The Post Whatever Thread

"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." - Isaac Asimov, an INTJ.

Isaac Asimov is correct about that for this is why people who live on the internet become intellectually inclined and more evolved in my honest opinion. Is there a deterministic reason as to why it only takes a White person to say that? You see, unlike the authoritarian state of China where many websites are blocked and people may be discouraged from spending too much time on the internet, this is why certain groups of people will never measure up to other groups of people. For example, the banning of George Orwell’s book in China should hint at the N/S dichotomy in terms of MBTI because it’s highly probable that George Orwell was an INXX and I like to see INXXs as the four great philosophers and/or thinkers. This is why I literally want to burst out laughing when some people in the MBTI community would type the country of China as ENTJ when it’s really ESTJ. ENTJ is a better fit for the United States and it’s kind of sad because I would have loved to type the United States as INTJ if it wasn’t for the more interventionist attitude and war-like behavior.

Book censorship in China - Wikipedia
 
serenesam said:
... this is why certain groups of people will never measure up to other groups of people.
Click to expand...
"I have often felt a bitter sorrow at the thought of the German people, which is so estimable in the individual and so wretched in the generality."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 
serenesam said:
Click to expand...

using the term cultural maxism seems to be a bit of a cop-out.(trendy alt-right click bait language)
i like his comment "they found a racist gene and its only in white people"
thats quite funny

i dont see the scientific need for anyone to prove james watson to be correct in his opinion about IQ testing.
his scientific achievements should not be less because of his opinions.
just like the father of space rockets etc... von braun
Wernher von Braun
American-German aerospace engineer

soo... no one calling him a nazi then ?

the science should be left to stand by its self without the need to have an ego attached to it to validate it, or invalidate it.
equally a religion
i do recognise institutions needs to promote some sense of moral position for the quality of its honorary titles.

can you have race without genes ?
visa versa ... ?
it all seems a bit mainstream hype click bait to me

if we can have all the pure blood scientists pleasestandup & post their IQ scores and their contribution to the species ...

2 films that you should watch while you contemplate discrimination towards intelligence(and discrimination towards groups and/or individuals)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Figures

African American women helping to math white men on to the moon...
what is the statistical probability of them being there if the IQ margin was slanted in favour of anglo-european-americans ?
i am not in the right mind to do the stats currently, however, it is as good as impossible statistically speaking and there is no random selection in choosing people for their intelligence for nasa.
there would be those who could do it
and those who could not
He further said that while we may wish intelligence to be equal across races, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-his-medallion-180953504/#GMo3IT4E11l6TAtI.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Click to expand...
out of scientific curiosity i would be quite interested to hear his personal opinions about homosexuality as a genetic condition

fyi for the casual reader
the average IQ score for the average person on the street is complete shit
when you compare it to a person whom is studying
and then a larger jump when you compare it to a person who practices IQ tests.

if an entire town has never been taught geometry and related mathematical formulation, how do you adjust for cultural difference in a IQ test ?
 
Last edited:
The IQ test wars: why screening for intelligence is still so controversial
http://theconversation.com/the-iq-t...-intelligence-is-still-so-controversial-81428

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3869
Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence
Click to expand...
Abstract
Intelligence is associated with important economic and health-related life outcomes1. Despite intelligence having substantial heritability2 (0.54) and a confirmed polygenic nature, initial genetic studies were mostly underpowered3,4,5. Here we report a meta-analysis for intelligence of 78,308 individuals. We identify 336 associated SNPs (METAL P < 5 × 10−8) in 18 genomic loci, of which 15 are new. Around half of the SNPs are located inside a gene, implicating 22 genes, of which 11 are new findings. Gene-based analyses identified an additional 30 genes (MAGMA P < 2.73 × 10−6), of which all but one had not been implicated previously. We show that the identified genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue, and pathway analysis indicates the involvement of genes regulating cell development (MAGMA competitive P = 3.5 × 10−6). Despite the well-known difference in twin-based heritability2 for intelligence in childhood (0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation (rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10−29). These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence.
Click to expand...
 
Michael 345 said:
Well there is the human race and there is......

Nope that's it

:)
Click to expand...

the irony of allowing yourself to get involved in debates about racism is that you inevitably increase the amount of negative energy into your life.
thats fine if your a natural human garbage disposal, however most people have to get it out some way or another and it usually toxifys their lifes in various manners.

that is a large part of the problem. people raising the subject to simply whip up negative emotional content which is then used to fortify their position as justification.
pondering a vaguely accurate name for it i would call it victim baiting.
once they identify someone who acts in a victimized way they bully them into a position to use to justify their position.

it is extremely common. more soo very subtle(in common behavioral environments of groups, schools, work-place etc anywhere where there is power to be had).
 
