Does that seem to be at variance with reality?
Thomas Sowell is the man!
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Does that seem to be at variance with reality?
BattleofHodow
New member
Seems realistic to me.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Certainly Jordan Peterson is up there and you'll be seeing much more of him as he's now fully recovered. Have a lot of respect for Gad Saad and Peter Hitchens, but also for Jonathan Haidt, he's a very impressive speaker and writer.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Figures you'd say that. Fortunately, the world is onto him: https://www.theguardian.com/science...he-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest
Funny how progressives like TCL always reach out to something like the Guardian to seek solace and reinforce their arguments. No wonder circular thinking looms large, it couldn't be otherwise.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yet he tore the Bell Curve apart, maybe you should read his review.
In the thread below, “Derbyshire Speaks,” Ricochet member Mark Wilson provides a link to an item I believe deserves everyone’s attention: Thomas Sowell on IQ and race. When Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein published the The Bell Curve almost ten years ago, Dr. Sowell wrote a review in the American Spectator.
What did Thomas Sowell make of the book? He took it apart.
If you can spare ten minutes for close argument, be sure to read the entire review. But–with thanks once again to Mark Wilson–here’s a hefty, and, to my mind, utterly compelling, excerpt:
[Herrnstein and Murray] seem to conclude… that… biological inheritance of IQ… among members of the general society may also explain IQ differences between different racial and ethnic groups…. Such a conclusion goes… much beyond what the facts will support….
[T]he greatest black-white differences are not on the questions which presuppose middle-class vocabulary or experiences, but on abstract questions such as spatial perceptual ability…. [Herrnstein and Murray’s] conclusion that this “phenomenon seems peculiarly concentrated in comparisons of ethnic groups” is simply wrong. When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract parts of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States tested back in the early 1930s. So did canal boat children in Britain, and so did rural British children compared to their urban counterparts, at a time before Britain had any significant non-white population. So did Gaelic-speaking children as compared to English-speaking children in the Hebrides Islands. This is neither a racial nor an ethnic peculiarity. It is a characteristic found among low-scoring groups of European as well as African ancestry.
In short, groups outside the cultural mainstream of contemporary Western society tend to do their worst on abstract questions, whatever their race might be….
Perhaps the strongest evidence against a genetic basis for intergroup differences in IQ is that the average level of mental test performance has changed very significantly for whole populations over time and, moreover, particular ethnic groups within the population have changed their relative positions during a period when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of these groups….
Perhaps the most dramatic changes were those in the mental test performances of Jews in the United States. The results of World War I mental tests conducted among American soldiers born in Russia–the great majority of whom were Jews–showed such low scores as to cause Carl Brigham, creator of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, to declare that these results “disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent.” Within a decade, however, Jews in the United States were scoring above the national average on mental tests, and the data in The Bell Curveindicate that they are now far above the national average in IQ.
Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to “folklore” that “Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence. ” It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results–during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews….
Herrnstein and Murray openly acknowledge such rises in IQ….But they seem not to see how crucially it undermines the case for a genetic explanation of interracial IQ differences. They say:
“The national averages have in fact changed by amounts that are comparable to the fifteen or so IQ points separating blacks and whites in America. To put it another way, on the average, whites today differ from whites, say, two generations ago as much as whites today differ from blacks today. Given their size and speed, the shifts in time necessarily have been due more to changes in the environment than to changes in the genes.”
While this open presentation of evidence against the genetic basis of interracial IQ differences is admirable, the failure to draw the logical inference seems puzzling. Blacks today are just as racially different from whites of two generations ago as they are from whites today. Yet the data suggest that the number of questions that blacks answer correctly on IQ tests today is very similar to the number answered correctly by past generations of whites. If race A differs from race B in IQ, and two generations of race A differ from each other by the same amount, where is the logic in suggesting that the IQ differences are even partly racial?
Where indeed is the logic–the word bears repeating: the logic–in suggesting that IQ differences are even partly racial?
https://ricochet.com/194295/archives/thomas-sowell-on-iq-and-race/
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You're long on accusations and self aggrandizing screeds, but way short on actual discussion of content. The Guardian isn't the only source of debunking Peterson's drivel. Observe and learn a few others, or in your case, ignore:
https://newrepublic.com/article/148473/jordan-petersons-tired-old-myths
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Print doesn't lie, son. And anyone with a GED in reading comprehension can clearly read you hold Peterson in high regard. Your own words belie any "clarification" to the contrary. Too bad if I exposed him for the erroneous gas bag that he is.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
We can all play those games Titchy Liberal!
