Racial Profiling via Scientific FACTS -- Lafcadio T. Lion and Strawberry Sage and Friends Fun Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:30:47 04/12/02 Fri
Author: Lafcadio "In the Middle" Lion
Author Host/IP: qam1b-sif-86.monroeaccess.net / 12.27.214.87
Subject: Racial Profiling via Scientific FACTS

Again Fred Reed strikes home with another article that is sure to rile those liberal "thinkers" who have control of the institution and viciously attack anyone who dares dispute their pipe dreams with hard scientific evidence. I have a few thoughts at the end.

Getting Used To What We Can't Change

One marvels that a creed widely doubted in private, unsupported by evidence, and manifestly incorrect, can become compulsory in a society, shape its policy, and arouse furious support. Radical egalitarianism is such a creed -- the notion that people, both individually and in groups, are born equal and, preferably, identical. It would then follow that all differences arise from nurture.

What if they don't?

As a matter of daily experience we observe that some individuals are bigger, smarter, better athletes, superior artists, better singers. It isn't all nurture: Raise me as Michael Jordan was raised, and I would still be short and slow. We also observe that some groups consistently excel others. We pretend otherwise because the penalties for not pretending are severe. Most of us know we are pretending.

There is at the University of Ontario a scholar named J. Philippe Rushton, much in disrepute among the clergy of nurturism. He is a sociobiologist, a member of an outcast class holding that much of behavior is biologically shaped. His book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, is intensely reviled among the keepers of proper thought.* It purports to describe and explain differences in intelligence and behavior among races. This we must never, ever do.

I don't give it blanket endorsement, but its central thrust is sufficiently in accord with daily experience as to be worth pondering. In outline:

The IQ of East Asians (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) is about 106, of Eurowhites 100, "blacks" in America 85, blacks in Africa 70. He does not in the book deal with Jews, but Ashkenazi Jews average 115. The East Asians have a particular advantage in mathematics.

Why?

The moment one recites the statistics, frantic counterarguments arise. Race doesn't exist or, contradictorily, isn't important. Intelligence doesn't exist, can't be defined, or can't be measured. Tests are biased. In short, anything that gives an undesired answer undergoes summary rejection.

Now, readers may reach such conclusions as they think best. But allow me two questions and an assertion. The first question: Do you not know some people who are unquestionably smarter than some others? The second question: Given that races demonstrably differ in appearance, size, bodily proportions, biochemistry, brain size, and a thousand other things, is there any obvious reason why they should not vary in intelligence? In behavior?

The assertion: The people who devise tests of intelligence, as anyone may discover by reading, are neither fools, nor bigots, nor unaware of the problems of testing. Dismiss them only after much reading and careful thought.

The thesis of the sociobiologists is as follows: Men evolved about 200,000 years ago in Africa. Some migrated to Europe about 100,000 years ago and, then being in genetic isolation from Africa, evolved into the Caucasian race. Roughly 40,000 years ago some of the Caucasians migrated to Asia and, in genetic isolation, evolved into East Asians.

Life in northern Europe, runs the argument, was far more difficult than it had been in Africa because of, if nothing else, harsh winters. Survival required not just the intelligence to keep warm but also cooperation, forethought, planning, and cohesion. The people who would become East Asians, living in still more difficult conditions, needed more of these qualities. Those who survived had them.

This may be true. It may not. In evolutionary circles, plausibility trades as evidence. Yet it fits.

Says Rushton, on the basis of many years of research, there exists a clear gradient in many things from yellow to white to black. Asians have somewhat larger brains than whites who have substantially larger brains than blacks. Measured aggressiveness follows the same pattern of a small gap between yellow and white and a larger gap between white and black. The pattern applies for other characteristics: East Asians are lowest in testosterone levels, latest in entering puberty, lowest in size of genitals, degree of criminality, sex drive, rates of fertility, rates of divorce and promiscuity. Blacks are at the other extreme, with whites falling between.

Rushton is no fool. He knows that some of these things are influenced by variables other than the innate. He knows the pitfalls in cross-cultural measurement. Yet, he asserts, the pattern remains. In the United States, for example, crime is very low among East Asians, academic performance very high, divorce rare, families small.