RainbowSingularity said:
that is a large part of the problem. people raising the subject to simply whip up negative emotional content which is then used to fortify their position as justification.
Click to expand...

case and point

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...-man-revenge-taken-cold-pursuit-a8760896.html

“Often it is less obvious to the loved ones of survivors that they might actually need support in dealing with their emotions themselves, just like the survivors,” says Palumbo. They experience a secondary form of trauma, she explains. Some start thinking about what they could have done differently, and they may contemplate seeking retribution.
Click to expand...

but that doesn't fit the bully lynch mob cult of personality ego normalcy that normalizes moral inequality and religious & financial disparity normalization.

there is no shortage of black towns where if a white person walks in, they will never walk out.
thats just a fact.
trying to blame the white person for walking in, or labeling someone racist for suggesting the reverse is somehow justified by exemption is cult like thinking.
it bases its base line of morality inside a power & control dictatorship of unquestioning authority.

entitlement to play the victim to get all the money ...
while waving a flag for capitalism ...
while wanting to enact socialist moral dictatorship

instead of people grabbing a Kumbaya moment for togetherness learning and forgiveness...

the distorted broken inner child wants its pound of flesh at any cost.
and in this case, at the cost of missing the bigger lesson. because the bigger lesson is harder than making a grab for any easy money(power & ego, lust & revenge[in the usa social culture thats the word 'justice']).

somehow all the entitlist greed-mongers need to grab their pound of flesh to service their displaced hate for their lack of ability to comprehend larger moral lessons.
thats not uncommon.
its like the child feeling emotionally hurt so lashing out to physically hurt others.
same mentality.

same thing
Kevin Hart
https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...s-oscars-host-after-three-days-of-controversy
Kevin Hart has announced he is stepping down as host of next year’s Oscars ceremony following an outcry over perceived homophobic comments and tweets from the comedian.

On Friday Hart posted an apology to the LGBTQ community on Twitter for his past “insensitive words” and confirmed he would not take on the gig, so as not to be a “distraction”.

“I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year’s Oscars,” wrote Hart, who as well as his stand-up work is the star of films like Ride Along and Jumanji.

Oscars host Kevin Hart's homophobia is no laughing matter
Benjamin Lee
Benjamin-Lee,-L.png

Read more
“This is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists. I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past.

“I’m sorry that I hurt people. I am evolving and want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart. Much love and appreciation to the Academy. I hope we can meet again.”

Just hours earlier, Hart, who is currently in Australia, posted a video to Instagram saying he had received a call from the Academy telling him to apologise or he would be removed as host.

In the video, Hart said he would not apologise.

“I chose to pass, I passed on the apology. The reason I chose to pass is because I’ve addressed this several times, this is not the first time this has come up, I’ve addressed this… I’m not going to continue to go back and tap into the days of old when I’ve moved on and I’m in a completely different space in my life,” he said.

“Regardless, Academy, I’m thankful and appreciative of the opportunity. If it goes away no harm no foul.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
serenesam said:
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." - Isaac Asimov, an INTJ.

Isaac Asimov is correct about that for this is why people who live on the internet become intellectually inclined and more evolved in my honest opinion.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as "more evolved".

Is there a deterministic reason as to why it only takes a White person to say that?
Click to expand...
To say that they don't fear computers, they fear the lack of them?

What are you saying here? That "black" people fear computers? Or that they fear saying that they don't fear them? Or what?

You see, unlike the authoritarian state of China where many websites are blocked and people may be discouraged from spending too much time on the internet, this is why certain groups of people will never measure up to other groups of people.
Click to expand...
Measure up in what way? What are you measuring?

And what are these "groups" you refer to? Groups defined by ... what? Race? Myer-Briggs categorisation? Something else? You're not making a lot of sense.

For example, the banning of George Orwell’s book in China should hint at the N/S dichotomy in terms of MBTI because it’s highly probable that George Orwell was an INXX and I like to see INXXs as the four great philosophers and/or thinkers.
Click to expand...
I suppose you're referring to the book 1984, are you? It would make sense for a totalitarian system to ban a book warning of the dangers of totalitarian systems, would it not?

What does any of that have to do with Myer-Briggs?

This is why I literally want to burst out laughing when some people in the MBTI community would type the country of China as ENTJ when it’s really ESTJ.
Click to expand...
How can an entire country have a defined Myer-Briggs type?

How are you measuring that?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Wow. That's Watson of Watson & Crick - who were the first to identify the double-helix of DNA.
What a long fall from grace.

