or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Migrants, Immigrants, Refugees, and Aliens in Euro-Zone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Migrants, Immigrants, Refugees, and Aliens in Euro-Zone - Page 102

post #1516 of 2656
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Um, no. if you ask me to compare and contrast two third party quotes, parsing what they actually say isn't strange at all

Third hand and third party aren't the same as...data...findings... ah, nevermind.
post #1517 of 2656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Third hand and third party aren't the same as...data...findings... ah, nevermind.
So when you asked me whether those two atatements were consistent you weren't actually asking me to compare the actual words of the statements (data for findings was my mistake, so read "data" for "findings") themselves but rather your private interpretation of them? The second statement isn't even a full sentence, and the question doesn't even make sense. Why not just ask your question in straightforward fashion rather than trying to hidd it behind layers of ambiguity so that you can keep moving the goalposts?

Apologies for the verbal slippage, but that's in part thT I've switched to my phone and am doing other stuff. A third hand quote is generally going to be a third party quote almost ny definiton, tthough, no? But the analysis remains the same. Is what you're really asking whether I agree with the first statement regardless of what the findings are? If so then sure, depending on the apparent reliability of the findings. But again, not sure that resolves much absent agreement on what the findings in question actually show and how they relate to the goal in question.
post #1518 of 2656
I expected you to take the reasonable meaning of what was an obvious paraphrasing. And the problem with your proposition still remains that data and findings aren't the same thing. You complained that the data wasn't interpreted. That's what findings are!

And the last proposition, in extremely evasive and diplomatic language, says that we ought to consider inherent racial IQ disparities when evaluating social policies. That's almost exactly what Watson said, which according to Gibonious is crossing the line from science intro racism. I note also that despite 50 academics saying it should be done, no one does it, ever, and anybody who did would be ostracized like Watson was, if not worse. Can you imagine someone in the public debate responding to various "disparate impact" arguments by saying the impact observed is consistent with blacks just having lower average IQs? Are any sociologists studying the question? Educators? Criminologists? Public policy experts of any kind? No one is even considering the possibility even though I imagine many secretly suspect it. So gibonious's claim that there's no taboo seems quite wrong to me.
post #1519 of 2656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

If we don't accept IQ has a heritable component what follows from that? It means IQ is beyond the physical, no? It means it's all environment and culture or it's some meta-physical attribute. Do some people have "souls" that are superior to others? As someone that does not believe in that beyond the physical and quantifiable where does that leave me? That I have to believe each and every one of us, given the right environment and cultural inputs, can have an IQ of 210?

 

I'm not a scientist, but I think that IQ does have a heritable component. However, it also has a large - perhaps very large - social component.

 

In other words, it's partially nature, and partially nurture.

 

As an anecdotal example (I know - anecdotes =/= data), my children's school is located in an area with a lot of highly-educated parents. The school - a state school - has a lot of high-achieving, intelligent children. As the school is located near a large university, the school body is very diverse - Anglo-Saxon, Chinese, Indo-Malay, Korean, Japanese, Indian, Middle-Eastern, and African children all mingle together.

 

There don't seem to be any appreciable differences in IQ, as far as I'm aware, as all the children do well on the standardised tests. All the parents whom I've met are very keen on education and on reading with their children, encouraging their children to ask questions, to seek for answers, to strive to do well and so on. As far as I'm aware, it's been well-demonstrated that children who grow up in such an environment - one where parents read with children, where reading and analysis are encouraged - consistently have higher IQs than in households where that is not the case.

 

Interestingly, though, the children who get the very top marks are consistently from Asian backgrounds, particularly Chinese, Japanese and Korean backgrounds.

 

I'm pretty sure - although I could be wrong - that people from north-east Asia aren't inherently more intelligent than people from other areas.

 

Instead, the defining difference seems to be their "work ethic" (for want of a better term) in regard to education. Many of those families have mothers who either stay at home or who work part-time so that they can spend more time with their children, and they are all very, very keen on education and on extra-curricular activities, particularly music, chess, or computing. We don't have cram schools (after-school-hours intensive study schools) here in Australia, unlike Japan, Korea, Taiwan and other places in Asia, but that doesn't stop these mothers from getting their kids to do masses of extra-curricular work, or getting tutoring for them, both after school and during school holidays. They are determined that their children will do well, and the way that they will do well is not by relying on IQ or natural talent, but by hard work, by repetitive learning, by practice.

post #1520 of 2656
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I expected you to take the reasonable meaning of what was an obvious paraphrasing. And the problem with your proposition still remains that data and findings aren't the same thing. You complained that the data wasn't interpreted. That's what findings are!