In short, his thesis is that while environment obviously matters in determining outcomes, our capacities and behavior are very much influenced by genetics. The idea is not new, merely forbidden. Rushton et al however make a careful evidentiary case that is not easily ignored, unless you have determined in advance to ignore it.

Nurturists disagree with the sociobiologists. Behavior that seems racial, they argue, is in fact determined by culture. The question is tricky. Culture may itself be to a considerable extent the expression of biology. If East Asians are by nature less aggressive than whites, perhaps because of lower levels of testosterone, one would expect the lack of aggressiveness to be embodied in the culture. That is, naturally quiet people will raise their children to be quiet and be inclined to value courtesy. The nurturist can then say, "Aha! Just as I thought. Socially ingrained." Maybe. Maybe not.

A shift in the intellectual climate seems to be in the offing. Increasingly we see a clash between the compulsory view that we are all identical at birth, which would happily allow the eradication of various inequalities and of crime; and the quietly held but growing recognition that if we are inherently different, as seems to be the case, we will unavoidably have different results.

The question cannot easily be studied. The nurturists are politically in the saddle, and so research into racial differences is verboten. One may ask, of course: Why do the correct fear investigation, unless they know, or suspect, that they are wrong? It is assuredly true that, in the past, theories of racial superiority have often emanated from virulent nationalists who have sought to place their own stock at the top of the heap. The inevitable comparison is with Hitler, a dark squatty little thing convinced of the superiority of blonde Aryan supermen.

In Rushton's case we are dealing with something else. A white Canadian who believes in yellow supremacy is hardly aggrandizing himself. I am myself a purebred Euro-mongrel without known trace of Asian or Jewish ancestry. I'd like to regard Scots/English/Huguenot cocktails as the pinnacle of civilization, and those in cowboy hats as the better of the best. I don't see the evidence. Rushton's gradient accords with my observations whether I like it or not. Perhaps we had better get used to Chinese mathematicians.

�Fred Reed 2002

That aberrations occur within these paradigm is not proof that they are incorrect. These exceptions to the rule only serve to prove that there is a distribution of scoring within a group that can be mapped separately for each group. What we discover when we study these data carefully and dispassionately is that there are distributive differences extant in each group. The range of values within, and between, each group varies greatly. What might mark as a "high" end member in one group might be considered only a median scoring in another group, or even worse, "low" in another.

IQ tests are created by people who are, for the most part, markedly "liberal" thinkers. They unashamedly have an agenda for "weighting" test data. Remember the introduction of "racial norming" into testing imposed by these cretins to overcome what they perceived to be "Euro-ethnic" preferencing in testing structures? This was their way of allowing a minority test subject who answered that "2+2= anything other than 4" to be excused. To these folks, there was some form of ethnic bias in the globally accepted mathematic form (as an ARABIC NUMBER formula) in which the problem was expressed. These are the same geniuses who argued against the verbally presented simple arithmetic translated problem, "Fred had two credit cards, a Visa and a MasterCard. He had $100.00 with which to pay these bills. If he gave each credit card company the same amount, how much would he pay each?" This was an actual problem I saw on am IQ test my son took in 1991. The liberals argued that the problem was biased toward whites because: (1) the person's name was "Fred" and most blacks don't name their male children "Fred" (here's a clue, guys. The answer is the same if his name were Wambatuma") and (2) most blacks don't have credit cards because of "racism" against blacks.

Because of these two innane, specious and mindless arguments, the test administrators and designers determined that the question was racially biased and gave credit for a correct answer to only those black students (notice not Latinos, Asians or any other group however) who did not answer it or gave an incorrect answer. Not only that, they deleted the scores for correct answers by only caucasian test takers, arguing that the deletion of the problem from their overall scores did not affect the percentile score of those so punished for an accident of biology. It is too bad that they did not actually work out the mathehmatics of their assertions. It most certainly did in many cases.

