Thread: science is helping racist

Actually Carousoul, as Oneironaut said, you cannot really say that X-types are genetically presdisposed to have a lower IQ. Sure, you could say that the ones who took the test might. But there are other reasons for that result. As O said, say the X types who took the test had no education... it wouldn't be a very good measurement. You could only say that if the group X and Y were both raised in the same circumstances and then took the test. Sure, there would be a pattern in the results. But the conclusion you make might not always be right.

Originally Posted by wasup

Actually Carousoul, as Oneironaut said, you cannot really say that X-types are genetically presdisposed to have a lower IQ. Sure, you could say that the ones who took the test might. But there are other reasons for that result. As O said, say the X types who took the test had no education... it wouldn't be a very good measurement. You could only say that if the group X and Y were both raised in the same circumstances and then took the test. Sure, there would be a pattern in the results. But the conclusion you make might not always be right.

But it would probably apply to the X types in the world?


Thay would still on general have a lower IQ; regardless of why..

So it wouldn't be racist to assume that an X type would be less intelligent than a Y type in an interview because the majority are; for various reasons even if not their genotype?

I don't believe that to be true.

If you take a poll with a number of polsters that is less than the collective group of each side being polled, you are not getting an accurate account of that collective group. You are only accounting for the members of that group that actually took the poll.

If you went to a state that is primarily democratic, and took a poll about which demographic is more likely to vote democratic or republican, and the poll says X amount of blacks are most likely to vote democratic, then would it be accurate to expand that result to a national level and say that "in America, most blacks are likely to vote democratic," simply because the majority of people polled credited that conclusion? No.

When you do a sectional poll, you are not getting an accurate account of the nationwide (let alone global) statistic.

A poll with millions of polsters isn't accurate on a global scale. A poll with tens of thousands is even less accurate, on a global scale.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I don't believe that to be true.

If you take a poll with a number of polsters that is less than the collective group of each side being polled, you are not getting an accurate account of that collective group. You are only accounting for the members of that group that actually took the poll.

If you went to a state that is primarily democratic, and took a poll about which demographic is more likely to vote democratic or republican, and the poll says X amount of blacks are most likely to vote democratic, then would it be accurate to expand that result to a national level and say that "in America, most blacks are likely to vote democratic," simply because the majority of people polled credited that conclusion? No.

When you do a sectional poll, you are not getting an accurate account of the nationwide (let alone global) statistic.

A poll with millions of polsters isn't accurate on a global scale. A poll with tens of thousands is even less accurate, on a global scale.

Truth.



Polls are unreliable.

It's science and nobody can deny it. I had a row with my parents over this because my stepdad was trying to tell me that even though they are statistics everyone is an individual so we can't judge people blah blah bloody dah. Then I said yes but I mean the average and he's like, "Yes, the AVERAGE population of black people" and I'm like "YES the average population of black people not every individual!". We ended up arguing about something we agreed on and he apparently "won". I hate parents

Sorry that was uncalled for... but I find it so hard to beleive that many of the population still beleive in this whole "everybody's equal" business when there's SO much evidence against that. Whether you call this racism or not is should be accepted because it's so obviously true. Same with the sexism thing. How can men and women be the same when we're different genders?

Originally Posted by Idolfan

It's science and nobody can deny it. I had a row with my parents over this because my stepdad was trying to tell me that even though they are statistics everyone is an individual so we can't judge people blah blah bloody dah. Then I said yes but I mean the average and he's like, "Yes, the AVERAGE population of black people" and I'm like "YES the average population of black people not every individual!". We ended up arguing about something we agreed on and he apparently "won". I hate parents

Sorry that was uncalled for... but I find it so hard to beleive that many of the population still beleive in this whole "everybody's equal" business when there's SO much evidence against that. Whether you call this racism or not is should be accepted because it's so obviously true. Same with the sexism thing. How can men and women be the same when we're different genders?

-puts a dunce cap on you- Go sit in the corner with Wendy Love, we'll let you know when you may come out.