The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't. I explained what I meant below in that same post, with the part about homicide; if you have wide categories you don't know the severity of the crimes committed. One reason why crime severity indices are used instead of counts of crimes of varying severity.

Are you trying to state that there's less racism in 2020 compared to 2019?

Poking a small hole in a significant argument and pretending "nobody knows the real answer" makes it look like you have an agenda.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Very articulate, that's an easier statement than actually thinking your way through it.

Nobody can think their way through your word salad posts without getting a headache. I guess you're just that much further evolved than the rest of us.

Might I suggest you keep your posts shorter, more focused, and relevant to the topic at hand.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

"A culture that doesn't value education" probably plays a role. Why else would East Asians have noticeably higher educational attainment and higher incomes on average?

Which culture doesn't value education?

There's all kinds of reasons that immigrants, particularly recent ones, might be more successful. They've obviously succeeded enough, and had enough motivation to make the huge leap across the world to start a new life. Perhaps there was already an opportunity here for them. They are smart enough to get into post-secondary, learn another language, and so on.

They can't be considered "average" in at all.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yearly Hate Crimes in Vancouver -> n~37

The downplaying does itself without any need for help.

Do you think hate crimes get reported much? That's 37 that went to the degree of a police report. It's not a big number, but the trend is clearly going the wrong way.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am no expert on IQ tests, but I have taken them a couple of times (once in school, once recreationally). Surprisingly they both came up with the exact same result - 139.

I was struck on both occasions that the exam is as much a test on ones linguistic skills as it is on your problem solving ability or knowledge. The questions are often tricky, and frequently employ double negatives, which for non native English speakers might be very difficult to answer. Even non standard English speakers (African Americans from the 'hood) would be at a disadvantage.

In essence, the test is designed for native English speaking white North Americans, leading to an inherent bias, and the results of the test should be interpreted accordingly.

Absolutely. Thanks for providing a good example.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Which culture doesn't value education?

There's all kinds of reasons that immigrants, particularly recent ones, might be more successful. They've obviously succeeded enough, and had enough motivation to make the huge leap across the world to start a new life. Perhaps there was already an opportunity here for them. They are smart enough to get into post-secondary, learn another language, and so on.

They can't be considered "average" in at all.

It's not just that Asians value education but that there is a strong focus/emphasis on STEM and business.

That's why their incomes are higher on average..

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

It's not just that Asians value education but that there is a strong focus/emphasis on STEM and business.

That's why their incomes are higher on average..

You ignored the rest of my points. They are self-selecting to come over here.

I have no doubt STEM and business are important, that's been clear for a long time, and will lead to success with some caveats.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Chinese person who lived in Vancouver for 7 years here.

Not only did I not experience any racism, but I observed this big transformation going on where upper and upper middle class white people would often marry, and have children with, Chinese Canadians like me. So, at the very least, in 30-40 years, a lot of people who will run British Columbia will be of some Chinese ancestry and visibly quite Chinese. This is already kind of happening.

And the thing about being on the receiving end of racism is that the “victim” has to always consider the social position of the person doing the offending.

The people who yell out racist slurs at Chinese people tend to be in a lower socioeconomic position than the Chinese people they’re trying to offend. Who’s actually losing in this case? If a crackhead on Hastings starts yelling at me on the bus, is he actually thwarting my ability to get a mortgage, or advance my career or raise a child who could become Chief Justice some day?

Sure, money and class will beat race (almost) every time. The US just had a wildly popular black president. Clearly racism against blacks still exists there.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you trying to state that there's less racism in 2020 compared to 2019?

Poking a small hole in a significant argument and pretending "nobody knows the real answer" makes it look like you have an agenda.

This is an open discussion forum. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out holes in shaky arguments so that I don't set off your overly-sensitive McCarthy-style offense-o-meter.

If your goal is to end racism you should be in favour of accurate, meaningful data too. Without it nobody has any idea what's going on.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

You are going down a dangerous road.

So, do you know anything about how IQ tests are constructed (content, etc.)? I am an expert in test (aka, measurement) theory (Nunnally, 1967). Psychometric measures are bound by the context. Always are, always have been. For example, take any given set of measures for a construct, translate/backtranslate into another language, and you will often find that they have different meaning.

