|
Post by Farmduck on May 13, 2018 20:28:45 GMT 10
This question was on another site: Why is violence higher in black communities? If we look at homicide rates alone, this isn’t quite true. List of countries by intentional homicide rate gives us some interesting rankings but 17 of the top 20 countries aren’t African and some have very small black populations, like El Salvador. Now these rates are skewed by the inclusion of some very small countries where even 1 murder per year will get them in the top 20. Even if we strip out the countries with populations under 2 million, we still find Bolivia and Mexico much higher than the majority of African countries. I saw a Jordan Peterson clip where he disputed the “crime = poverty” doctrine and claimed that the true relationship was “crime = wealth inequality.” The rankings on wealth inequality are questionable as some figures are very old. List of countries by income equality We also see a lot of outliers which probably should be culled and some questions like, if the USA is so bad at income equality, why is its homicide rate so low? (which it is, by international standards. Even more so, for the purpose of this question, since analysis of homicide rates in the USA should split the 52% committed by 13% of the USA from the 48% committed by the other 280 million people.) I’ve seen White Identitarians do some population genetics attempting to establish some hereditary correlations with violence but even then they could only claim a genetic factor of 0.5 (or 50% hereditary.) Now the clear problem with this would be: how do you explain that homicide rates in Malawi, Sierra Leone and Ghana, all very black, are around the same as Armenia, Romania and Montenegro, all very white? Or, since all these countries would be considered poor, why are their rates so low? (only marginally higher than Belgium and Canada.) In short, poverty alone does not explain violence, nor does race.
|
|
digger
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by digger on Apr 7, 2019 16:06:36 GMT 10
I haven't read the Jared Diamond book but I recall reading excerpts from it when it was released. One of the explanations for the Flynn Effect - the rising global IQ scores - is that, since 1900, long-term malnutrition has largely been wiped out. Even when there's a big drought in Ethiopia or Chad we can deliver food to those places very quickly now, partly because of improved transport and partly because the major food-exporting nations have surpluses available. These recurring food shortages must have had a strong effect on childhood development including brain development. I have seen firsthand a simple example of this. Many Greek people migrated here just after WWII and their children were born and raised in Australia. The difference in size between the two generations was often quite stunning - 5'2" parents with 6'2" children. The simplest explanation was the much better and uninterrupted diet of that Australian-born generation. The most outstanding example of the role played by diet in intelligence is the incidence of cretinism among Tibetans, caused by an iodine deficiency in their diet. Because they live on a high plateau and iodine is readily soluble their farming environment had lost most of its iodine, leached away over a million years. Even their salt came from dried lake beds which had already lost their iodine. The saddest thing was that all those cases of people with IQs around 60 could have been avoided with less than $1 of iodine per year. Similar to malnutrition, disease must have played a role in childhood development and thus brain development. The regular interruption to growth would have an effect on any biological function. Again, the huge effots in Infant Mortality over the last 40 years and their contribution to child health overall would contribute to the Flynn Effect. Diamond's germs theory doesn't contribute much to the Race and IQ debate regarding Africans though. While imported diseases were devastating in Australia and North and Central America, most of the chronic or regularly-recurring diseases in Africa were already there. The "dirty water" diseases like cholera and typhoid are the ones which debilitate people for a couple of weeks every few months and, because of the vomiting and diahrroea, prevent people from extracting any nutrients from the food they do eat. I think the choice of crops is important but, in terms of IQ and Race, it gives some conflicting evidence. I'm not sure what Africans used as their staple diets before maize was introduced but maize was, in many ways, the worst option. Maize, on average, contains about 8% protein whereas the highest-grade Australian Durum wheat can be 15-16% protein. Obviously wheat doesn't do well in the tropics but many legumes are grown in tropical areas. Legume crops like chick peas and lentils can have protein rates of 18-20% and they are grown right across Africa from Senegal to Ethiopia and down to some of the semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe and South Africa. If you want to look into this further here is a paper which outlines the distribution of major crops around the World. There is a flaw in this "diet = IQ" idea though. Rice is also only about 8% protein and yet we find high IQs among Japanese people. Presumably they were topping up their protein intake with something else - fish, soy beans? The situation in China, in terms of "diet = IQ" is slightly different. Northern Chinese eat wheat, Southern Chinese eat rice. The Northerners have always controlled every Chinese dynasty and it might be a reasonable assumption that the high IQ scores for Chinese people are skewed by the high performance of Northerners. There may be a similar distinction among Indians where different ethnic groups and crops dominate the South as opposed to the drier North. I chuckled at your chinese comments - well your english comments about china would be more accurate - I lived among them for three years - HK so southern chinese [cantonese] - if I'd told them that their northern taller bothers were more intelligent they would have killed me!!