And the last proposition, in extremely evasive and diplomatic language, says that we ought to consider inherent racial IQ disparities when evaluating social policies. That's almost exactly what Watson said, which according to Gibonious is crossing the line from science intro racism. I note also that despite 50 academics saying it should be done, no one does it, ever, and anybody who did would be ostracized like Watson was, if not worse. Can you imagine someone in the public debate responding to various "disparate impact" arguments by saying the impact observed is consistent with blacks just having lower average IQs? Are any sociologists studying the question? Educators? Criminologists? Public policy experts of any kind? No one is even considering the possibility even though I imagine many secretly suspect it. So gibonious's claim that there's no taboo seems quite wrong to me.
Well, you could have just stated your interpetation on its own terms, especially since the way you're reading those statements is heavily distorted by yohr effort to make a convoluted and tenuous semantic point.
I'm not sure "findings" is synonymous with "interpretation". I agree it can reasonably mean that. But it can just as reasonably mean the raw data - that is, the mechnical output of whatever the experiment or study is. Because many of these terms are ambiguous or can be used to mean different things - especially when used in colloquial conversations like this one - it's sometimes important to be precise.

That, along with a generally pedantic bent, is why I'm simetimes focused on the words used or the nature of the syllogism offered. People often think I'm indirectly attacking their substantive point when I'm not necessarily doing so (sometimes I do disagree with the substantive point, of course, and will come back to what understand yours to be). But naive though it may be, I think that trying to get clarity about what people are really arguing, and trying to identify the fundamental value judgments underlying tactically phrased arguments is sometimes more useful (to me, anyway) than getting bogged down i rhetoric that inadvertently or otherwise cloaks those value differences in other garb. The likelihood that anyone is going to be talked out of a values-bases viewpoint is pretty low, bit at least definition and refinement can clarify where the fundamental differences really lie.

Here - although I can't say definitively because they're not my words - the intended meaning of "findings" in your first quote seems in context much closer to "data" than "personal i terpretstion". That's why the consistent/inconsistent dichotomy seems anomalous. Saying that science tells us what it tells us and it can be useful in making policy judgments is one thing. Saying "I interpret the scientific facts I'm familiar with to suggest X" is another. They're not consistent or inconsistent - they're just different sorts of statements. But nothing in the first statement is necessarily inconsistent with a conclusion that someone who makes the second statement is wrong, irresponsible, or even intellectually dishonest.
post #1521 of 2656

16minutes but worth watching, one of my favorite youtube commentators and one I agree with the most
very good summary on the topic
Edited by wojt - 12/17/15 at 3:54am
post #1522 of 2656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

Whaaaat ?uhoh.gif

I don't understand the temperature of the earth part at all. Temperature is very clearly measured.
post #1523 of 2656
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

I'm not debating the merits of the test that determines IQ but rather trying to dismiss these metaphysical thoughts from your head.

This is what makes America great. A Muslim telling an agnostic to dismiss thoughts on the metaphysical. cheers.gif
post #1524 of 2656
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract View Post

I don't understand the temperature of the earth part at all. Temperature is very clearly measured.

Yeah, but liberals always claiming it's because of environmental factors.
post #1525 of 2656
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Yeah, but liberals always claiming it's because of environmental factors.

Don't forget that these temperatures will negatively impact women and minorities more.
post #1526 of 2656
If women dressed like they were going out in -2° and not 20°, they wouldn't freeze as much.
post #1527 of 2656
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract View Post

I don't understand the temperature of the earth part at all. Temperature is very clearly measured.
Temperature has also been given a definition and a scale relative to natural events on this planet (except of course an idiot Fahrenheit system).
post #1528 of 2656
The point I was making is that you can't just stick a thermometer in Louisiana and get the earth's temperature. It has to be estimated by looking to many different sources, taken at discrete times by fallible people and instruments, not to mention all that data needing to be interpreted, which inevitably leads to a certain amount of unreliability.
post #1529 of 2656

Actually I was always under the impression that the rectum was somewhere close to Amarillo

post #1530 of 2656

A Swedish politician makes a comment about the factually correct statistical correlation between Islam and rape... and is fined for "hate speech".

 

There are apparently no limits to how low Political Correctness will stoop.

 

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/05/11/swedish-politician-fined-hate-speech-islam/

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Migrants, Immigrants, Refugees, and Aliens in Euro-Zone