judeo: early philosophy

Greco: advanced philosophy

Islamo: advanced mathematics & astronomy

Sino: gunpowder & printing

Indo: Karma Sutra & curry

Franco: wine & cheese

Anglo: the Industrial Revolution

North American Indo: the teepee

Australian Abo: the boomerang

......................................................

You really think we're all created equal?

Another interesting statistic....

Black/Negro/African American (take your pick) Women with University degrees earn on average more than White women with University degrees...which is a splendid situation for them.

There was an article about it in Time magazine but the link to that specific issue does not work for some reason..(tried it three times, but it won't link)..but yes, it shows that race is no barrier.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

The term 'Black' strikes me as useless.

Blacks in the U.S have self-employment rates of less than 1/4 of whites. That is a sorry statistic, although one that probably does not surprise many.

But, Jamaicans, who would be generally lumped into that group, have self-employment rates of 21%, and Haitians more than 15%; these percentages are much higher than for 'whites.' This, I suspect, would surprise many.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

I took an I.Q test once..... The results were negative...

Firstly, Matty was kind of right, I.Q doesn’t really test intelligence as a whole; that is, it tests some intelligences but not others (the ability to analyze and put into practice ideas, memory and musical intelligence, for example).

But putting that aside, I agree, as it would seem do most researchers, that the average I.Q. levels of countries and 'races' do, as you say, show some differences. This Glenn puts down to genes. But it’s not that.

Consider this:  "There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals," according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6 percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than another white."

 And:         These people don't know evolutionary genetics. They talk about interesting issues in race and biology. And since, I think, there are no real races, I wonder what these issues are. It makes me angry that I have to take time from my research (on the genetics of aging) to argue about something that shouldn't even need to be discussed.” (Joseph Graves, an evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University-West.) 

And:

       C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan, claims "race” is a   four-letter word with no basis in biological reality."

Combine this with the fact- pointed out by Mindy earlier in this thread- that I.Q varies widely within a race, and it would seem obvious that it is the effects of culture, family, education and society that are the major reasons for any differences.

I realize that such research on genes is not accepted by all scientists (but is by many, if not most), so if someone can point me somewhere that presents a strong refutation then please do so.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

They built places like New Grange, aligned for the soltice sunrise well before the pyramids. The Pharaohs traded into the technology for the base measure and methods. Celtic druids were the scientists/astronomers of the day.

We should be pleased with the Scots/Irish DNA.

Why do you never see a Mordi on the deck of the Starship Enterprise?

'Cos they won't work in the future either.

EL: I am sorry if using certain words offended you....(although how the word 'Spaniard' can be considered pejorative is beyond me)...but I suggest the really racist terms are "Latino" and "African American", but there we are.

Spaniard is not a pejorative word, just an inaccurate one to refer to the folks who live in South Los Angeles. Spaniards are citizens of Spain. Negro is the word widely used after 'coloured' fell out of fashion, supplanted by 'black' by the 1970s.

If you do a search of 'spaniard' and 'negro' on Google News, for example, you will be returned links that have little to do with the present day. See here.

A search with 'hispanic' and 'black' will return more contemporary material.

If you use the terms 'hispanic,' 'black,' and 'south los angeles,' you will find a wealth of present-day material that pertains to South Los Angeles, including an editorial from the Los Angeles Times that comments scathingly on the fast-food moratorium.

If you do a search with 'negro,' 'spaniard,' and 'south los angeles' -- you find little of contemporary interest, and nothing about the current state of South LA.

Spaniard is a fine word, and a meaningful word; Negro is a fine old-fashioned word, and a meaningful word -- but neither of them indicate the modern groups of people under the stupid watch of the LA council.

WSS

and I agree with your Objectivist definition of racism. However, society and the American Heritage Dictionary disagree:

racism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Is Scott doing some kind of penance?

And you have ignored the 600lb Gorilla in your hypothetical.

Your antagonists have consciously decided to dress in an intimidating manner. They cover their faces and wear baggy dark clothing that hides their true physiques and makes it difficult to evaluate them as friend or foe.

Yes, that is the current style. But to ignore the fact that 'gansta' fashion is about intimidation and nihilism is stupid. Benevolent people who camouflage themselves thus, in order to appear as thugs because it is fashionable, can hardly complain when strangers treat them with caution. In doing so they are overtly signaling an affection for nihilism and any sane person would be wary if they did not know them. Thus your hypothetical is a provocative red-herring. You have painted a situation where the racist could not be distinguished from a rational, yet cautious, man.

