TL;DR: The Thread

[Claeyt]

Vote to change stuff you don't like.

But you dont get to vote on 'stuff', we vote for a party.. its rare (as you point out 2%) that someone is voted that is not part of the 2 main parties. AND who says the parties you vote for will give you the stuff you voted for, or change the things you voted for.. Obama cant do **** because the parties vote against the other.. all politics is is a power struggle and the people may get tidbits they want out of it, but usually don't.

I vote on "stuff" every time I vote. This last spring election we had something like 5 different referendum for everything from school funding to where the next landfill is going to go. We had 2 state law changes, a state supreme court race, a mayoral race, a sheriff's race and the entire city and county board. Hell, here in America we even get to vote for the little government offices like county clerk and county coroner.

In my town we have 2 active political camps with their own agendas within the Democratic Party (The regular democratic party, and Progressive Dane) that run against each other in most of the primary elections. With other party's, we almost had a Green party state rep from here, and the occasional successful moderate Republican in the rural parts of the county. We don't have any here, but even the Republican party has it's camps like the Tea Party.

Your vote means ****, the best you can get out of it, is that you have voted against the people who (are going to?) ***** things up the most (thats not saying they wont get re-elected). It is vital we all vote, those who want to say anything for or against the government of their country.. because that is quite literally the only time you can have a say.. and if you haven't tried to have a say, you cant complain.

How can you say "your vote means ****", and "It is vital we all vote" in the same paragraph? Your vote counts, as even the presidential election of 2000 proved, votes count. It's not always pretty. Money matters, but large groups of organized issue voters are still the most powerful political force in the country when it comes to party primary and funding individual candidates.

Democracy in this form is bollocks, Party politics has written off the benefits of 1 man 1 vote, as that person you vote for will vote the party way regardless of what the people who elected have told him they want.

It's not bollocks at all, It's the dog bollocks.

Here the person votes for whatever the hell they want. Just look at Congress, the Republicans can barely get 2/3 of their party organized to pass something they support like the farm bill. 60 something of their members in congress voted against the Republican bill. There's much less control over individual candidates here.

Otherwise you're just spouting libertarian dystopian lines fed to you. Fight wealth and privilege and the forces of anti-democratic control. Promote progressive thought, equality, and the forces of anti-discrimination.

My words were never fed to me, I make my own mind up by taking any information i can find on the subject and making my own conclusions (yes they may be wrong or right.. but they are MY conclusions) Current democracy promotes wealth and privilege inequalities, how well paid are politicians? Very.

Congressmen here make $174,000. The President makes 400,000 per year plus benefits. These really aren't a lot compared to business. the average salary in America is like $45,000. Our mayor makes like 100,000 per year and our city council members make 20,000 per year (it's considered a part time job).

I wish to point you at something.. taxation.. taxation is the way the government have limited freedoms.. you can go where you want (but you must pay taxes on the fuel you use, the car you drive and the road you drive on,) you can live in the house of your choice (but you must pay council tax to be there, tax on buying the house and tax on selling the house), you can earn a wage (taxed on earnings, taxed on savings and taxed on spending), you can have whatever you want (sales tax, import duty, VAT on pretty much everything).

If you dont pay these taxes the freedom is taken away.. we are not free to do anything even if we are allowed to do anything, these are privileges bought through taxation and are removed when you fail to pay the fee. Even when you die they come to tax you..

Well, that's just idiotic. Taxation doesn't limit freedom. fuel tax doesn't disappear, it goes to pay for roads, pipelines, safety inspectors at fuel depots, etc.. so you can get where you want to go and have a delivery system for fuel and gas so you can fill your car. Property tax here is how schools, police, and fire departments are paid for. It goes directly to their budgets. Income tax mostly goes to pay for the federal government here. It goes to everything from our military (25%) to pre-school funding to border guards to research to everything.

Paying taxes is part of living in society,it's not taking your freedom's away.
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."- Oliver Wendell Holmes.

...and they don't tax you when you die. That's another right wing myth. They tax the unearned income that your beneficiaries inherit.

I know there is no simple solution to my issues with democracy.. and that its the best of a bad bunch. I am not against government in general I just dont think it should burdon the country so, whilst engaged in their own struggle for power, ignoring what the populace actually want and need.