For years I had an office next to the most notorious researcher in the country (perhaps the world) on IQ differences across racial groups (who later went on to state that men were smarter than women on these same tests).

When discussing the statistical properties of an exam, one may hear the term “error” or measurement error used by psychometricians. Error can be considered information contributing to a person’s exam score beyond the person’s true or actual ability. So from computational and classical test theory perspective, error is

E = O – T or Error = Observed – True

more fundamentally: Xo= Xt + Xs + Xr

The Observed score (Xo) is the actual score on the exam and True score (Xt) is the person’s actual ability. Error is the difference between observed and true scores.

Error can be random (Xr) or systematic (Xs). Random error typically occurs during one administration. This may include guessing, misreading a question or a candidate not feeling well. In this instance of random error, the error would not likely occur during a subsequent administration. Systematic errors are typical attributes of the person or the exam that would occur across administrations. These errors typically do not have much to do with the content being measured. An example could be an exhaustive item with excess verbiage that asks a simple math problem and the simple math problem is what is intended to be measured, not the candidate’s ability to sort through the verbiage.

You're making a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the conversation.

I never made the claim that IQ tests are perfectly accurate, nor the claim that they perfectly encapsulate cognitive differences.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Do you think that there may be biases in test block items constructed by white males, of which many questions were constructed years ago, delivered to people of different characteristics and measured in different contexts (e.g., time of day, place, who is doing the measurement, what sort of instrumentation is used to gauge responses? How do you know that the test items have construct validity (i.e., that they measure what they are supposed to measure, and nothing else, and do so with a high degree of reliability across situations and contexts)? How do you know that the groups in questions have equal levels of literacy?

You're jumping down the racial hole, as I said looking at group averages is stupid as different subsets of the same "racial" grouping will have very different IQs.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Moreover, from a strictly statistical perspective, variation within groups on IQ is far, far greater than the variation observed between groups (females vs. males, racial groups). Hence you have the issue of heteroskedasticity, which further limits the ability to draw firm conclusions.

And when did I contredict this. I specifically stated that grouping together by race is beyond stupid.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

None of this is to say that IQ, and many other traits, are not partially heritable.

No shit.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Anyways, arguing with you is an exercise in futility. Before making such incendiary claims, you might consider thinking about how people are going to react. Moreover, read about the issue before making sweeping, ill-founded conclusions.

This good old fashioned "this information is forbidden, because I say so" argument.

I'm autistic you can kiss my ass if you thing I'm gonna casually accept that this information should be in the hands of the elite.

You're not a member of the cognitively disadvantages so don't dare tell me that I don't have a right to this information.

If the implications of keeping this knowledged subdued isn't obvious maybe you aren't near as smart as you think you are.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog...q-differences-between-races-are-unlikely

And don't give me any BS about how you know the science, etc., etc. You don't.

Did I bruise your ego so much that you have to be perpetual convinced I am stupid? You seem to be the peak of SSP elitists.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is an open discussion forum. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out holes in shaky arguments so that I don't set off your overly-sensitive McCarthy-style offense-o-meter.

If your goal is to end racism you should be in favour of accurate, meaningful data too. Without it nobody has any idea what's going on.

Of course it's an open forum. I posted data that supported a dramatic increase in racist hate crimes in Vancouver, likely due to anti-Asian COVID19 related sentiment. You considered it invalid without your own data.

What's funny is if we listened to the local asian community sooner, our outbreak of COVID19 would have been lessened.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am no expert on IQ tests, but I have taken them a couple of times (once in school, once recreationally). Surprisingly they both came up with the exact same result - 139.

I was struck on both occasions that the exam is as much a test on ones linguistic skills as it is on your problem solving ability or knowledge. The questions are often tricky, and frequently employ double negatives, which for non native English speakers might be very difficult to answer. Even non standard English speakers (African Americans from the 'hood) would be at a disadvantage.

In essence, the test is designed for native English speaking white North Americans, leading to an inherent bias, and the results of the test should be interpreted accordingly.

