Will the UK be a mulatto nation by 2100?

Well then, before colonialism there was vassal-ship. Same as colonialism just went by a different name. Almost everyone practiced it, everyone is guilty of it in greater or lesser measure. Colonialism refers to a specific era, but the practices it brought were nothing new.

 

what?.. none of those societies were in any meaning of the word 'black'.

 

According to the Israelites, Mesopotamia was built by so- called blacks. According to the swedes, mesopotamia was built by ..........

WHO CARES what sweden thinks!

 

The relevance is that in the past tiny minorities - the Roman legions, for instance - were able to impose their culture on huge populations. In many cases the later Europeans destroyed the pre-existing population. I don't see 'guilt' as a useful historical term, but I think the past is relevant to the various racist rants that rise out of current population-movements, and which are so unutterably boring.

 

Double posting cause by slowness of system.

 

In any event, East Asians (Japanese and Koreans) regularly score better than Europeans on supposedly "Euro-centric" aptitude tests.

 

I do. Foul Jewish supremacist hate on the other hand.....

 

Nothing to do with any chopping from me, just your paranoia.

I didn't read the whole thing. I read the opening, saw what their position was and looked at the conclusions but if you wish, this is simply that in line with academic research standards, they are saying that they haven't tested their pre existing attainment. This study would imo certainly suggest such was necessary. What I think you cannot get the hang of is that if there was some genetic problem with IQ of people of certain ethnicities, we would not find some or even any of those ethnicities in the top echelon of academia. As we do, we can see that there is no genetic predisposition towards an ethnic group based on group genetics. The point you raised does not in any way invalidate the study, it simply suggests more research is needed to discover how early this possibly unconscious bias is occurring in order that it may be put right.

Well I admit that I did not read their research methods but I doubt very much that the University of Warwick is going to present conclusions based on assumptions. People on this forum, yes, Warwick University researchers, No.

OK, I am far to busy at the moment to read the whole paper. However I do know sufficient about research to know what they are talking about. They will have been watching the teachers interaction with the kids, whether they gave each child the same amount and kind of attention - eye contact for instance and whether they showed by their non verbal communication that they expected the kids coming from minorities to do as well. They will have noted that was not so and that the teachers did not show their expectation to kids of minorities that they were capable of achievement in the same way as they did to white children. This has the effect of making minority kids believe they are not so capable of achieving and so going to sleep. It also means that they do not receive as much help as those expected to achieve and hence are not stretched as much as others creating a self fulfilling prophesy.

When researchers speak of 'lack of teachers expectations' they are talking about something different from guessing whether a kid will make a grade. They are talking about the psychological relationship the teacher has with the child which itself is one of the key ingredients which will determine a child's success.

No, it is not. The main message was that although all those things negatively effect minorities ability to navigate the educational system - those things alone did not account for lower achievement than the norm. The other major factor which they discovered was that teachers did not have the same expectations towards them as they did to other kids. That was the main point of the study. Teachers expectations of kids from Pakistan, West Indies, Africa and so on had to be brought up to the same level as everyone else's. I have already told you that when teachers expectations of girls in areas such as mathematics changed their achievement within a very short time was better than boys. Teachers expectations are vitally important for a child to achieve. I might not have read the whole thing but I clearly read more than you. You just found some sentences you thought you could cherry pick to make assumptions to try and prove your prejudice.

They were not studying genetics that is for geneticists and in any case as I have pointed out no one can say that genetically those of Pakistan, West Indian or African heritage are genetically inferior because people who come from these areas reach the highest level of attainment.

I have explained what 'teachers expectations' means when academics are researching this concerning lack of achievement. I trust you are more knowledgeable now.

You still haven't dealt with the other questions I asked you here http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...-mulatto-nation-2100-a-27.html#post1061561684

 

There is an average difference in IQ. Some Africans are pretty smart. Some whites are pretty dumb. I would dispute that we find a significant number of Africans at the very highest levels of scholarship.

You should try reading the paper, because your description of their methods is pure fiction.

 

I am a bit busy now. Why don't you tell me the methods Warwick University used and why you believe you have more understanding of research methods that them. Explain the methods in detail and show where they made their mistakes.

My daughter is now 30 years old and she has never taken an IQ test in her life.

You still have not answered the questions I raised here. http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...-mulatto-nation-2100-a-27.html#post1061561684

 

IQ tests are essentially tests of culture. I took a test once in which, after a whole series of directions, one of the answers (ho-ho, very funny) was 'out of the window'. The bloke next to me showed me that his choice of that answer was - in that room - wholly correct. Those who generalise were advantaged in that and a great many other questions. In an extreme case, back in the past, our own children were penalised and mocked because they were being asked questions in a foreign language they didn't speak.
The whole point of tests is to justify the local power-structure: as anything else they are bilge - and I say that as one, by the way, who scores high in the things, according to the RAF anyway.

 

people who dislike seeing mixed-race peopole have an aesthetic impediment.

 

I already did.

 

You are obviously ignorant of modern IQ testing. There are other threads on this I suggest you look at them.

 

I have seen nothing of the sort. Link please.

You have still not answered the questions I asked in this post http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...-mulatto-nation-2100-a-27.html#post1061561684

 

I have seen nothing of the sort. Link please.

You have still not answered the questions I asked in this post http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...-mulatto-nation-2100-a-27.html#post1061561684

 

Yeah, what EVAH! You keep ranting that you are briughter than most of us, but in the only test i took from which I have data, I score well beyond you. When I joined the Army, all it took to get into OCS was to be under 30 (I was, unfortunately, over) and a GT score of 115 with no area below 100. I had a GT of 133 with a low area of 114 (finance and accounting.)

I am dyscalculic. Thus, the low area does not result from any lack of native intelligence on my part, but on the way my brain processes certain input.

I have trouble balancing a check book, but can write some interesting poetry in two languages.

You are not going to get around the fact that IQ tests are only a test of the ability to take tests. That I am such a brilliant person enabled me to hide the full extent of my dyscalclia.. Had I not the language skills that I have, I might have appeared retarded.

As it was, I proved that I was a whiz-bang at taking tests.

 

It's fine. If you don't have time to debate, read the papers you are talking about or even remember what I have said you can go and do whatever it is you deem more important.

 

You seem to be flailing about, unable to respond in a logical manner.

Not that I would expect a logical response from someone who thinks that race-mixing has negative outcomes.

 

This is amazing! Can you write your entire biography in the comment section? I mean it just nails the debate.

 

Why? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), forever and ever amen. What could be the purposes of such drivel, ever?

 

Why not ask a psychology professor?

 

Quit the hiding. Here is the post again

If you are not able to back up what you say, do not say it.

 

I already made a criticism of the paper.

You responded by making up what you imagine they did, after admitting you hadn't read the paper.

And of course are totally wrong.

If you want to see my criticism just go back a few pages and find it.

I cannot be bothered repeating myself.

 

Here is my criticism and your response:

Your response is inadequate, made up from whole cloth, and my objection stands.