The government never ignores what the populace wants and needs otherwise the populace would vote them out. Democracy and the government it creates is never a burden on the country it's what the country/state/county/city voted for. If you don't like it, you get to vote against them again in a couple of years.

[wormcsa]

Well now we know why Paradox dropped them.

Wonder if any other game company will let them dev for them after saying this stuff.

I've known plenty of people who've dropped the game because of Jorb's political views, some of us forget that Jorb's political rant in the thread here happened weeks before Paradox made it's decision to let them go.

I was going to quit Salem after the Above/Below update, but then I read Jorb's political views (which are awesome,) and decided to stick around.

Left wing borderline Marxist drivel

The problem with arguing with the hard left is that they believe their ideas completely a priori, and as such are completely impervious to evidence. I feel an unnatural desire to rant about this: Western civilization was made the envy of the world partially because of values that included truth through evidence, meritocracy and liberty. Then came the cultural Marxists of the sixties and seventies who had different values: truth by consensus, equality of outcomes and relativism. Oh, and feelings. As in, "I feel that children raised in a single parent household do just as well as in a traditional household, therefore it must be true." The establishment at the time, the generation who grew up during the second war, thought "oh they're just young and idealistic, they'll grow up some day when they actually have to run around in the real world." They did get older, but their opinions didn't mature. Instead they brainwashed a new generation in their dystopian "values." Have to fight the system! Newsflash *****, you are the system.

One example: they believe women to be the intellectual equal of men in every discipline, full stop. If women are underrepresented in any professional or academic field, it must be due to discrimination or the all encompassing patriarchy. It is simply unthinkable that more men are interested (or gasp, even more capable) in engineering because of they are genetically predisposed to be so. Any evidence to support the latter will be dismissed with some minor criticisms on methodology and anecdotal examples of a handful of successful women engineers and any who disagree are summarily labeled misogynist, any data be damned. I suggest that they apply some of their heavy scrutiny to their own beliefs.

Perhaps you think this is a simplistic example, but this nonsense does really drive public debate and policy. Case in point, Larry Summers former president of Harvard, was fired merely for presenting science. He suggested that because there is more variation amongst males (something observed in animals since Darwin,) there are more men on both extremes of the IQ bell curve, thus explaining why men are awarded the vast majority of Nobel prizes in hard sciences, and also make up the majority of the mentally retarded. In science, there is nothing controversial about his thesis, but the politically correct left had conniptions, which ended up costing Summers his job. Yes I know there was some nonsense excuse that it was something unrelated, so the left could go on pretending they believed in academic freedom. And they do believe in freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

Thomas Jefferson once said "There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world." Political correctness permeates public debate, slows the people's minds into following like sheep, and retards public policy. Instead of disproving something, it is labeled as offensive, sexist or racist. I don't care about what is offensive, sexist or racist. I care about what is true. This is why I, and I think Jorb, feel completely stifled in public discourse. Jorb's post was a bit over the top, seemingly advocating feudalism, but there was a certain beauty in the way he described a common yearning for the values of the past. The politically correct witch hunt screamed "heresy" and stomped their feet threatening boycott, as they always do. Of course, Jorb never advocated violence against anyone, nor does he have the power to do so, even if he could, and yet there were posters attacking him in the most vile manner. But imagine if he were say a police officer instead of an independent game developer. He probably would have lost his job- for a thought crime, in the 21st century. I think the HH and Salem community wholeheartedly rejecting this speaks volumes...

[Claeyt]

Well now we know why Paradox dropped them.

Wonder if any other game company will let them dev for them after saying this stuff.

I've known plenty of people who've dropped the game because of Jorb's political views, some of us forget that Jorb's political rant in the thread here happened weeks before Paradox made it's decision to let them go.

I was going to quit Salem after the Above/Below update, but then I read Jorb's political views (which are awesome,) and decided to stick around.

His opinions about the world are incredibly sheltered libertarian nonsense that are borderline authoritarian. His opinions on Race, Women and the general world are outside of all modern political thought and are the reason so many people have changed their opinion of him.

Wonderful thought provoking debate with right wing morons who hide on the internet and are afraid of the Brown People.

