The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

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.






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.




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



No shit.




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.


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.

Normally I'd be sympathetic to your autistic condition (something that you bring up constantly on this website) but since you consistently fail to express empathy for other vulnerable groups, why should you be worthy of receiving any here?

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

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

Maybe if people let me? Instead of trying to obstruct my words for ideological reasons?

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

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?

It shouldn't be an excuse to shut my down. If I say Winnipeg is cold do I need a meteorological degree to do so?

You've already decided for yourself that this information doesn't need to be disminated.

I'm sure if you had your way I wouldn't even be aware of the fact I'm autistic.

But anyway advocate for politics that is destroying lives.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

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?

Or more likely that I'm autistic. As I said many times what comes in is infinitely more than what I can get out.

Do you honestly think I'm not aware of my wordsaladism?

Serious question am I not allowed to speak because of my disability?

[dleung]

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?

In Chinese circles in Vancouver there is a bit of "yellow supremacy" and looking down on whites, but it's a very uniquely local phenomenon, and mainly measured in wealth rather than any kind of social/political capital. And it would be a very different outcome if the Chinese here were all descendants of the railroad builders, which would be more analogous to the black experience in the US

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Normally I'd be sympathetic to your autistic condition (something that you bring up constantly on this website) but since you consistently fail to express empathy for other vulnerable groups, why should you be worthy of receiving any here?

Constantly? I didn't mention it for months, FYI the majority of the time while you we are on your hiatus.

In contrast I'm quite certain people have to remind me from post to post that I'm a salad maker.




I love this idea that I don't care about disadvantaged groups.

I pretty much in a permanent state of advocating for such.

Not siding with your technocratic views doesn't mean I lack empathy for people.

Gate keepering information that people can use to make better life choices is exactly the kind of thing you can expect from an academic.


Do you think its a moral good when someone collects 60,000 in student debt with an IQ of 90?

Student debt alone is more than enough reason we need people to be educated on IQ.

How about enslaving people to homes who will never have the ability to see that expected increase in income?

How about the way high IQ'd individuals keep trying choke off people from afforable housing by promoting green belts?


How about the blatant hostility towards laborers in the tar sands?


How about the overly complicated political correctness, that is pretty much designed to humiliate the less sophisticated?

How about the way in which traditional simplistic masculinity is destroyed?

How about the horrid social outcomes for low IQ'd males?

If you ever bothered to process what I say, you might not be caught off guard. The fact is this is more or less why I became a conservative.

[WarrenC12]

IQ feels pretty outdated to be honest. I'm sure it correlates with some level of higher income or success, but other measures including EQ and overall mental health probably speak more to people leading productive and fulfilling lives.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Constantly? I didn't mention it for months, FYI the majority of the time while you we are on your hiatus.

In contrast I'm quite certain people have to remind me from post to post that I'm a salad maker.




I love this idea that I don't care about disadvantaged groups.

I pretty much in a permanent state of advocating for such.

Not siding with your technocratic views doesn't mean I lack empathy for people.

Gate keepering information that people can use to make better life choices is exactly the kind of thing you can expect from an academic.


Do you think its a moral good when someone collects 60,000 in student debt with an IQ of 90?

Student debt alone is more than enough reason we need people to be educated on IQ.

How about enslaving people to homes who will never have the ability to see that expected increase in income?

How about the way high IQ'd individuals keep trying choke off people from afforable housing by promoting green belts?


How about the blatant hostility towards laborers in the tar sands?


How about the overly complicated political correctness, that is pretty much designed to humiliate the less sophisticated?

How about the way in which traditional simplistic masculinity is destroyed?

How about the horrid social outcomes for low IQ'd males?

If you ever bothered to process what I say, you might not be caught off guard. The fact is this is more or less why I became a conservative.


The technocrats feed the populalist low quality information and use them as lap dogs.

The technocrats come along and save the day behind closed doors.

Good luck arguing with that wall. You will probably enjoy the dialogue.


tvtropes

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Good luck arguing with that wall. You will probably enjoy the dialogue.

tvtropes

Am I suppose to be surprised that you slink away when your views get challenged? This is exactly why people like yourself try so hard to gatekeeper information.