Of course the Polynesian youths in your hypothetical have doubtless adopted this dress because they are attempting to appear 'staunch' in keeping with the popular warrior ethos that infects the contemporary culture in the area they live.

But this is a cultural distinction, perpetuated by collectivist political pandering, and is unrelated to your antagonist's individual genetic heritage. Something that Peter Cresswell, himself a native of South Auckland, has discussed at length .
Alan Duff has also written at length on the matter.

I would urge everyone on this thread to read the preceding post by Robert, because he has crystal clear thinking on this and has expressed it very well.

Scott DeSalvo

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Because your pictures depict the stark difference between two cultures not two races.

There are many reasons, unrelated to the genetic potentials of the individuals photographed, for the philosophic differences in the images you have chosen. Nature vs nurture. Mandatory religious indoctrination vs the freedom to think critically about anything and everything.

Man is unique among the lifeforms of this planet in that he has the ability to change his nature should he desire to. That is universal to every human allowing those with rudimentary education and means to excel or even the most disgusting scum to undergo a crisis of conscience. A crisis that forces them to willfully alters the course of their life and inspires others to go on and correct their original misdeeds.

Racism denies the quintessential nature of man: that he has the ability to of his life whatever he chooses. Instead, it classifies a person's worth based on a superficial trait over which an ~individual~ has absolutely no control.

It is an unearned condemnation issued either by ignorant collectivist fucks or by intelligent evil cunts who understand the distinction and seek some personal pleasure or advantage in cultivating this disgusting idea.

And it is the latter type that I have nothing but loathing for, because I judge that they have the intelligence and maturity to see the immorality of their stance. That they do not, must be a choice.

Make no mistake about it, Elijah consciously chooses to spout this crap. That is why I refuse to cut him any slack what-so-ever. And that is in spite of the Sterling character of those who would spring to his defense.

I would urge everyone on this thread to read the preceding post by Mindy, because she has crystal clear thinking on this and has expressed it very well, saving me a few keystrokes.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

...or they wouldn't be different races. The point is, are their biological/genetic differences relevant to moral/political distinctions?

Differences in average IQ are real. They are quite small compared to differences within each group. Those differences are light-years away from preventing any peoples from possessing the ability to reason. And that means they aren't relevant to moral or political issues. Moral and political issues require each individual to accept certain facts about man and the way he lives. Being moral, and being politically sound only require each person to use reason.

Culture, as a set of ideas about right and wrong, and practices, etc., on the other hand, is definitely relevant to moral and political issues. And large segments of some races have distinct cultures. Also, some of those cultures are blamable in various ways. To predict an individual's behavior as reflecting the cultural values mostly held by his observable race is not racist (in any derogative sense.) It is factual and realistic, in the context of having very limited knowledge of the individual. That context comprises both the cross-the-street-or-get-mugged, as well as the hire-good-workers situations.

Elijah is racist because he damns whole populations of people based on their being black or Hispanic, etc. He condemns various groups, including "working-class" people, though poverty, poor education, etc., are not indicators of immorality. Elijah seems to prefer that way of speaking, he goes out of his way to use it. Of course, Elijah is always trying to make a certain impression. Maybe too hard?

Morality and character are individual traits. Nobody is low or despicable because of their race, their parentage, their income, the kind of work they do, etc. Elijah's whole attitude contradicts that, and is offensive as such. He fails to respect individuality. I think that is why his posts seem so wrong on SOLO.

--Mindy  

I have a thoroughly rational relative, an ex-MD of a South Auckland factory, who, after two years of careful analysis, began hiring white manual labourers over brown ones: the white workers took fewer sick days, produced more and bitched less. His policy saw a sharp increase in output and an equally sharp decline in employee disputes.

Do you have a problem with that?

you shouldn't make race based distinctions when you have far more reliable qualifiers at hand.

And you always will.

Well for starters you do... quite a lot it seems.

The thrust of this thread is racism, of which Elijah is being accused. I happen to think we're all 'guilty' of it at some level, though at an infinitely smaller degree to the likes of Adolf and Ahmadinejad.

Unlike your good self, I have no problem in conceding that some races are superior to others ~ including my own ~ a statement that makes most people choke on their egalitarian sandwich.

I'm 'guilty' of making distinctions based on race. Get over it.

(Good on you, Phil.)

 I can't go with the 'gene' thing. As for the different nationalities showing different I.Q levels I can accept that, but not for the reason you give.

I am going to cut and run here though as I would prefer to do a bit of reading on the subject before making a case.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

"statistically, the Ashkenazi babies will be more intelligent."

WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????