The problem with arguing with the hard left is that they believe their ideas completely a priori, and as such are completely impervious to evidence. I feel an unnatural desire to rant about this: Western civilization was made the envy of the world partially because of values that included truth through evidence, meritocracy and liberty. Then came the cultural Marxists of the sixties and seventies who had different values: truth by consensus, equality of outcomes and relativism. Oh, and feelings. As in, "I feel that children raised in a single parent household do just as well as in a traditional household, therefore it must be true." The establishment at the time, the generation who grew up during the second war, thought "oh they're just young and idealistic, they'll grow up some day when they actually have to run around in the real world." They did get older, but their opinions didn't mature. Instead they brainwashed a new generation in their dystopian "values." Have to fight the system! Newsflash *****, you are the system.

The problem with arguing with the right is that all of their opinions are based on fear. Fear of immigrants, fear of the equality of women, fear of the future, fear of the brown people, fear of their loss of power, fear of cultural changes.

Truth by consensus was what started the American revolution. General equality of outcome through public education is why the West is rich, modern and industrialized. As for relativism, questioning the idea of "Truth" as defined by society, power and culture is what ended Slavery, Apartheid, and Colonialism. The dystopian values are yours not mine. I embrace the future and welcome change. I don't fear it, and yes, I am the system and I voted for it too.

One example: they believe women to be the intellectual equal of men in every discipline, full stop. If women are underrepresented in any professional or academic field, it must be due to discrimination or the all encompassing patriarchy. It is simply unthinkable that more men are interested (or gasp, even more capable) in engineering because of they are genetically predisposed to be so. Any evidence to support the latter will be dismissed with some minor criticisms on methodology and anecdotal examples of a handful of successful women engineers and any who disagree are summarily labeled misogynist, any data be damned. I suggest that they apply some of their heavy scrutiny to their own beliefs.

Genetic predisposition to math for males is a myth. Culturally learned disposition to math and science is a truth. I don't want to force women into the sciences if they aren't qualified. I've stated at least 3 times that I think affirmative action is a weak short cut and that we should focus on opening up science to everybody through greater access for anybody. The last 60 years have proven that if society views it as normal for women to be in math, science and engineering then more will participate and more will be good at it. It's also done the same for men in traditionally female roles. Yes it's broken down culturally defined roles of men and women. Get used to it, it's only going to grow and it's good for society as a whole.

Perhaps you think this is a simplistic example, but this nonsense does really drive public debate and policy. Case in point, Larry Summers former president of Harvard, was fired merely for presenting science. He suggested that because there is more variation amongst males (something observed in animals since Darwin,) there are more men on both extremes of the IQ bell curve, thus explaining why men are awarded the vast majority of Nobel prizes in hard sciences, and also make up the majority of the mentally retarded. In science, there is nothing controversial about his thesis, but the politically correct left had conniptions, which ended up costing Summers his job. Yes I know there was some nonsense excuse that it was something unrelated, so the left could go on pretending they believed in academic freedom. And they do believe in freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

As someone who's had to write papers on the Bell Curve of males and it's relation to genetic variation based on a single X chromosome for a master's class in school Psych, I'll say something about this simplistic argument.

Larry Summers was also being simplistic. Yes there is a difference in the bell curves between men and women at the extremes levels of intelligence as measured by the standard IQ test sets measuring the basics (Stanford-Binet). This is not solely because there is greater variation genetically in men based on their lack of a second X chromosome. Modern tests based on more conclusive research and using the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory narrowed and in some cases eliminated the differences in the two bell curves. General IQ is affected by culture and access to education. (For the record the average Female IQ is slightly higher than the average Male IQ in all heavily used IQ tests).

IQ is learned. IQ depends on what your culture is like. Using your brain a lot and having access to education will raise your testable intelligence. People have higher IQ's now as a whole, on all tests, than they did in the past. It's hard to believe but people are actually smarter now than then. Research has proven that access to education is the defining aspect to results of higher order IQ tests. Cultures that have less access for women to education have greater disparity in their Bell Curves.