You fear the loss of control that occurs when you realize we live in a democracy that isn't suppose to be run by technocrats.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Am I suppose to be surprised that you slink away when your views get challenged? This is exactly why people like yourself try so hard to gatekeeper information.

You fear the loss of control that occurs when you realize we live in a democracy that isn't suppose to be run by technocrats.

Congrats on totally derailing another thread.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

IQ feels pretty outdated to be honest. I'm sure it correlates with some level of higher income or success, but other measures including EQ and overall mental health probably speak more to people leading productive and fulfilling lives.

I'd tend to say that a strong family/good community would probably be a better predictor of success than any other factor. There's plenty of work for non-genius level people in this country. You don't need a high triple digit IQ to work many jobs - you just need the right motivation, some skills and work ethic - much of which is ingrained through family/community exposure.

It's why a society should prevent the large-scale grinding deep poverty from setting in. It's far easier to lift someone out of moderate poverty as opposed to extreme poverty. It's why the tower block high-density housing projects were such disasters - it led to extreme concentrations of poverty, which was very hard to eradicate.

I'd put my money on a low IQ person from a good home/strong community versus a high IQ person from the projects for successful outcome any day.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

IQ feels pretty outdated to be honest.

In an era where we're so dominated by technology?

Are you seriously suggesting this to be true?

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm sure it correlates with some level of higher income or success,

Who do you think is most likely to be working from home?

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

but other measures including EQ and overall mental health probably speak more to people leading productive and fulfilling lives.

All of these things matter far more in the past than they do now.

Working from home etc removes a whole portion of this from the conversation.

Also I don't think there is any debate that lazy/unstable people accomplish less in life.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'd tend to say that a strong family/good community would probably be a better predictor of success than any other factor. There's plenty of work for non-genius level people in this country. You don't need a high triple digit IQ to work many jobs - you just need the right motivation, some skills and work ethic - much of which is ingrained through family/community exposure.

It's why a society should prevent the large-scale grinding deep poverty from setting in. It's far easier to lift someone out of moderate poverty as opposed to extreme poverty. It's why the tower block high-density housing projects were such disasters - it led to extreme concentrations of poverty, which was very hard to eradicate.

I'd put my money on a low IQ person from a good home/strong community versus a high IQ person from the projects for successful outcome any day.

Yes nature vs nuture is very important and I'd agree with your points overall. It's also why investing in younger people, including childcare, education, and other basic social supports is so important. You can avoid the worst of poverty, and give everybody a more equal chance at success.

[memememe76]

Not sure why people are disregarding the severity of the anti-Asian attacks in Vancouver. There have been assaults on elderly people and women. There have been assaults on Aboriginal people who "look" Asian? Will you comfort them by their greater socioeconomic position in society?

And even when it's "just" racial slurs, a lot of the incidents in the media have been in confined spaces like buses and Skytrain. The inability to flee can make that quite the scary experience.

And, BTW, the most recent one mentioned in the media involved a racist lawyer.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

In an era where we're so dominated by technology?

Are you seriously suggesting this to be true?

Technology does not require extremely high IQ to be successful at. Do you think doctors are significantly smarter than they were 20 years ago? How about 40?

They might even be dumber since tuition fees have increased dramatically, and more potential medical doctor candidates have chosen other paths.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Who do you think is most likely to be working from home?

Is working from home a measure of success? All kinds of middling careers allow working from home and/or flexible arrangements.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

All of these things matter far more in the past than they do now.

What characteristics are most important for people to advance upwards in organizations? Who becomes the executives, CEOs, and other all star performers in organizations?

[Acajack]

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.

I am not a full-time translator but I've spent a considerable amount of time translating stuff back and forth between French and English in my career. I think you can do justice to an original if you're really good at it.

That said, I am not really a big fan of IQ tests, and agree with what you and a few others are saying. As I said, they're fraught with biases about what it means to be intelligent.

Or maybe it's because I've never done that well on those IQ tests! Well, I've never done a formal one but I have done the online or paperback book versions. My score was never even close to what those around me thought I would get.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'd tend to say that a strong family/good community would probably be a better predictor of success than any other factor.