Just who is being "racist?" The politically correct "progressives" among us don't even seem to understand the proper use of simple, standard American English words. "Racist" and "racism" refer to a belief, personally held or systemically practiced, that any ethnic or cultural group is SUPERIOR to another. Isn't that what THEY are doing when they demand preferential treatment for a group? Aren't THEY the ones saying (in a backhanded way), in point of fact that the "protected group" is, in some way, inferior? Were I a member of one of their "protected" minorities, I would be incensed in their implied racist beliefs.

"Discrimination" refers to taking actions, making judgements or holding beliefs based on ethnically or other character based negative stereotyping of any one ethnic or other conceivable group in favor of another or taking such actions, making such determinations or holding negative beliefs about any group, class or other ascertainably differing group! Isn't someone who thinks that one group is somehow inferior to another also indicating a concurrent belief that another group is somehow superior?

Oops! Isn't that EXACTLY what being "politically correct" has been doing for many years now.

We all "discriminate" all the time. Some gentlemen prefer blondes. Some prefer same sex partners and others aren't confused by, or in, his or her biologically natural gender role in life. Some people think bald, or black, or having blue-eyes is "beautiful." When you rush to get into your car and lock the doors when being approached by a group of young black males, wearing hip hop clothing and gang insignia at 2:00 AM in a deserted parking lot, you are discriminating. If you prefer to associate with only Roman Catholics, or Baptists, or Druids, you discriminate. So what!?

The conventional argument of liberals is their bastardized understanding of the concept set forth by our founding fathers. These architects of freedom did not state that "All men are created equal (identical in all respects... the correct and only acceptable definition of the word "equal")in all things and must stay that way forever because that would be nice."

The men who forged our Constitutional Republic put forth a concept that is both breathtaking in its simplicity and astounding in the breadth and depth of its scope. They posited that "All men are created equal (identical in all respects... the correct and only acceptable definition of the word "equal") UNDER THE LAW." Notice the emphasized words.

There are major differences in the two concepts. The former is, at best, a mindless, nonstarter impeached by indisputable empirical, historically and scientifically supported and documented evidentiary FACTUAL DATA. The real world won't, and does not, let it happen just because some people want it to be that way. The latter concept is, however, highly desired by all capable of rational thought humans and while not readily attainable, yet humanly attainable, unless perverted by the acts of some.

Those of us who don't drag our knuckles while attempting to walk upright revere that concept and work ceaselessly to make it a full reality though we are often tarred wrongfully with that liberally applied brush. Attacking anyone who dares to refute the prattle of politically correct "thinking" is branded immediately as being "racist."

I have been called "racist" often. I am anything but racist in my core values, but here I go again, giving my detractors ammunition for the sake of simply pointing out the mundanely idotic extension of unrelenting facts.

Based on the data presented in the Fred Reed column above, it would appear, upon even cursory examination, that someone wanting to get laid would do best among those of "Eurowhite" ethnicity, while those who deal more frequently with African and/or African-American blacks are more likely to get waylaid.

As for the implied "superiority" of those of Oriental ethnicity, I would simply point out that the tests have no provision for testing the morality of any of the groupings. Were the testing dedicated solely to these criteria, they would discover that the "more peaceful" Orientals consider it fully acceptable to dissemble or outright lie to prevent hard feelings in interpersonal relationships and business dealings. Those of European ancestry, however, generally place a high value on personal honor, honesty and integrity.

If the subjects being discussed work for the government, hold elective office, are telemarketers or bulk e-mailers, all bets are generally off no matter the racial, cultural, genetic or gender background of the person.

So there! What else do you expect of someone of Scots-Irish/Native American/Sicilian-Italian-Albanian/Feline descent? I cannot tell a lie, no matter how pretty and emotionally satisfying it might appear to be on the surface. My cat chopped down that cherry tree. And, anyone who has met or heard of Ayo knows "reasonable doubt" when they see and hear it.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Racial Profiling via Scientific FACTS -- Mysticlady, 21:30:46 04/12/02 Fri
- With a scientific explanation -- Doctor Lafcadiot T. Lion, Amateur OB/Gyn, 22:27:50 04/12/02 Fri