This isn't why there are more hard science Nobel prize winning men. People at the extremes of high intelligence still follow the cultural paths in front of them. This leads highly intelligent men with more variant genetic intelligence possibilities into the hard sciences and business, and also leads to the U.S. now having more women in the top medical and law schools. Women now have more Master's Degree's and PHD's than men in the U.S. IQ is fluid. Women's average IQ 60 years ago was lower than men on all tests and the Bell Curves were wider. It is now higher than men on all tests and the Bell Curves have narrowed. They have more access to education.

Thomas Jefferson once said "There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world." Political correctness permeates public debate, slows the people's minds into following like sheep, and retards public policy. Instead of disproving something, it is labeled as offensive, sexist or racist. I don't care about what is offensive, sexist or racist. I care about what is true. This is why I, and I think Jorb, feel completely stifled in public discourse. Jorb's post was a bit over the top, seemingly advocating feudalism, but there was a certain beauty in the way he described a common yearning for the values of the past. The politically correct witch hunt screamed "heresy" and stomped their feet threatening boycott, as they always do. Of course, Jorb never advocated violence against anyone, nor does he have the power to do so, even if he could, and yet there were posters attacking him in the most vile manner. But imagine if he were say a police officer instead of an independent game developer. He probably would have lost his job- for a thought crime, in the 21st century. I think the HH and Salem community wholeheartedly rejecting this speaks volumes...

I don't think the HnH and Salem communities accepted his comments at all. I know plenty of people who just up and left the games because of his comments. There's a whole thread over on HnH about a guy rage quitting over his comments. I think that the people still here (including myself) are more accepting of his thoughts and that's what you see.

Yes some political correctness is over the top. A lot of it is about fighting actual physical sexism, racism and discrimination. We don't use the word '******' in public for a reason. We don't say women belong in the kitchen out in the real world for a reason. These statements are derogatory and are the verbal form of expressing your racism and sexism towards those groups. You're welcome to use them and it's not a crime anywhere in America to say them, but you will be known as a racist and a sexist and called that.

Jorb's ideas are extreme, abnormal, and wrong. Wrong ideas need to be fought and argued with other ideas. His ideas are wrong and outside of all modern political and societal thought and I'll argue why those ideas are wrong and extreme with my own ideas and defense of the modern world and society. That's how we have gotten to where we are as a society and that's how we'll get to the future of society, by disproving bad ideas about the world.

Here are two other Jefferson Quotes that relate to this argument:

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

...and for the record Jorb has walked up to the edge of advocating violence on his forums.

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. Politics is the means by which one interest dominates another interest and enforces its own will through the ultimate and undeniable adjudication of physical force. The ultimate expression of politics is War. It can be dressed in nice clothing, turned into constitutions and parliaments and prettied up to reduce the instances of violent resolution, but at the end of the day the political market always clears and settles debts in violence.

Man is the wolf of man.

You tell me that I should give up **** -- my supposed "white privilege" -- in order to be nice?

***** nice.

[wormcsa]

Exam time

His opinions about the world are incredibly sheltered libertarian nonsense that are borderline authoritarian. His opinions on Race, Women and the general world are outside of all modern political thought and are the reason so many people have changed their opinion of him.

1) Which of the following is the closest opposite to authoritarian?
A) Nazi
B) Feminist
C) Libertarian
D) Square

Wonderful thought provoking debate with right wing morons who hide on the internet and are afraid of the Brown People.

2) Claeyt is
A) Arguing/hiding on the internet
B) Bringing up "Brown People" (lol capitalization) when I didn't
C) Using the normal left wing tactic of calling those he disagrees with fearful racist morons.
D) All the above

3) Wormcsa lives in
A) A country composed of 99% "brown" people he is afraid of
B) A country composed of 99% "brown" people he isn't afraid of

The problem with arguing with the right is that all of their opinions are based on fear. Fear of immigrants, fear of the equality of women, fear of the future, fear of the brown people, fear of their loss of power, fear of cultural changes.

See question 2.

Truth by consensus was what started the American revolution. General equality of outcome through public education is why the West is rich, modern and industrialized.

4) Which of the following statements is true?
A) Truth by consensus is not what started the American revolution
B) The industrial revolution occurred long before public education
C) Societies whose highest goal was "general equality of outcome" (ie communist countries) did not become rich, modern and industrialized
D) What the *****?
E) All of the above

Genetic predisposition to math for males is a myth. Culturally learned disposition to math and science is a truth.