|
|
digger
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by digger on Apr 7, 2019 18:43:37 GMT 10
IQ tests - meritocracy tools of the west - they only truly measure whiteness skills - unless they have been specifically designed for other races! try this one for a better fit! www.ncsehe.edu.au/q-test-language-free-culture-fair-assessment/highly studied and research and applied first used some years ago in PNG _ currently suitable and effective for Indigenous Australians, CALD, Migrants and dyslexic persons
|
|
|
Post by Farmduck on Apr 8, 2019 1:33:07 GMT 10
IQ tests - meritocracy tools of the west - they only truly measure whiteness skills - unless they have been specifically designed for other races! try this one for a better fit! www.ncsehe.edu.au/q-test-language-free-culture-fair-assessment/highly studied and research and applied first used some years ago in PNG _ currently suitable and effective for Indigenous Australians, CALD, Migrants and dyslexic persons I couldn't find any research work done on the Q Test. If you have a link to any studies, can you post it here? From the slideshow it doesn't seem too different from the basic Raven's Progressive Matrices type of test which is a component of all standard IQ and aptitude tests. The standard modern IQ test has different sets of questions for different mental skills and scores can be extracted for each. We already have the capacity to remove the literacy results from IQ tests. So what is this whiteness that IQ tests measure? More importantly, why are Asians so much better at whiteness than most Europeans? By most global rankings, the countries with the 5 highest-ranking IQ results are all Asian. Why would countries like Lithuania and Croatia, two of the whitest countries on Earth, be so bad at whiteness? Since tests like IQ and SAT (in the USA) are part of entrance requirements into the top Universities, why would meritocracy be a problem? What is the point of someone with an IQ of 100 getting into a Physics course at MIT? They have minimal chance of graduating. In fact they'd barely pass Physics at the top level of NSW HSC, if at all. If you subscribe to James Flynn's theory of IQ tests - basically that they measure an individual's ability to cope with the modern World or exposure to the modern World - then what is wrong with that? Most IQ tests are conducted in relation to entry into some type of study or occupation. What is the point of bringing people in who don't understand the basic concepts? The main thing testers are looking for is the higher-level abstract conceptual thinking. 200 years ago, most people learnt their life and work skills by direct observation of others people employing those skills. You cannot compare that level of intelligence with the invention of the light bulb or first airplane.
|
|
digger
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by digger on Apr 8, 2019 9:10:21 GMT 10
So what is this whiteness that IQ tests measure? More importantly, why are Asians so much better at whiteness than most Europeans? By most global rankings, the countries with the 5 highest-ranking IQ results are all Asian. Why would countries like Lithuania and Croatia, two of the whitest countries on Earth, be so bad at whiteness?
because the asians 'were trained' by their british empire conquestors! - since the brits moved out of HK were I lived a while and by the time I got there - the standards were falling and that wasn't my statement it was my chinese compariots who spoke excellent english??
If you email the lk address on the link I gave you and asked for research papers they will point you in the right direction.
IQ test measure what whitel imperialist psycho designed them for - whites only- go and walk around in the sahara desert with your IQ and see how long you can survive - don't be fooled by the 'white psycho I have worked with them all my working life and they subscribed to 'white only' tests - those tests designed and used by white psycho - need I continue - I conducted the Q test myself for several years - yes the applicants needed to improve their spoken english and maths calculations but they knew how to survive in the bush whereas we couldn't without a gun!
|
|
digger
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by digger on Apr 8, 2019 9:24:41 GMT 10
White: Essays on Race and Culture by Richard Dyer
|
|
|
Post by Farmduck on Apr 8, 2019 16:34:44 GMT 10
I sent an inquiry via the Contact page at Thomas's current occupation.
|
|
digger
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by digger on Apr 8, 2019 19:11:25 GMT 10
strangely enough when I was using it and also using the local uni at the same time it never entered my head to look at any research papers associated with the tool and it's development. As I may have mentioned it was initially designed for use in mining companies if I remember as many the the PNG's were illiterate but they assumed or knew they were good learners and workers - so they wanted to separate the 'good' from the 'bad' [bad analogue I know].
In the text 'working with Indigenous Australians: a handbook for psychologists, by Pat Dudgeon with Darren Garvey and Harry Pickett , Neil Drew has a chapter "Psychological testing with Indigenous people in Australia, in which he looks at among other things Culturally Appropriate tests and in his reference page lists a number of significant psychologists and their papers on multicultural assessing. In his chapter he cites Kearins [1983, 1988 &1989] has a critical view of the use of psychological tests with non- Western groups.