What difference does it make in day to day life? If you have other more relevant ways to judge an individual upon seeing them (and you ALWAYS will) what difference do stats make!?

Here's an idea, before replying to me why don't you sit outside for a few minutes, gather you thoughts and think about what relevance the things you've posted over the last hour have to your philosophy.

You've brought us back full circle to your original, flawed, walking down the street analogy.

... don'cha watch that Harry Enfield geezer?!

statistically, the Ashkenazi babies will be more intelligent.

 What the fuck are you on about?

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

Glenn, are you talking generally, or here in Auckland?

...because 'Ze Germans' in Auckland are thick b*ggers in my experience..(and I mean thick) ...the typical  suburban property investor/lawn bowls/morris dancing types ....so surely that survey cannot apply to Ashkenazi Jews in NZ?!?!?!

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

yeah I've been finking that I'm gonna get me one of them brown babies, you know, like Angelina and Madonna... I'm gonna call it somefing like Frogmella... I fink it's exoeeeek.

It's in the genes.

 So, seem we are playing guessing games, why do you guess that that is so?

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

is that 100 white Ashkenazi babies will be smarter than 100 brown babies of any race.

In your humble opinion does pigmentation effect intelligence?

If no, what are you saying then?

If yes, what the hell is wrong with you?

You should read this article in the Times, where it criticises a 'new elite' of ghastly middle class people with no breeding but plenty of exam results and (even more to say); and how they have replaced morality with political correctness....

"...the elite's unwritten code - we now call it political correctness - has replaced morality. No one would dare call a teenage mugger or a knife-wielding gang member wicked. To judge in terms of traditional morality is automatically to be censorious, which in turn automatically earns you pariah status..."

Oh so true and oh so sad...(even sadder so many are on solopassion.com)

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

How about answering the 'babies' question?

Yeah, yeah Olivia, your not-pc credentials are not in question. 

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

and the eye shape thing is also why Asians, you know, can't like, drive. Totally totally true!

The Ashkenazi blitz every survey I've seen.

maybe because they don't get as visually distracted due to the shape of their eyes, so they get more thinking done?

How about the race that kick-started the Industrial Revolution? Would you concede they were superior in any way to say, the decedents of the Moors?

 does another study put Hong Kong first, followed by Singapore, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and China?

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

I don't think IQ tests definitively demonstrate ones intelligence.

I don't believe any test does or will.

that, statistically speaking, the Ashkenazi Jews are the smartest race on the planet. Do you?

I'll glaly tell you so but 1st why don't you have a crack at it? I'm sure you must know the answer. Follow your own logic through before posting.

That it may just be, objectively speaking, that certain races are more intelligent than others.

And what's wrong with saying so?

 did not answer the question.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

Cumulative IQ gaps by race or ethnicity based on 1981 U.S. distributions. According to these findings, WAIS IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) were higher than those for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0); distributions for Hispanics (mean = 91) and East Asians (mean = 106) are less precise because of overlap and small sample size. The modern debate focuses on what causes these disparities in average IQ. Based on Reynolds et al. 1987, p. 330.

Note: Babies

What the fuck are you driving at, Riddler?

Apparently in 2008 Cambridge University did an IQ survey with a sample of a million people and arrived at the top 20 countries:

1. Ashkenazi Jewish: 129
2. Japanese: 109
2. German: 109
4. Austrian: 105
4. Korean: 105
4. English: 105
7. Italian: 102
7. Swedish: 102
7. Swiss: 102
7. Dutch: 102
7. Belgian: 102
7. French: 102
13. Han - Chinese: 101
13. Polish: 101
15. USA: 100
15. Hungarian: 100
15. Finnish: 100
15. Norwegian: 100
15. Jewish: 100
20. Canadian: 99

 If you could take 100 brown babies and 100 white babies and compare them would you agree that the I.Q averages would be about the same?

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

Glenn, we live in a World where such things are not meant to be said...which is a bit silly, but there we are.

The reason things are not meant to be said is because to start talking about them would lead to other matters and questions such as "Why do none of you American solo-ist chaps not live in South Los Angeles yourselves?; or Harlem? [etc]..." and no one wants that.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Race.

You see no difference between neighbours in Remuera and Otara?

Emphasis on stone-age. They hadn't had the time to develop advanced technology like the westerners and all things considered had done pretty well up to that point.

Fucking hell Glenn. You're smarter than this.

repeat

However, do you agree with statement?:

The white Europeans who first arrived in New Zealand were, by almost every conceivable standard, superior to the stone-age Maori.