5) The above statement
A) Is a strawman, because it is intended to refute an argument which mentioned engineering, by referencing conflicting findings about women and math
B) Includes two liberal theories that are, as usual, stated as fact
C) Implies inferiority of men, since it is scientifically demonstrably that men are more prone to violence. Thus woman is man's equal in all his virtues, but his superior in at least this respect
D) All of the above

As someone who's had to write papers on the Bell Curve of males and it's relation to genetic variation based on a single X chromosome for a master's class in school Psych, I'll say something about this simplistic argument.
Larry Summers was also being simplistic.

6) Claeyt
A) Fancies himself an expert on everything
B) Thinks that my paragraph summary should have the detail of a Master's dissertation
C) Thinks Larry Summers is "simplistic"
D) All of the above

Yes there is a difference in the bell curves between men and women at the extremes levels of intelligence as measured by the standard IQ test sets measuring the basics (Stanford-Binet). This is not solely because there is greater variation genetically in men based on their lack of a second X chromosome.

Good we agree that the evidence of greater genetic variation amongst males is scientifically demonstrable over thousands of studies. I was under the impression that the reason for this was a bit of a mystery, most often explained by the fact that taking a "genetic gamble" with male offspring is a better gamble than with female offspring. This is because in evolution an outstanding male has the possibly to spread his genes amongst hundreds of females whereas an outstanding female is unlikely to far outperform an average female genetically. Claeyt knows, however, that it is a fact that it is due to lacking a second X chromosome.

Modern tests based on more conclusive research and using the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory narrowed and in some cases eliminated the differences in the two bell curves.

Ok, I take back that we can agree on scientifically demonstrable fact.

7) A test is conclusive if
A) It is designed to and then agrees with preconceived liberal opinions
B) It is replicated in independent follow up studies

General IQ is affected by culture and access to education. (For the record the average Female IQ is slightly higher than the average Male IQ in all heavily used IQ tests).
IQ is learned. IQ depends on what your culture is like. Using your brain a lot and having access to education will raise your testable intelligence.

An interesting theory from the Enlightenment, that unfortunately does not stand the test of time. It could be true, and we would like it to be true, but it just so happens that it is not supported by scientific evidence.

8) Adopted children's IQ is only correlated to
A) Their adopted parents' IQs
B) The social status of the adopted parents
C) How hard they work in school
D) Their biological parents' IQs

9) (For the record the average Female IQ is slightly higher than the average Male IQ in all heavily used IQ tests)
A) Is a false statement
B) Uses ridiculous capitalization
C) Is a shameless attempt to copulate through Claeyt's normal tactic of serial brown nosing
D) Could have benefited by reading some basic research first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_diffe ... chology#IQ One key being "As testing methodology was revised, efforts were made to equalize gender performance."
E) All of the above

Jorb's ideas are extreme, abnormal, and wrong. Wrong ideas need to be fought and argued with other ideas. His ideas are wrong and outside of all modern political and societal thought and I'll argue why those ideas are wrong and extreme with my own ideas and defense of the modern world and society. That's how we have gotten to where we are as a society and that's how we'll get to the future of society, by disproving bad ideas about the world.

In all seriousness, Claeyt has engaged Jorb's ideas in a halfway civil manner. I don't think I need to requote some of the other posters though, which is typical of the politically correct witch hunt. Fortunately, they do not have the same domineering effect here as they do elsewhere.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."

The above quote does not support your position, and the other quote you used was not meant by Jefferson to apply to your context. Jefferson clearly did not believe in equality of outcomes, and to imply he did speaks to the dishonesty of your side. I suggest you use Rousseau if you want an intellectual who probably would have been on your side. Furthermore, your opinions are those of the establishment, even republicans do not dare disagree with many of its tenants. Jorb and my opinions are those of dissidents. Yes, dissidents are not always warm cozy left wingers.

...and for the record Jorb has walked up to the edge of advocating violence on his forums.

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. Politics is the means by which one interest dominates another interest and enforces its own will through the ultimate and undeniable adjudication of physical force. The ultimate expression of politics is War. It can be dressed in nice clothing, turned into constitutions and parliaments and prettied up to reduce the instances of violent resolution, but at the end of the day the political market always clears and settles debts in violence.