Though presumably people would do the IQ test in their native language, or at least the one they are most comfortable in.

That of course doesn't mean that there aren't biases in the test (cultural or otherwise) regarding what constitutes intelligence.

[MolsonExport]

Did you see my point about translation? Anyone who is bilingual should know that translation is far from an exact science. Humor, for example, is very hard to translate (try translating Tetes-a-Claques or Fawlty Towers into English and French, respectively, and see if the humor comes through).

The point being is that the tests are not an entirely objective means of measuring intelligence, which is a construct that is still fraught with much conceptual debate as to its scope, content, indicators, and invariability.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am no expert on IQ tests, but I have taken them a couple of times (once in school, once recreationally). Surprisingly they both came up with the exact same result - 139.

I'd be surprised if more than a handful of SSPers had IQs lower than 125-130. This is a circle jerk of the intellectually privileged..

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I was struck on both occasions that the exam is as much a test on ones linguistic skills as it is on your problem solving ability or knowledge. The questions are often tricky, and frequently employ double negatives, which for non native English speakers might be very difficult to answer. Even non standard English speakers (African Americans from the 'hood) would be at a disadvantage.

This same logic applies to whites.

No one is making the claim that IQ is perfectly heritable.

However the trends are generally quite profound.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In essence, the test is designed for native English speaking white North Americans, leading to an inherent bias, and the results of the test should be interpreted accordingly.

Which is why I'd never mention the research suggestions that subsaharan africans have IQs in the 70s.

Obviously outside of the west populations are gonna suffer due to poor nutrition and the high prevalence of brain parasites.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lakelocker

i'd be surprised if more than a handful of sspers had iqs lower than 125-130.

lol.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Did you see my point about translation? Anyone who is bilingual should know that translation is far from an exact science. Humor, for example, is very hard to translate (try translating Tetes-a-Claques or Fawlty Towers into English and French, respectively, and see if the humor comes through).

The point being is that the tests are not an entirely objective means of measuring intelligence, which is a construct that is still fraught with much conceptual debate as to its scope, content, indicators, and invariability.

You're really taking on this technocratic mission aren't you?

It is hilarious how much you flaunt your great intellect while trying to claim IQ isn't relevant to the conversation.

If you want to make a better test do so, that doesn't negate the problem or the argument.

Our society is tearing itself apart over faulty stats and you know it.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

lol.

Why would this be a shock to you? People often group together by their level of intelligence.

Do you really think talking endlessly about population stats has a whole lot of appeal to someone with an IQ of 90?

Do you think someone with an IQ of 100 is likely to be love with the big city/skyscrapers?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Why would this be a shock to you? People often group together by their level of intelligence.

The level of discourse on SSP does not remind me of highly intelligent discussions.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Do you really think talking endlessly about population stats has a whole lot of appeal to someone with an IQ of 90?

Perhaps not, but that's one thread.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Do you think someone with an IQ of 100 is likely to be love with the big city/skyscrapers?

I would argue a fascination with tall buildings would skew lower on the IQ scale. They are appealing on a simplistic level.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

You're really taking on this technocratic mission aren't you?

It is hilarious how much you flaunt your great intellect while trying to claim IQ isn't relevant to the conversation.

If you want to make a better test do so, that doesn't negate the problem or the argument.

You never add to the conversation; rather you invariably detract from it.

when did I flaunt my intellect? I have been working in classical test theory for 25 fucking years. Shouldn't this be relevant to any arguments about the validity of IQ tests?

Go back to composing your indecipherable word salads. Perhaps the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease and grade level of your posts is a good indicator of your intelligence?

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The level of discourse on SSP does not remind me of highly intelligent discussions.

This is a casual environment, no one is coming here to bring their work with them.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Perhaps not, but that's one thread.

So which thread do you think is most appealing to someone with a lower IQ?

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I would argue a fascination with tall buildings would skew lower on the IQ scale. They are appealing on a simplistic level.

Sure but the people who are actually able to afford to live in areas with those buildings are rich/smart. Or alternatively those who wish they'd could live in those areas are people that are more likely to feel trapped in less intellectually stimulating environments.