It still boggles my mind that it has only been 66 years that we've known about the double-helix of DNA.
Science is still in its infancy!
Click to expand...
Well he's 90 and a bit nutty, most likely, as we all tend to be at that age. There are plenty of examples of notable scientists becoming eccentric - or indeed totally barking - later in life: Schrödinger, Pauling, Tesla...... In fact Watson has only had some honorary titles at a research institute rescinded, which is not surprising as he has become rather an embarrassment to them, I imagine.

Nobody has taken away his Nobel Prize of course, as that was given for a specific, great scientific achievement. Though some far right people like to imply that it has and some idiots fall for this notion.

(I see that Supremacist Sam gets his information from Russia Today and Red Ice TV, a Swedish alt-right source. So I'm sure he has a really well-balanced picture of the world ;). He may just be some jerk from a St Petersburg troll farm, for all we know.)
 
exchemist said:
Well he's 90 and a bit nutty, most likely, as we all tend to be at that age.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Watson's age excuses him.

He has a long record of problematic statements. For example:

1968 - In his book The Double Helix, he describes his collaborator on the discovery of DNA, Rosalind Franklin (whose contributions, by the way, were pivotal in the discovery and who didn't receive the credit she deserved for the discovery), in sexist terms.

1997 - Watson argued that, should a "gay gene" ever be discovered, women ought to be allowed to abort foetuses that carried it.

2000 - Watson said that larger people are not as hard working as thin people, because they are happier. He also suggested a (non-existent) link between sun exposure (and darker skin colour) and sexual prowess.

2003 - Watson suggested that gene editing should be used to make "all girls pretty" (which continues his theme of judging women on the basis of their appearance rather than their abilities).

2003 - Watson suggests that the cause of low performance in school is primarily genetic, dismissing environmental and socioeconomic factors.

2007 - Watson says he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really."

Reportedly, he also said that while people might wish all humans were equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".

2007 - Watson says "some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can't be criticized, that's very dangerous."

2012 - Waston says of women in science "I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they're probably less effective."

2019 - "There's a difference on the average between blacks and whites in IQ tests. I would say the difference is genetic."
 
James R said:
There's no such thing as "more evolved".
Click to expand...

entropy ?

James R said:
1968 - In his book The Double Helix, he describes his collaborator on the discovery of DNA, Rosalind Franklin (whose contributions, by the way, were pivotal in the discovery and who didn't receive the credit she deserved for the discovery), in sexist terms.
Click to expand...

i would quite like to read that comment or comments.

you can tell a great deal about the mind & morals by a mans opinions of women.

James R said:
2019 - "There's a difference on the average between blacks and whites in IQ tests. I would say the difference is genetic."
Click to expand...
after reading this sentence several different times on several different web sites from several different media/web-sites and vague loosely associated content.
it is my opinion that he has made this comment as a last ditch effort to stick a knife in the ribs as a passing shot.

the statement is scientifically correct.
however, the science is not sound.

it is a self serving comment used as a propoganda statement
(e.g) ... i.e
"you cant rely on women's opinions of men, you will always doubt an ulterior motive"

it assigns a concept of question to an idea that is then lent up by a vague emotional inference of doubt that is semi-re-directed to the listener to form a "the universe can never be fully understood" mentality
being applied to re-assure a concept of bigotry &/or known ignorance.
1980s style gold standard propaganda

there are people who frequent this and other message boards who use this type of language and think they are quite clever and cunning.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
I don't think that Watson's age excuses him.

He has a long record of problematic statements. For example:

1968 - In his book The Double Helix, he describes his collaborator on the discovery of DNA, Rosalind Franklin (whose contributions, by the way, were pivotal in the discovery and who didn't receive the credit she deserved for the discovery), in sexist terms.

1997 - Watson argued that, should a "gay gene" ever be discovered, women ought to be allowed to abort foetuses that carried it.

2000 - Watson said that larger people are not as hard working as thin people, because they are happier. He also suggested a (non-existent) link between sun exposure (and darker skin colour) and sexual prowess.

2003 - Watson suggested that gene editing should be used to make "all girls pretty" (which continues his theme of judging women on the basis of their appearance rather than their abilities).

2003 - Watson suggests that the cause of low performance in school is primarily genetic, dismissing environmental and socioeconomic factors.

2007 - Watson says he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really."

Reportedly, he also said that while people might wish all humans were equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".

2007 - Watson says "some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can't be criticized, that's very dangerous."

2012 - Waston says of women in science "I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they're probably less effective."

2019 - "There's a difference on the average between blacks and whites in IQ tests. I would say the difference is genetic."
Click to expand...
Hmm, I didn't know all that, certainly.

However I don't think you can include sexist comments made in 1968 as evidence of much. The whole western world was unbeliveably sexist by modern standards in that era. Just watch any film from that period.

The comments from 1997 onward seem to me more troubling. Goes to show that heroes in science can be total gits in other respects, just like anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top