cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:07 pm
Like the politically incorrect thesis by that Harvard professor who claimed that black's intellectual capacity was far below those of whites. What amazes me more is the fact that that professor is teaching anything at Harvard.
0 Replies
 
A-glow
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:16 pm
The whole debate (ie: male and/or vs female)

as amusing as men wearing drag,

or movies about a man being pregnant.

(And as SAD as the 51 year old gramma lying in a hospital in Ga. injured because she was the sole police guard of a LINEBACKER sized man half her age, as she removed his handcuffs, with a gun hanging on her side.)

(OH SIGH)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:23 pm
I will presume C.I. will not be posting a link to support the accusations he just made against some Harvard professor.

Lawrence Summers, however, in addition to his most politically incorrect observation that men vastly outnumbered women in advanced math and hard sciences fields and wondering why that was--it is apparently incorrect to say it whether or not it is true--

.....but Summers also came under fire for suggesting that, based on current applications, meeting demands for more gender and racial diversity/parity at Harvard would require Harvard to lower thier standards and expectations for Harvard faculty. What he was very clearly saying is there were not enough qualified applicants who were female and/or people of color in order to achieve the demanded diversity.

This is a far cry from saying any group is less intelligent than any other.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:30 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
This theory of course was considered so politically incorrect by the PC police that Jimmy was run off television, out of sports, and was never heard from again.

Jimmy the Greek's theory wasn't politically incorrect, it was logically and scientifically incorrect. Despite years of relying on statistics, it seems that Jimmy was blissfully unaware of the basic statistical concept of "regression to the mean," which would have explained why, even if selective breeding had been consistently practiced with slaves (a dubious proposition in itself), the effects of that breeding would have been dissipated through successive generations.

Foxfyre wrote:
The thing is, Jimmy may very well have been right....

You're fooling yourself. He wasn't even a very good gambler.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:42 pm
Well according to my history books, selective breeding was common among many slaveholders. Whether this is the primary reason for the prominance of black people excelling in athletics is no doubt debatable, but I doubt it can be completely ruled out either. Beautiful people tend to seek out other beautiful people as mates and thus all races do a form of their own selective breeding given opportunity to do so. Without some pretty intense exploration into the theory however, it is difficult to have an absolute opinion. Maybe such a study exists somewhere but I haven't seen one.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:45 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well according to my history books, selective breeding was common among many slaveholders. Whether this is the primary reason for the prominance of black people excelling in athletics is no doubt debatable, but I doubt it can be completely ruled out either. Beautiful people tend to seek out other beautiful people as mates and thus all races do a form of their own selective breeding given opportunity to do so. Without some pretty intense exploration into the theory however, it is difficult to have an absolute opinion. Maybe such a study exists somewhere but I haven't seen one.

It seems to me that you could just compare black American athletes to black African athletes at the olympics and have a pretty conclusive answer, even though you could calculate the latter in many ways.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:50 pm
That criteria would be too narrow to draw a conclusion I think Brandon. There are too many other factors involved; i.e. opportunity, financing, training facilities, nutrition, medical care, etc. etc. etc. and too many disparities between opportunities for whole black populations in the USA compared to most African countries. 'm not sure how a comprehensive study could even be structured, but it sure would be interesting.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:51 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, there are top notch athletes from all countries. But if it were truly a genetic predisposition toward athletic ability one might expect blacks to be over-represented in the circle of olympic champions.


You have to factor in the intentional crossbreeding of slaves to try to get super-slaves.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:57 pm
On the basis of these data, the authors presented evidence that those with low intelligence are more likely to be on welfare, to be involved in crime, to come from broken homes, to drop out of school, and to exhibit other forms of social pathology. And while they did not take an explicit stand on the well-known data showing higher IQs among whites than among blacks, they left the clear impression that these differences were difficult to change and, therefore, probably were a product of genetic factors."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:03 pm
Your link goes to the Microsoft Small Business Center, C.I. I would have to see the whole article as well as the study to draw the conclusion you hae drawn.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:05 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
On the basis of these data, the authors presented evidence that those with low intelligence are more likely to be on welfare, to be involved in crime, to come from broken homes, to drop out of school, and to exhibit other forms of social pathology. And while they did not take an explicit stand on the well-known data showing higher IQs among whites than among blacks, they left the clear impression that these differences were difficult to change and, therefore, probably were a product of genetic factors."


Okay, you can C & P. So, you going to go on and bite off the whole nine about whites genetic superiority? Or you just giving us some free food for thought?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:36 pm
snood, You must've missed my previous post.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:43 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well according to my history books, selective breeding was common among many slaveholders.

I defy you to quote from one reputable history book that makes this claim.

Foxfyre wrote:
Whether this is the primary reason for the prominance of black people excelling in athletics is no doubt debatable, but I doubt it can be completely ruled out either. Beautiful people tend to seek out other beautiful people as mates and thus all races do a form of their own selective breeding given opportunity to do so.

Rubbish.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:43 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Well according to my history books, selective breeding was common among many slaveholders.

I defy you to quote from one reputable history book that makes this claim.

You're not going to find history books that detail the miscegenation by rape that occured either, but that don't mean it didn't happen.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:47 pm
More recent history tells us that humans have a blind spot to specific facts such as the holocaust. Some still claim it never happened. There's not much we can do with people like that; they have a fixed agenda, and it's not about seeking the truth.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:47 pm
Perhaps so. I've been out of history class too long to remember titles and the books themselves have long been sold. So I'll have to stop short of being able to provide proof of what I have been taught.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:48 pm
Quote, "Perhaps so. I've been out of history class too long to remember titles and the books themselves have long been sold. So I'll have to stop short of being able to provide proof of what I have been taught." I'm gonna start using this line from now on; that way, I don't need to support anything I say. Wink
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:52 pm
You mostly don't do that now C.I.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:56 pm
Fox, Sorry, but I hardly ever take your word for anything these days. Even about "remembering your history."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:59 pm
So nice of you to say so C.I. I must be a really heady experience being so superior.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2021 at 03:58:33