In a situation that isn't applicable to reality so why waste time on it?

As would I ~ and that is making a racial distinction.

And it is wrong. A hooded menacing looking guy is a hooded menacing looking guy. Crime stats are irrelevant if the individual in front of me is expressing certain traits. I'm not being theoretical. It's how I think and act and so far it's gotten me through life just fine.

The only time I would follow your logic is if I was in a total blind situation, which is impossible in reality as far as i can tell. For instance if a wizard said, 'I will put you in a room with no windows for an hour with one other person selected entirely at random, you do however get to narrow that person down to one race' I would then pick the race with the best crime stats. That situation isn't applicable to reality though.

 I presume Glenn would have the good sense to cross the road if it was a group of drug-addled white supremists in hoodies?

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

I have painted a context: night, hoodies, deserted city street, etc... If they were a bunch of Samoans on their way to a midnight mass in those ridiculous and uncomfortable-looking matted skirts wrapped around their backsides I'd probably not alter my course.

However, all things being equal in context, and given the statists on violent crime, I'd trust a group of hoodied white youth more than I would a group of hoodied Maori youth. Is that not a racist distinction?

Kasper: "Sick."... care to elaborate?

ooops. Apologies.

Glenn, you're confusing race with culture in your pictures. It is absolutely fine to hate a death worshipping idea set such as Islam, or fascism, or communism, and thus those that would try to implement the predicts of same, but that doesn't make you racist. If you see a picture of an Arab looking person, or asian, however, then assume because of the race to which they belong they must be Muslim, then that is racist. Refusing to treat people as individuals first, but as pre-determined by what 'you' think their race represents; that is racist Racism is evil precisely becasue of his collectivist nature.

Your bottom picture is of Muslims, but they could be of any race ...

Did you read my full post. If so, fine. Hoodies AND it's night time. I stand by what I said and you haven;t really addressed it so I'm not going to write any more at this point.

If the group approaching me on a dark street were a bunch of hooded nuns I wouldn't alter my course, but if they were Polynesians I'd take action to avoid them due to their appalling record of violence.

What would you do if the group approaching you on the street were a bunch of hooded Polynesian nuns?

I would bloody hope Glen would cross the road. It would be street stupidity not to, and street smart to cross the road. Especially him who has a skin head. I think Glen is talking about night time, not many people around, group of hoodie polies walking down the pavement and out of concern for his safety he would then cross. Nothing wrong with that!

The value-judgement in that scenario is reflexive. You know the stats, you know the neighborhood, you know who makes trouble around and who doesn't. Then act on your safety.

No different to.......
I won't lock my doors in Green-lane, Epsom, Parnell or Remuera at any point of driving.
But in South Auckland I would have locked all doors and would phone my gf to also lock hers while she exits the motorway on the off ramp in her car.

Just like you don't carry a gun here in the car. You do in South Africa. You don't even travel without security in Iraq.

If you seriously cross the road because they're Samoan then yes you are and I think you need to calm yourself down. I doubt it is really a factor at all though, think for a second. When you pose your hypothetical what picture are you painting in your head?

You're telling me that no matter the body language and general demeanor, when you see a group of Samoans you cross the road? You see some Samoans (wearing hoodies if you wish) walking towards you, not directly targeting you just in your direction, laughing with each other or just calmly strolling, enjoying the nice summers day and you think 'oh shit I'm outta here'?

I bet you don't. I bet you only worry if they're holding themselves in a menacing manner, just as you would if it was a white biker gang looking fellow. you're noting of their race and that races crime stats is probably no more than an after thought.

Please tell me I'm right.

I would be a little nervous of the young Maori guy Linz was debating with on Eye to Eye came up to me in a bar or something. Not because he's Maori but because he has the unfortunate disposition of having a lemon mouthed scowl permanently plastered along his face. It's not his fault but his neutral facial expression is unpleasant and would make me anxious at 1st glance.

Sick

if I think this race...

is superior to this race?

racism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

If this is true then according to my hypothetical I qualify as a racist under the second definition.

we can sort this out really quickly...

to be a racist means to believe that a man's race is the deciding factor which determines his individual ability.

Do you believe that to be a true statement Eli?

(Personally, I don't believe you do.)

And to the Solo PC Police like Dr. Goodie-two-shoes himself, please forgive my incredibly sexist paragraph above. In fact, I'll write it again just to appease your Royal Girly-Blouseness:

to be a racist means to believe that a man's OR WOMAN'S race is the deciding factor which determines his OR HER individual ability.

It's not blackmail. It's nothing that he hasn't said a million times already.