What's so great about Diversity?

What terrifies me is that in America we allow people of ANY color or IQ level, who take unearned income or subsidies from the government, to vote .

 

That chart is from 1980.
Totally irrelevant as the amount of minorities accurately IQ tested back then never even met a relevant sample size to determine anything.

Accurate tests arnt free or cheap.
The Brig Myers is better suited for predicting income potential anyway as anyone can learn anything with practice and repetition. The personality dictates determination, and how best to learn any desired skill.

 

Sounds like an attitude that fits right in with Russian fascism.
Conservatives are driven by fear it seems, and there they play the citizens like a fiddle with terror as the tune.

 

Liberals are driven by fear to a much greater extent

 

Yea right.
Its rational for citizens to reject the Jim crow era you want to return to when you considered America "Great".
Conservatives fear awareness, aka being woke. Being aware is taking on the fear.
Cant be woke, and fearful, nice try. Liberals live in the city, conservatives fear the city, the facts simply contradict your claims.

 

They were an expansionist empire that treated their subject peoples pretty badly, so I'm not worried about getting into a holier than thou context with Imperial Japan.

And you might want to reexamine your morality that disapproves of atomic bombs, but not firebombing Tokyo, that killed 100,000 people and left a million homeless.

 

Well, the Liberals are fleeing the city out of fear.
Not to mention liberal fear of global aarming.

Who needs trigger warnings? Not conservatives?

 

You might want to reexamine your arrogance.

 

While I really do not care about this issue, I find this statement to be puzzling.

How could you possibly know the totality of who was tested by what method and furthermore that this did not meet the standards for a relevant sample size? What number do you think is necessary for a relevant sample size? How are you defining relevant sample size?

 

Him pointing out what appears to be shifting morality is fair game. You, like everyone else, are certainly not above reproach. If you disagree that it is an inconsistency then state why, but he has every right to point out what he sees as an inconsistency. That does not make him arrogant.

 

Nothing has really changed since then. Ever since IQ testing began it was obvious that East Asians tended to perform better than whites who tended to perform better than blacks. Thus it cannot be said that the tests were culturally biased. Moreover, they predict black performance as accurately as East Asian performance.

 

The Atlantic, November 8, 2012

In trying to track down the origin of this quote, we found that it's a perennial favorite amongst post-election gripers. (That atrocious protest sign you see to the right, for example, was captured by Flickr user eyewashdesign: A. Golden, shortly following the 2008 Wall Street bailout). Atlanta, Georgia-based lawyer and politician Loren Collins heard the aphorism so often that he decided to do some research into its origins. He was able to trace the first known usage of the quote to a 1951 column by Daily Oklahoman newspaperman Elmer T. Peterson.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ocqueville-did-not-call-2012-election/321393/

------------

Reactionaries love to put their prejudices into the mouths of famous American leaders.

 

.....

 

Because im good with physics, and know history.

10% works

 

Is Sub-Saharan Africa a monoculture? Are the aboriginals also part of this culture? Were the natives in the Americas part of this culture too?

 

If that's true, use a more relevant chart.

 

Good with physics? LOL.....Shouldnt that be good with statistics since you are referring to statistical sampling?

10% of what? That is preposterous if you mean 10% of all black people. You would need 10% if you were dealing with an overall small group of 100 people or less, but when dealing with millions, the highest number you would need would be around 1000 with 500 being more than ample. A number around 500 should return a margin of error of about 2 or 3 %. If you were good with statistics this would be second nature to you. Since you seemingly think this is a physics analysis, I am not surprised by your error.

Do you honestly think that political polls sample 10% of the population? Yeesh.

You say you know history and that means that you know how many people have ever been sampled for an IQ analysis? That is silly and unsupportable.

 

I meant physics, hence why its preposterous to use race as a sample. Its a failed narrative. Maybe pick something 1000 people would accurately represent.

Funny you mention polls, because dont you dismiss them as well?

 

Race/Breed/etc are all measured. You can just as easily examine a breed of dog and see the underlying traits for it. Just as readily as you can examine the underlying traits of different races. IQ isn't a cultural trait. It's a genetic one. It's why Blacks have been the top running athletes because of their genetic makeup makes them better performers as sprinters. Now compare them to something such as intelligence based tasks and they fall short. All you have to do is examine Pre-European colonialism of the Black states/tribes in Sub-Saharan Africa to that of every other part of the world. Even with the advent of Muslim slave trade into Africa there was no civilizing those areas. While in contrast you compare it to the Feudal Japanese who were still stuck in the 14th century and they modernized within a generation.

 

Hence what?

There is absolutely not one thing wrong or incorrect about statistically sampling race. It is every bit as legitimate of a target for statistical sampling as anything else. You clearly do not understand the principle of statistical sampling even slightly. There is nothing to be gained by pretending that you do.

 

Each of those peoples lived in a tribal environment. When tested they tend to perform less well than whites of European descent and East Asians.

 

Then where is the relevant recent data that backs up the claim?
There is nothing to be gained pretending that image is accurate.

If not much has changed, then the overlay should be close to identical. I know it wont be because sampling different people will yield different results.

 

As I said from the very beginning, I truly do not care about this issue.

I merely saw you make some claims you could not possibly know about how many people have ever been sampled in addition to some bizarre claims about statistical sampling in general, and I corrected those claims.

As far as an image, I could not possibly care less. It is not relevant to my comments one way or the other.

 

Correcting me would be you overlaying a chart thats relevant to match that one i dispelled.