No, I haven’t conceded that, LEGO.

<<Even AJ concedes that [prison populations have generally lower IQs].>>

For “concede” implies that I had once denied it, and I have never denied that.

You’re all about empty rhetoric: “Now you are saying [this]”, “Now you are saying [that]”, when I had never said anything different. It’s all about effect over substance with you when you’re on the back foot.

Questions getting too difficult?

No problem, just talk narcissistically about those who may be reading this, and how they are all supporting you and laughing at me when you are the only one being evasive and committing multiple fallacies. Argumentum ad populum. I would expect that, anyway, on a forum that was overrun by Rightistismists. What matters is what the evidence says, not what a bunch of uneducated oldies think.

Rightistismist: because you can make an ideology sound three times as crazy if you add two -ists and an -ism.

Speaking of difficult questions, your post to Rodney still avoids addressing the problems with your racial theories which I’ve pointed to.

<<100 years of intelligence testing has conclusively proven that incarcerated prisoners generally have below average intelligence ... Black prisoners are very disproportionately represented in incarceration rates. 1+1 equals 2.>>

Except that you’re still forgetting these two all-important points:

“Firstly, you haven’t controlled for environmental factors, so you can’t know to what degree genetics plays a role (if any at all) on a macro level. Secondly, your scientifically debunked 19th century racial theories don’t address the problem of which came first: low intelligence or disadvantage.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330972)

As for East-Asian IQs, how have you controlled for their culture of emphasis on academic achievement?

Finally, as someone who incorrectly believes that common sense trumps evidence,

“… when "peer reviewed scientific evidence" contravenes plain common sense, a thinking person becomes sceptical … I think I will go with common sense when it comes to the death penalty …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17144&page=0)

you’ve remained mighty quite on Rodney’s point about intelligence and common sense not always going hand in hand. How does the disconnect there sit with your theories?

Hi AJ, LEGO & Rodney,

Just to try to steer this vehicle back vaguely towards the topic, environmental and - dare I say it ? - cultural factors may play a huge part in what appear to be differences in intelligence: very few Indigenous people that I know, including graduates, read much, even newspapers, etc., only important-looking letters and bills.

Up on the settlement where we lived, people would watch TV all day (even when it was 'snowing') until the News, then go and do something more useful. A friend used to see me reading the paper and ask, "Anything there ? Same old, same old ?" He used to get pissed off when I said, "Oh yeah, there's always something different." Which, of course, there is.

The upshot is that that lack of curiosity about, or antipathy towards, the world outside of themselves, is bound to have effects on any sense of general knowledge: as if the outside world just didn't, or shouldn't, matter. [On the other hand, a geological friend heard a couple of Aboriginal work-mates talking about the possible dangers of re-starting the Hadron Collider].

Lack of curiosity, self-absorption, irritation with any need to know the 'other', may dampen any performance on IQ tests, and it may give the impression that people are not too bright. In that way, their very strong sense of agency works against them. Just saying.

Rodney,

I'm a bit uneasy about some things you suggest: let's remember that Aboriginal people are, on the whole, much freer agents than you may think: they have never been puppets, sheep or lacking in a sense of agency. So, perhaps inadvertently, your approach can come across and condescending, a sort of generous gesture of power to the down-trodden, because you can. I suggest that you get hold of Pascal Bruckner's 'Tyrannie de la Penitence' (2006) and find holes in his argument if you can. Brilliant. The same with BHL and Houllebecq. I think Bruckner has a much more recent book that advances his ideas further.

Regards,

Joe

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

« Your claim that scientists can not find a link between race and crime, … when Dr Frederick Goodwin, publically declared a link between race and crime, he was sacked … when Nobel Laureate Francis Crick … said that Africans had low intelligence, he was sacked … When the Human Genome Project team tried to begin a project called "Genetic factors in Crime" … the US Congress to withhold funds and shut it down »
.

I did not write anything on that subject, LEGO. Your imagination is playing games with you once again. I’m sorry to have to say this but your mind seems to derail occasionally. Could you please try to get it back on track? You are imagining a discussion we have never had together.

It’s nothing serious and I am happy to continue discussing with you, but it’s not possible if you keep wandering off the subject like that.

Apparently, the problem is not all that uncommon :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment_(thought_disorder)

.

.

Sorry, the link only seems to work when you copy it and paste it into your browser search bar. Here it is again :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment_(thought_disorder)

.

.

Dear Joe,

.

I am pleased to see that we are on the same wavelength so far as “cultural factors playing a huge part in what appear to be differences in intelligence” is concerned.

Your point on what could, perhaps, be qualified as “the historical guilt complex” in citing Pascal Bruckner's 'Tyrannie de la Penitence', is well taken.

Bruckner is a well-known figure of the French intelligentsia. His father was a violent anti-Semite, pro-Nazi who regularly brutalised his wife and son, which probably explains why the son, Pascal, became an extreme left-wing activist before swinging back, later in life, to a more politically moderate centre-right position. He is now a member of one of France’s most elite think tanks, Le Siècle (The Century) whose members include some of France’s top political leaders, capitalists, business leaders, media magnates, etc. – not exactly left-wing!

I have not read the book you mention, “Tyrannie de la Penitence” (Tyranny of Guilt), but I have read a brief summary of it as well as the odd article – enough to know what you mean. It seems to be a counter reaction to the left-wing ideology of his youth.

My focus is not on the “tyranny of guilt” (for past injustices) but on how to re-instore the self-esteem, dignity and well-being of our present-day Aboriginal compatriots. To achieve this, it is first of all necessary to understand the prime cause of their disarray. It is then relatively simple to devise the most appropriate solution to repair, restore and reconcile. I see this as a positive, responsible attitude.

I see as totally unconscious those who say “That’s history. It’s their problem, not ours. I don’t give a damn”. And I see as foolhardy and irresponsible those who content themselves in declaring “These people live off tax payers’ money. We waste billions on them. They squander it on booze and drugs, beat their women, abuse their kids and end up in jail”.

That, to me, is the quintessence of immobility, irresponsibility, cupidity and stupidity. We should not stop spending but spend more effectively.

.

To AJ

You may notice that I am having a polite and civilised debate with Rodney Crisp. That is because Rodney is intelligent, debates in good faith, and he enjoys testing his attitudes against mine.

Since you persist in debating dishonestly in order to derail the debate, there is no point in trying to debate directly with you. So I have switched tactics and now put my premises to the audience who can judge for themselves who is trying to debate, and who is just trying to stifle debate.

I have said all along that human behaviour is a result of nature and nurture. And I have given five examples that clearly display that genetics is a crucial component in animal and human behaviour. Put simply, nature provides the underlying personality, and nurture builds on that. These are.

1. That sub species of animals exist that are genetically much more violent than other sub species within the species.

2. That 95% of incarcerated criminals are males.

3. That the AIC agrees that genetics and crime are linked.

4. That IQ testing has revealed that incarcerated criminals generally have low intelligence, and intelligence is heritable.

5. That even babies have personalities.

If you wish submit an argument supporting your implication that genetics plays little or no part in human behaviour, go right ahead. But you won't, because you know my position makes perfect sense and you can't think of anything credible to refute it. Your demand for me to explain how environmental factors are more important than genetics, is to ask me to do your job and argue against my own stated position. Like hell I will, AJ.

If low intelligence is a product of poverty, and not inherited genetics, can you please explain how South Korea, a seriously poverty stricken Asian country 70 years ago, is now the fourth largest economy in the world? And how every single black country, from Africa, to the Caribbean, to Oceania, despite endless UN aid for decades, are in a far worse states today than when they were run by white colonial administrations?