So what your saying is that a more traditional social structure might prove better than growing up with absentee parents?

Originally Posted by wave46

There's plenty of work for non-genius level people in this country.

Which is all the more reason we need people making the decisions that are best for them.

Originally Posted by wave46

You don't need a high triple digit IQ to work many jobs - you just need the right motivation,

And do you not think its possible that constantly preaching about inequalities etc might have an effect where people are less motivated? Especially when broad reaching strokes are painted across virtually their entire community?

Originally Posted by wave46

some skills and work ethic - much of which is ingrained through family/community exposure.

People's level of conscientious is relatively fixed at birth. It is a large part of why lazy rich kids are perpetually trying to attack the politics of their successful hard working parents.

Originally Posted by wave46

It's why a society should prevent the large-scale grinding deep poverty from setting in. It's far easier to lift someone out of moderate poverty as opposed to extreme poverty.

I strongly argue against this view point.

Originally Posted by wave46

It's why the tower block high-density housing projects were such disasters - it led to extreme concentrations of poverty, which was very hard to eradicate.

I'd argue the bigger issue is trying to avoid an acceptable level of segmentation among populations.

Cities are designed with the intellectual elite on top.

I strongly believe this is why places like Texas are so much better than places like California.

I also think it is the reason Trump got so popular. Low IQ's rural folk know to avoid cities because they won't be able to compete. The problem isn't inequality because of income, it is the dispersion of work that is the problem.

Which is why I'm pretty upset when people living in rich condos shit on people working in the tar sands.

Originally Posted by wave46

I'd put my money on a low IQ person from a good home/strong community versus a high IQ person from the projects for successful outcome any day.

Sure if they are guided in the right way. Having good roles models helps, if all your role models are very intelligence but very lazy it only makes sense that you're taught to be against working hard and more filled with hate.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Technology does not require extremely high IQ to be successful at. Do you think doctors are significantly smarter than they were 20 years ago? How about 40?

Doctors are already incredibly intelligent it is a horrid comparison.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

They might even be dumber since tuition fees have increased dramatically, and more potential medical doctor candidates have chosen other paths.

Sure but do you think programming is anything less than a test of ones intelligence?

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Is working from home a measure of success? All kinds of middling careers allow working from home and/or flexible arrangements.

It is an indicator of having a higher IQ, it doesn't mean you have a strong work ethic. I'm sure a lot of people got trapped in this kind of work because of laziness.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What characteristics are most important for people to advance upwards in organizations? Who becomes the executives, CEOs, and other all star performers in organizations?

Persuasion? Intelligence? Hard Work?

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That said, I am not really a big fan of IQ tests, and agree with what you and a few others are saying. As I said, they're fraught with biases about what it means to be intelligent.

Why would you be a fan of a test that tells you you're a member of the intellectual elite?

It is far more desirable to say you've worked for it than you were born gifted.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Or maybe it's because I've never done that well on those IQ tests! Well, I've never done a formal one but I have done the online or paperback book versions. My score was never even close to what those around me thought I would get.

Not being a genius doesn't mean you're not privileged.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Doctors are already incredibly intelligent it is a horrid comparison.

Are they getting dumber was my question.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Sure but do you think programming is anything less than a test of ones intelligence?

It's a very specific test of a certain way of thinking. It's the new factory worker or typing pool.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Persuasion? Intelligence? Hard Work?

The intelligence bar is there, but it's low. The rest are far more important.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Not being a genius doesn't mean you're not privileged.

And not doing (spectacularly) well on those IQ tests doesn't mean I am not a genius!

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are they getting dumber was my question.

I have no idea but my assumption is that if you're smart enough to be accepted to med school, industriousness and memory skills take over.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's a very specific test of a certain way of thinking. It's the new factory worker or typing pool.

Not sure what you mean?

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The intelligence bar is there, but it's low. The rest are far more important.

https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811

I suggest looking into something like this.

IQ is very visible when you know what to look for.

EDIT: No the data isn't perfect but I'm sure you can imagine teh trend.

Doing calc is hard, performance in that course alone can tell you a lot about society.