With particular reference to tests of cognitive ability she argued that a lack of predictive validity is likely to lead to results which do not reflect the abilities of those being tested. She has argued that IQ tests assess 'knowledge of a particular kind' rather than intelligence per se .....................In this case poor test performance cannot be attributed to low intelligence. It may be more appropriately attributed to a lack of familiarity with the test material..............proposed that just as assessment of Western groups is based on familiar material, , assessment of non- Western groups should be based on the use of material familiar to that group. ...............
|
|
|
Post by Farmduck on Apr 8, 2019 21:24:43 GMT 10
So what is this whiteness that IQ tests measure? More importantly, why are Asians so much better at whiteness than most Europeans? By most global rankings, the countries with the 5 highest-ranking IQ results are all Asian. Why would countries like Lithuania and Croatia, two of the whitest countries on Earth, be so bad at whiteness? because the asians 'were trained' by their british empire conquestors! - since the brits moved out of HK were I lived a while and by the time I got there - the standards were falling and that wasn't my statement it was my chinese compariots who spoke excellent english?? If you email the lk address on the link I gave you and asked for research papers they will point you in the right direction. IQ test measure what whitel imperialist psycho designed them for - whites only- go and walk around in the sahara desert with your IQ and see how long you can survive - don't be fooled by the 'white psycho I have worked with them all my working life and they subscribed to 'white only' tests - those tests designed and used by white psycho - need I continue - I conducted the Q test myself for several years - yes the applicants needed to improve their spoken english and maths calculations but they knew how to survive in the bush whereas we couldn't without a gun! When was Japan a British colony? Or Korea? Or China? Yes I know about HK but that's less than 1% of China. Surviving in deserts has nothing to do with intelligence. It is a matter of learning survival skills by watching other people perform those skills. If I took an Aboriginal who was born and raised in suburban Sydney and dumped them in the middle of the desert they would die just as fast as I would. How do you think Europeans ever survived to the point where they could become colonial powers? They also started as hunter-gatherers and developed. The reason we don't tailor IQ tests for hunter-gatherer societies is because developed countries don't need to produce hunter-gatherers anymore. They need people capable of understanding and organising complex systems and capable of the conceptual thinking needed for the next generation technologies. Darren Thomas is no longer involved with the Q Test. He has sold/given it to a Peter Davidson who is the Director and Principal Psychologist at Value Edge. valuedge.com.au/ They are management consultants based in Melbourne. I have found a presentation he gave involving a test of run with Indigenous prisoners in Roebourne prison in 2009. I haven't read it all yet but it's only 34 pages. It refers to future use of Q Tests at Decca Station and Millstream. Were you involved in those? Actually I have read the whole thing now. It was just a fluffed-up version of the original slideshow. It doesn't give any results. I'll send him another email and see what else he has.
|
|
digger
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by digger on Apr 9, 2019 2:00:22 GMT 10
[Decca Station and Millstream. Were you involved in those?]
NO
American??
|
|
digger
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by digger on Apr 9, 2019 2:45:44 GMT 10
[According to some researchers, the “cultural specificity” of intelligence makes IQ tests biased towards the environments in which they were developed – namely white, Western society. This makes them potentially problematic in culturally diverse settings.] IQ tests and testing remains a controversial subject among academics in all fields not less so psychology this article covers these controversies well imo: theconversation.com/the-iq-test-wars-why-screening-for-intelligence-is-still-so-controversial-81428ps: another issue with the site - I am now posting a quick reply and do not have the facilities as on a normal thread ie: quote insertion ; http: insertion ; text changes etc oh well it worked OK for the http insertion!
|
|
|
Post by Farmduck on May 9, 2019 17:31:58 GMT 10
I just sat through the latest Alternative Hypothesis video. At 2 hours and 46 minutes, it took three sittings. He "reviews" Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Societies." It's probably more accurate to say he shreds it. If you're not familiar with Diamond's work, he is a popular writer of sciencey-type books on the development of humans, society and differences between the developed world and the former colonies.
In a nutshell, Diamond claims that Europeans developed faster than Africans (and other ethnic groups) because of a lucky combination of edible wild plants and animals which could be adapted for agriculture and herding. This could be called Environmental Determinism, the notion that people are purely the product of their environments and not their genes.
In the video, Ryan Faulk is particularly critical of Diamond's lack of references. The book contains many broad claims which aren't substantiated by any research. One example Faulk gives (in great detail) relates to the wild grain crops available in different parts of the World. Diamond had done no research on the relative calific values of these crops and, seemingly, limited understanding of the best climates for many of them.
|
|