Man is the wolf of man.

You tell me that I should give up **** -- my supposed "white privilege" -- in order to be nice?

***** nice.

[/quote]

Nowhere in the above statement is violence advocated. It is merely how Jorb observes the world to work. But that is how the hard left works. They confuse "is" with "should." They want something to be a certain way, so they simply say it is. So when Jorb says "is" they project their own thought process that it really means "should." This is really a basic difference between the hard left and the so called right.

If anyone is interested, there's a good Norwegian program called "brainwash" on the topic of leftwing political correctness that is unsupported by evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZoRihmI1Ug

[Thor]

Really interesting document you got there.
Funny when someone (Norwegian researchers) has his/her mind set up with some ideology so strongly, and when presented with evidence or other ideology, can't even justify their view. After hearing about people making actual studies for the case, while sitting on behind their desks making hypotheses and theories how things COULD work, still rest their case. I don't think conducted research in the video is oppressing anyone's rights in any way, so why were those Norwegian researchers so butthurt?
Because they were proved wrong?

[jwhitehorn]

I'm happy to announce Binks has officially destroyed the OP on this thread and he is never posting outside CoH and HoB again. Does that mean we can get a mod to lock this PoS thread now?

Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe

[Thor]

Good riddance then.

[colesie]

I'm happy to announce Binks has officially destroyed the OP on this thread and he is never posting outside CoH and HoB again. Does that mean we can get a mod to lock this PoS thread now?

Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe

Leaving open at the request of the OP incase he returns for now

[Claeyt]

1) Which of the following is the closest opposite to authoritarian?
A) Nazi
B) Feminist
C) Libertarian
D) Square

None of the above as to pertaining to Jorb's ideas. That's what was so perplexing to me. He was spouting both Libertarian ideals and also calling for a return to "The Old Order" of Church and King, both of which are pretty Authoritarian.

2) Claeyt is
A) Arguing/hiding on the internet
B) Bringing up "Brown People" (lol capitalization) when I didn't
C) Using the normal left wing tactic of calling those he disagrees with fearful racist morons.
D) All the above

Again, none of he above. Racism and anti-immigrant ideologies have definitely been part of this thread before you got here.

3) Wormcsa lives in
A) A country composed of 99% "brown" people he is afraid of
B) A country composed of 99% "brown" people he isn't afraid of

I'm going to say A), with the caveat that you also wouldn't want any of them to marry your daughter.

4) Which of the following statements is true?
A) Truth by consensus is not what started the American revolution
B) The industrial revolution occurred long before public education
C) Societies whose highest goal was "general equality of outcome" (ie communist countries) did not become rich, modern and industrialized
D) What the *****?
E) All of the above

In America the meat of the Industrialization of the country happened after we started having public schools. Boston had a full elementary system and and a public High School by 1821. Every state had Public Educational systems by the 1870's and sll the major Land Grant Colleges started in the 1840's through the 1870's. You have to remember that America went through the Industrial Revolution much later than Europe and was mostly agrarian until after the Civil War.
The Declaration of Independence was written and approved by Consensus.
General equality of outcome is not communist, it's also included in all government programs of all Social-Democracies.

5) The above statement
A) Is a strawman, because it is intended to refute an argument which mentioned engineering, by referencing conflicting findings about women and math
B) Includes two liberal theories that are, as usual, stated as fact
C) Implies inferiority of men, since it is scientifically demonstrably that men are more prone to violence. Thus woman is man's equal in all his virtues, but his superior in at least this respect
D) All of the above

Violence is also learned culturally and is not genetic, unless the person is also diagnosed with an actual neurological disability which in rare cases can be passed on genetically. There are many neurological disabilities that make you more prone to violence (ex. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) that are not passed on genetically.
Both theories are proven.

As someone who's had to write papers on the Bell Curve of males and it's relation to genetic variation based on a single X chromosome for a master's class in school Psych, I'll say something about this simplistic argument.
Larry Summers was also being simplistic.

6) Claeyt
A) Fancies himself an expert on everything
B) Thinks that my paragraph summary should have the detail of a Master's dissertation
C) Thinks Larry Summers is "simplistic"
D) All of the above

None of the above. I've state here and on other forums that I know nothing, and am of average intelligence. My only goal in life is to learn more and I always go into an argument thinking that I am not as smart as the other person. Saying that, it's also important to challenge wrong ideas.

Larry Summers is not simplistic but his comments and argument explaining women in science were, and for that he apologized.

Your arguments and paragraph about the Bell Curves of men and Women have been the subject of thousands of Master's Dissertations, but not mine. I did my first one on 'Athenian Democracy: from Solon to Cleisthenes and the power of the demes through locational mineral wealth', and my second on 'Rural Education of Children with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities.' So yeah, liberal slant is a given.

Yes there is a difference in the bell curves between men and women at the extremes levels of intelligence as measured by the standard IQ test sets measuring the basics (Stanford-Binet). This is not solely because there is greater variation genetically in men based on their lack of a second X chromosome.

Good we agree that the evidence of greater genetic variation amongst males is scientifically demonstrable over thousands of studies. I was under the impression that the reason for this was a bit of a mystery, most often explained by the fact that taking a "genetic gamble" with male offspring is a better gamble than with female offspring. This is because in evolution an outstanding male has the possibly to spread his genes amongst hundreds of females whereas an outstanding female is unlikely to far outperform an average female genetically. Claeyt knows, however, that it is a fact that it is due to lacking a second X chromosome.

Modern tests based on more conclusive research and using the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory narrowed and in some cases eliminated the differences in the two bell curves.

Ok, I take back that we can agree on scientifically demonstrable fact.

7) A test is conclusive if
A) It is designed to and then agrees with preconceived liberal opinions
B) It is replicated in independent follow up studies

Greater genetic variation does not equal intelligence or a propensity for any genius in math or science. It means the potential for abnormal brain chemistry and design and/or mental retardation is greater. This can mean a lot of things, but your vastly oversimplifying it just like Summers did. Cultural aspects of promoting intelligence growth through education and culturally choosing your field of study based on sex are much more important to Bell Curve disparity and Nobel Prize awards.

All IQ tests are different and all are based on different theories of what Intelligence is. The Stanford-Binet which is what most Bell Curve advocates use for their argument is not the most conclusive test, it is the most basic test.

General IQ is affected by culture and access to education. (For the record the average Female IQ is slightly higher than the average Male IQ in all heavily used IQ tests).
IQ is learned. IQ depends on what your culture is like. Using your brain a lot and having access to education will raise your testable intelligence.

An interesting theory from the Enlightenment, that unfortunately does not stand the test of time. It could be true, and we would like it to be true, but it just so happens that it is not supported by scientific evidence.

8) Adopted children's IQ is only correlated to
A) Their adopted parents' IQs
B) The social status of the adopted parents
C) How hard they work in school
D) Their biological parents' IQs

9) (For the record the average Female IQ is slightly higher than the average Male IQ in all heavily used IQ tests)
A) Is a false statement
B) Uses ridiculous capitalization
C) Is a shameless attempt to copulate through Claeyt's normal tactic of serial brown nosing
D) Could have benefited by reading some basic research first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_diffe ... chology#IQ One key being "As testing methodology was revised, efforts were made to equalize gender performance."
E) All of the above

IQ studies of twins, and IQ growth studies in abused and neglected children after their environment changes prove that environment and culture affect overall IQ.

[jorb]

The "modern world" that you are arguing in defense of, Claeyt, is an imperial cleptocracy. Your precious "democracy" is running a surveillance program that makes the Stasi look like amateurs, hunting dissidents to the ends of the earth, projecting imperial military might over every corner of the globe (contradiction intended) while lining the pockets of industry, the big banks and corporate interests to the tune of trillions, and debt-financing political bread and circuses for the numb and impotent majority left over. You are a shill for Empire, Power and Goldman Sachs, and I grow quite weary of your intellectually dishonest accusations of "racism" (whatever you imagine the term to mean), cowardice and authoritarian disposition. If it were not for the fact that your kind of Jacobin ilk insisted on stealing 70% of my disposable income for these grand purposes of empire, welfare and fornication, I would not spend one minute of my time worrying about what you do with your life.



God save the King.