WHY PAUL THAGARD IS WRONG ABOUT JORDAN PETERSON
https://fromtheholocron.com/blog/2019/06/24/paul-thagard-wrong-jordan-peterson/
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yeah, when HE'S the target of the very same "conservative logic" he utilizes, he's all comprehensively logical. That doesn't excuse his other drivel, as others have documented https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...omas-Sowell-is-the-man!&p=4084677#post4084677
cancel2 2022
Canceled
We can all play those games Titchy Liberal!
Why Paul Thagard is wrong about Jordan Peterson
https://fromtheholocron.com/blog/2019/06/24/paul-thagard-wrong-jordan-peterson/
As for Jeet Heer, the less said about that pompous Canuck arsehole the better.
Maybe you don't like Peterson because he knows you so well?
"The truth is something that burns. It burns off dead wood. And people don’t like having the dead wood burnt off, often because they’re 95 percent dead wood.”–Jordan Peterson.
Why Paul Thagard is wrong about Jordan Peterson
https://fromtheholocron.com/blog/2019/06/24/paul-thagard-wrong-jordan-peterson/
As for Jeet Heer, the less said about that pompous Canuck arsehole the better.
Maybe you don't like Peterson because he knows you so well?
"The truth is something that burns. It burns off dead wood. And people don’t like having the dead wood burnt off, often because they’re 95 percent dead wood.”–Jordan Peterson.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You can't play if you don't read carefully and comprehensively, genius. You just scanned the net for the first gain saying, but you have NO comprehension of it's content.
Kapocsi, like you and your brethren, creates his own narrative/philosophy without directly addressing Thagard's key point(s) as to why Peterson's views are wrong: Case in point, Thagard writes: First, different religions have different prescriptions, and Peterson gives no argument why Christianity is morally superior to Islam, Hinduism, or dozens of alternatives. Even within Christianity, there is much disagreement among Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons. For morality to be based on religion, you need to be able to make a reasonable decision concerning which religion to choose. Nowhere does Kapocsi directly address Peterson's take like Thagard does. In effect, it's the old right wing shuffle....dimiss what others say, create your own version and use that to show (indirectly) how others are wrong. Kapocsi seeks to speak/interpret for Peterson, while Thagard works on what Peterson has written and explained.
Once again, you praise those who tell you what you want to hear, critical thinking be damned. Carry on.
I just saw this in a movie...the best cut line ever...."I would rather be dead than live with you".
(Sweet Smell of Success)
cancel2 2022
Canceled
His missus must be a goddamned saint.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That's a great film proving that Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis could really act given a good script. Clifford Odets was a fantastic writer. He was the real life inspiration for the marvellous Coen Brothers' film Barton Fink.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So why are you any different then? Everything you say is framed from a narrow progressive PC perspective. I haven't seen you drone on about Critical Race Theory but I'm damn sure you buy into that drivel as well!
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
translation: Old Hawkeye once again gets nailed with facts and logic he doesn't like and cant' BS past, so he devolves into a childish retort. He's done on this point, save for the predictable last word distortion.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Get a grip, Hawk. Just because I proved you wrong on one point doesn't mean you have a hissy fit. As for Mr. Haidt, there is truth in what he says, but not the whole truth. Note the following; two analytical takes:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dail...mes-op-ed-and-the-tired-old-snowflake-defense
https://www.niskanencenter.org/there-is-no-campus-free-speech-crisis-a-close-look-at-the-evidence/
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Primo, how many times do I have to school you on this one point: your personal opinion bereft of supportive documents is no substitute for a fact. I differ from Sowell in the very simple way I pulled the rug out from under his screeds BEFORE I provided links to others doing the same. Critical thinking using easily researched references and documented facts. Damn, your attention span is short. My assessment of the example you used to try and support the OP stands valid...to which you can't logically or factually disprove. Instead, you right wing shuffle to another topic. Here's a thought; when you stop treating your self aggrandizing BS as fact, concede a point, then start a new thread on Critical Race Theory.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The caste system is a part and parcel of the Hindu religion matey, didn't you know that? Maybe you should go do some travelling rather than being holed up in NYC all your life? As for Islam, Salifism has precious little to teach the world except anger, violence, death and destruction. However Sufism does have something to recommend it, with its gentle nature and love of dance and music. In fact everything that Salifis detest. The Arabs were carrying on the Indian and Greek scientific traditions until Islam closed it down for many centuries.
Last edited: