← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 17708 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2005-04-10
2005-04-10 21:19 | User Profile
[SIZE=3][I]A little preface: I have never liked ultra-materialist racialists who try to explain [B]everything[/B] with genes. The environmental factors are thus easily forgotten.
My case in point: the notoriously great Black-and-White IQ gap in apparently quite a bit smaller in the Great Britain than in United States:[/I][/SIZE]
[url]http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002379.html[/url]
[COLOR=Blue][B]July 09, 2004[/B]
[SIZE=5]BW IQ gap is smaller in the UK[/SIZE]
Some time ago, my esteemed co-blogger posted on a book by Nicholas Mackintosh. [1] This book claimed that the BW IQ gap in the UK was smaller than that in the US:
The gist of the various studies, summarised in [1], is that early studies (1960s and early 70s) on Blacks in Britain tended to show average IQ around 85 (with Whites around 100): a similar differential to the US. [B]However, the samples included very recent immigrants, and when these were stripped out, the gap was narrower. More recent studies (1980s onward) have shown a further narrowing of the gap. Notably, the Child Health and Education Study (1980) shows a difference of only about 5 points on non-verbal tests and 9 points on verbal tests[/B].
There is a potential pitfall in making comparisons over time if the meaning of ââ¬ËBlackââ¬â¢ is changing. Most obviously, there has been a large increase in the proportion of mixed-race children. However, this pitfall appears to be avoided in reference [2], where children with parents from different ethnic groups were excluded from the study. In this study West Indian (Black Caribbean) children aged 7 to 15 had mean scores between .24 and .77 standard deviations below the White British control group, varying according to age group, the average over all age groups being about .5 s.d., equivalent to about 8 IQ points.
ââ¬Â¦
Using the black Caribbean pass rate above of .30 and the white pass rate of .51 as mentioned in the above article, you get a gap of .55 standard deviations - which is in fact consistent with the Mackintosh data of 8 IQ points = 8/15 of an SD. [B]And it is smaller than the BW gap in the US, which is about 1.1 SD. For reference purposes, it is in fact smaller than the Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic white gap in the US, which is about .7 SD.
So perhaps this is what's responsible for the perceptual/anecdotal differences between our British and American commentators: a genuinely smaller performance gap[/B].
This is obviously very interesting. The question is whether the gap is smaller than in the US because of cultural intervention/assimilation or because of selective migration.
I lean towards the latter hypothesis, but I'd need to research it further. Perhaps a side-by-side comparison of the mean education level of the various immigrant/minority groups involved would make it clearer. I'd also want to hunt down a number of other metrics of pass rates to apply the method of thresholds to them too, to get some independent checks. Any pointers to data in the comments section would be much appreciated.
[1] I found a review published in Science of Mackintosh's book (which I will post if anyone wants to see it), but it didn't mention the convergence.
Posted by godless at 04:58 PM[/COLOR]
[SIZE=3][I]Steve Sailer has also recently noticed how the White working class in Britain is performing obviously worse than their American counterparts, and seeks for an explanation:[/I][/SIZE]
[url]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050403_wsj.htm[/url]
[COLOR=Purple] ââ¬ÅWhat Whalen and Begley don't mention is that in recent decades, millions of Britain's young males have adopted a philosophy of "laddism." Being "one of the lads" is proven by one's dedication to cutting school, machismo, brawling, drunkenness, soccer hooliganism, anti-intellectualism, and property crime. [B]The lads of Britain have been increasingly turning against schoolwork and honest jobs, with disastrous effects on society as a wholeââ¬âas seen in the sky-high property crime rates in what used to be one of the world's most law-abiding societies[/B].
ââ¬Â¦
ââ¬Å[B]Britainââ¬â¢s crime rate is now substantially worse than that of the U.S[/B]. For example, the 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey reported that for every 100 people, there were 55 crimes committed in Britain compared to 40 in the U.S.
ââ¬ÅImmigrants, especially West Indians, have contributed heavily to this inglorious record. [B]But the most important cause has been a moral collapse among Britainââ¬â¢s white working class malesââ¬âwho in the first half of the 20th Century were famous for their honesty[/B]. The British prison psychiatrist who writes under the nom de plume Theodore Dalrymple has vividly described the decay of the working class in his book Life at the Bottom."[/COLOR]
[SIZE=3][I]I can immediately offer one big factor for this sorry situation: [B]on the average, American working class is clearly more religious than the British one[/B]. Irreligious British lower class is currently in the hold of a vulgar materialist nihilism, where life and future has no meaning, and this apostasy shows up in their culture, or in the lack of thereof.
On the other hand, fresh immigrants from Africa are much more religious than they, and therefore possess greater spiritual stamina to succeed.
Donââ¬â¢t believe me? Hereââ¬â¢s some amazing statistics:[/I][/SIZE]
[url]http://playahata.com/hatablog/wp-trackback.php/302[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed]3/8/2005
[SIZE=5]Sistasââ¬â¢ Gonna Work It Out: African Females Outperforming White Males in UK[/SIZE]
[B]Black girls overtake white boys
An ethnic breakdown of this yearââ¬â¢s GCSE results in England shows that ââ¬Åblack Africanââ¬Â girls are scoring higher grades than ââ¬Åwhite Britishââ¬Â boys[/B]. The analysis of GCSE and GNVQ results found wide gaps in achievement between male and female students and between different ethnic groups.
...
The analysis of exam results shows that all ethnic groups are improving their average results - but it also shows wide differences between boys, girls, rich, poor, blacks, whites and Asians.
ââ¬ÅWhite Britishââ¬Â pupils, representing about 84% of candidates, scored just above the national average for getting five good grades.
[B]But the greater success of female students, in all ethnic groups, saw black African girls achieving better results than white British males.
According to the education departmentââ¬â¢s figures, pupils defined as black African are an increasing proportion of pupils. In infant classes, more than half of the black school population is now black African[/B].
The lowest-achieving group was not an ethnic group at all - but children eligible for free school meals, among whom one in seven left school without a single pass.
High performers
Chinese pupils scored much higher results than other ethnic groups - with 74.8% of pupils achieving five or more good grades, compared to a national average of 50.7%.
Indian pupils also achieved above-average results - with 65% getting above the benchmark - and Irish pupils also scored well, with 60% achieving five good grades.
[B]Pupils defined as being of ââ¬Åmixed white and Asian heritageââ¬Â also achieved above-average results[/B].
But the Schools Minister Stephen Twigg said that the below-average results for Pakistani, Bangladeshi, black African and black Caribbean pupils showed ââ¬Åthe scale of the challengeââ¬Â facing schools.
Fewer than a third of black Caribbean pupils achieved five good grades - but behind this figure there is a sharp gender divide, with the average lowered by particular under-achievement among black male pupils.
Only 25% of black Caribbean teenage boys achieve five good grades - compared with 40% of girls.
Among black African pupils, 34% of boys achieve five good grades and 47% of girls.
Girls out-perform boys in GCSE and GNVQ results among white, black and Asian pupils - with the highest-scoring single group being Chinese girls, with almost eight out of ten achieving five good grades.
ââ¬Â¦[/COLOR]
[I][SIZE=3]SOME environmental factors are obviously downpressing Whites and uplifting Blacks in Britain in a manner that does not show up in USA.
Consider yourselves now warned: the abandonment of Christianity will lead Whites to such a mental and moral stupor that even Christianized Africans can catch up with them!
Discuss![/SIZE][/I]
Petr
2005-04-10 21:49 | User Profile
Consider yourselves now warned: the abandonment of Christianity will lead Whites to such a mental and moral stupor that even Christianized Africans can catch up with them! This is laughable. Religion and reason are utterly at odds with each other. You can't be a good critical thinker if you're in the habit of accepting claims without evidence or logic to back them up.
Intelligent people tend to recognize this. That's why, as a general rule, the smarter someone is, the less likely they are to be religiously dogmatic:
[url]http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm[/url]
That doesn't mean that all religious people are stupid. Some are extremely bright (e.g., JPII knew something like 7 or 8 languages). But in general, the self-deception that is absolutely required to be a religious devotee is more foreign to those who have a greater capacity for clear, dispassionate thought.
2005-04-10 21:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Religion and reason are utterly at odds with each other. [/QUOTE]
Aquinas, Newton, Berkeley would likely disagree with you on that.
2005-04-10 21:56 | User Profile
[B][I] - "This is laughable. Religion and reason are utterly at odds with each other."[/I][/B]
Spare us from your silly and utterly unoriginal atheist sermonettes.
Petr
2005-04-10 22:03 | User Profile
Even Voltaire knew well what happens when masses lose their faith:
[COLOR=Blue]"Had you been privileged to attend one of Voltaireââ¬â¢s soirees at Ferney in the 1760ââ¬â¢s or 1770ââ¬â¢s, close enough to the Genevan border to cross in the event the French thought police were approaching, you would have heard the Master of the House tell the servants to leave before people started expressing really dangerous ideas, especially atheism.
[B]Voltaire felt that without a belief in an avenging God, the lower classes would slit our throats and steal our money[/B]. Dostoyevsky a century later agreed that without God, any number of awful things should be possible. Voltaire in his declining years went to Mass regularly and made sure his servants did also, providing the parish with as enlightened a pastor as he could find, someone in the mould of Rousseauââ¬â¢s Savoyard Curate, one who taught morality primarily. [B]In other words Voltaire was a follower before his time of Charles Maurras and his Christianity-less Catholicism[/B]."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ravitch2.html[/url]
Petr
2005-04-10 22:46 | User Profile
I guess that must be true then that the blyack man is kept stupid by the white devil in the US.
How dogmatic was Newton, exactly? I remember someone mentioned his religious beliefs here on OD before.
This argument leads nowhere, as previously noted, but science is clearly at odds with any dogma (godma, haha).
2005-04-10 23:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Aquinas, Newton, Berkeley would likely disagree with you on that.[/QUOTE]And they'd be wrong. Aquinas in particular was a fool. Newton was indeed extremely brilliant, but he didn't have anywhere near the level of understanding of nature that even a modern undergraduate student in science has. Thus, he can be forgiven for relying on religion to explain much of what he didn't understand.
Belief in anything without the support of logic and evidence is irrational. That's not just my opinion; it's an incontrovertible truth.
2005-04-10 23:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "This is laughable. Religion and reason are utterly at odds with each other."[/I][/B]
Spare us from your silly and utterly unoriginal atheist sermonettes.
Petr[/QUOTE] (1) I'm not trying to be original -- just correct.
(2) You are the one who believes in nonsensical fairytales, so you have some nerve to call anyone silly.
2005-04-10 23:24 | User Profile
[B][I] - "he didn't have anywhere near the level of understanding of nature that even a modern undergraduate student in science has" [/I][/B]
Nothing like that good ol' spirit of arrogant [I]besserwissen[/I] to prop up the egoes of unbelievers.
Petr
2005-04-10 23:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "he didn't have anywhere near the level of understanding of nature that even a modern undergraduate student in science has" [/I][/B]
Nothing like that good ol' spirit of arrogant [I]besserwissen[/I] to prop up the egoes of unbelievers.
Petr[/QUOTE] Sure -- I'm being arrogant on behalf of other people. Riiight.
Did Newton know anything about quantum mechanics? Special or general relativity? DNA? No. Therefore, what I said is correct.
You have a real problem with accepting obvious facts, Petr.
2005-04-10 23:33 | User Profile
[B][I] - "(1) I'm not trying to be original" [/I][/B]
Indeed, you seem to be a most stereotypical and predictable type of a haughty born-again atheist.
[I] [B] [B]- "(2) You are the one who believes in nonsensical fairytales, so you have some nerve to call anyone silly."[/B][/B][/I]
You take yourself (and your reasoning capabilities) way too seriously.
:tongue:
...and you are almost hijacking this thread with your tedious sermonising.
Petr
2005-04-10 23:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Even Voltaire knew well what happens when masses lose their faith:
[COLOR=Blue]"Had you been privileged to attend one of Voltaireââ¬â¢s soirees at Ferney in the 1760ââ¬â¢s or 1770ââ¬â¢s, close enough to the Genevan border to cross in the event the French thought police were approaching, you would have heard the Master of the House tell the servants to leave before people started expressing really dangerous ideas, especially atheism.
[B]Voltaire felt that without a belief in an avenging God, the lower classes would slit our throats and steal our money[/B]. Dostoyevsky a century later agreed that without God, any number of awful things should be possible. Voltaire in his declining years went to Mass regularly and made sure his servants did also, providing the parish with as enlightened a pastor as he could find, someone in the mould of Rousseauââ¬â¢s Savoyard Curate, one who taught morality primarily. [B]In other words Voltaire was a follower before his time of Charles Maurras and his Christianity-less Catholicism[/B]."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ravitch2.html[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree at all with the above. It's just another way of pointing out that religion is a useful tool to control the masses who are largely incapable of controlling themselves. But just because belief in an avenging God serves a purpose doesn't mean that belief reflects reality.
The ancient Roman historian Polybius had similar feelings about religion, and I've posted his words here before. He thought it was wise of the "ancients" to invent fables about infernal torments and the like in order to frighten the simple-minded into submission:
But among the most useful institutions, that demonstrate the superior excellence of the Roman government, the most considerable perhaps is the opinion that the people are taught to hold concerning the gods: and that, which other men regard as an object of disgrace, appears in my judgment to be the very thing by which this republic chiefly is sustained. I mean, superstition: which is impressed with all its terrors; and influences both private and public actions of the citizens, and the public administration also of the state, in a degree that can scarcely be exceeded. This may appear astonishing to many. To me it is evident, that this contrivance was at first adopted for the sake of the multitude. For if it were possible that a state could be composed of wise men only, there would be no need, perhaps, of any such invention. But as the people universally are fickle and inconsistent, filled with irregular desires, too precipitate in there passions, and prone to violence; there is no way left to restrain them, but by dread of things unseen, and by the pageantry of terrifying fiction. The ancients, therefore, acted not absurdedly, nor without good reason, when they inculcated the notions concerning the gods, and the belief of infernal punishments; but much more those of the present age are to be charged with rashness and absurdity, in endeavoring to extirpate these opinions.
There are similar thoughts from other ancient figures here:
[url]http://what.tentmaker.org/AncientHell.htm[/url]
Face it: Religion was invented by man to control man. If you follow the dictates of any religion (or political doctrine, or other dogmatic ideology) without question, then your mind isn't your own, and you are a slave. "You shall not put the Lord thy God to the test," the Bible says. Gee, I wonder what an omnipotent God could have to fear from people questioning Him. Could it be that the above is really just a way of man saying to his fellow men, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"?
2005-04-10 23:47 | User Profile
[B][I] - "But just because belief in an avenging God serves a purpose doesn't mean that belief reflects reality."[/I][/B]
It also doesn't logically [U]disprove[/U] such a notion either - ever thought about that?
[B][I] - "The ancient Roman historian Polybius had similar feelings about religion" [/I][/B] He was talking about the puny gods of the heathen, not the sovereign Creator who has revealed His will in the Bible.
[B] [I]- "If you follow the dictates of any religion (or political doctrine, or other dogmatic ideology) without question, then your mind isn't your own, and you are a slave."[/I][/B]
Materialists should be strict determinists anyway. Human autonomy is an illusion in that scheme of things, and your humanistic rhetoric about "freedom" and "slavery" are just a sentimental slag-over from a Christian idea that every man has some intrinsic worth, being created as an image of God.
Petr
2005-04-10 23:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]You take yourself (and your reasoning capabilities) way too seriously.
:tongue: [/QUOTE]
I hate to brag, but I got a raw score of 25 on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices when I was about 10 years old. If you don't know what that means, do a little research. Suffice it to say, I have every right to take my reasoning capabilities seriously. :tongue:
I don't take myself that seriously though -- just the subjects in which I'm interested.
2005-04-11 00:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "But just because belief in an avenging God serves a purpose doesn't mean that belief reflects reality."[/I][/B]
It also doesn't logically [U]disprove[/U] such a notion either - ever thought about that?
No one has ever disproved the existence of leprechauns. Does that mean we should believe in them if we find it convenient? LOL
[B][I] - "The ancient Roman historian Polybius had similar feelings about religion" [/I][/B] He was talking about the puny gods of the heathen, not the sovereign Creator who has revealed His will in the Bible. There was no (Christian) Bible back then, so of course he wasn't talking about the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, the early Christians took many of their ideas from the pagans. And let's see some evidence that this "sovereign Creator who was revealed His will in the Bible" exists. Just a little evidence, please.
By the way, if God revealed His will in the Bible, then why can't Christians make up their minds about what that will is? Don't say it's because of "man's fallen nature," either, since if that's true then you're just as "fallen" as everyone else and could be just as deceived as the members of any other Christian sect.
[B] [I]- "If you follow the dictates of any religion (or political doctrine, or other dogmatic ideology) without question, then your mind isn't your own, and you are a slave."[/I][/B]
Materialists should be strict determinists anyway. Human autonomy is an illusion in that scheme of things, and your humanistic rhetoric about "freedom" and "slavery" are just a sentimental slag-over from a Christian idea that every man has some intrinsic worth, being created as an image of God.[/QUOTE]Christianity does not prize freedom -- quite the opposite. It teaches submission to whatever so-called authority happens to be in power. And while I am compassionate towards others and hate to see even lower animals suffer, I do not believe that all human beings have intrinsic worth. There are countless human beings who are worthless -- though that's not to say they should be exterminated or oppressed. At any rate, Christianity and the natural morality most people instinctively possess have little to do with each other. In fact, they are often at odds.
I have to go. I'll bicker with you later.
2005-04-11 00:23 | User Profile
[B][I] - "There was no Bible back then, so of course he wasn't talking about the God of the Bible." [/I][/B]
(nitpicking) Old Testament had already been written and even translated into Greek when Polybius wrote around 140 BC.
[B][I] - "Nevertheless, the early Christians took many of their ideas from the pagans."[/I][/B]
Nonsense. Like what for example?
[B][I] - "Christianity does not prize freedom -- quite the opposite."[/I][/B]
Christianity does indeed condemn the Luciferian quest for absolute autonomy and freedom from God.
Petr
2005-04-11 00:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "There was no Bible back then, so of course he wasn't talking about the God of the Bible." [/I][/B]
(nitpicking) Old Testament had already been written and even translated into Greek when Polybius wrote around 140 BC.
I meant the entire Bible as we know it.
[B][I] - "Nevertheless, the early Christians took many of their ideas from the pagans."[/I][/B]
Nonsense. Like what for example?[/QUOTE]All kinds of things, from the notions of heaven and hell right down to the use of the Christmas tree (which was taken from pagan ritual).
I really have to go now, so I can't answer any more posts for a while.
2005-04-11 00:32 | User Profile
LAST post for now, LOL:
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "Christianity does not prize freedom -- quite the opposite."[/I][/B]
Christianity does indeed condemn the Luciferian quest for absolute autonomy and freedom from God.[/QUOTE] God has never directly told you or me to do anything. When you obey the Bible, you obey the human beings who wrote it. That's all there is to it.
2005-04-11 00:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "This is laughable. Religion and reason are utterly at odds with each other."[/I][/B]
Spare us from your silly and utterly unoriginal atheist sermonettes.
Petr[/QUOTE]
Pfft! You ask for a discussion and when you get one you insult.
2005-04-11 00:48 | User Profile
[B] - "Pfft! You ask for a discussion and when you get one you insult."[/B]
I asked for a discussion [U]on this particular sociological subject[/U], not a re-hashing of boring "freethinker" metaphysics in the most abstract manner imaginable. See any difference?
Petr
2005-04-11 00:53 | User Profile
[B][I] - "I hate to brag, but I got a raw score of 25 on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices when I was about 10 years old. If you don't know what that means, do a little research. Suffice it to say, I have every right to take my reasoning capabilities seriously."[/I][/B]
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18 KJV)
(A secular version: "the bigger they are, the harder they fall")
Petr
2005-04-11 01:06 | User Profile
I'm feelin' the love! :wub: :heart: :wub:
Wasn't Petr's original point that abandoning faith has created a spiritual vacuum in Britain's lower class whites that has sucked them down to the level of negro immigrants? Do we not see the same thing happening in America with our wiggers and whatnot, who also have no faith in god, their people, or themselves, and thus just go along with what is seen as being cool?
And what does that have to do with whether or not any certain dogma is true, or what long-dead scientists think, which is what this thread ballooned into?
2005-04-11 01:08 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Wasn't Petr's original point that abandoning faith has created a spiritual vacuum in Britain's lower class whites that has sucked them down to the level of negro immigrants?"[/I] [/B]
That's my main point on this thread.
Petr
2005-04-11 01:08 | User Profile
Well Petr, You pointing the "pride" finger at Angler is a bit much. You are much more the flashy self-promoter than he. Admit it, the man gives you a run for your money and you're not crazy about it.
2005-04-11 01:11 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Well Petr, You pointing the "pride" finger at Angler is a bit much."[/I] [/B]
I am feeling somewhat theatrical and cranky today. In such a state of mind I can behave in an unpredictable manner.
:)
Petr
2005-04-11 01:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]LAST post for now, LOL:
God has never directly told you or me to do anything. When you obey the Bible, you obey the human beings who wrote it. That's all there is to it.[/QUOTE]Good point --
By definition, a "revelation" can only be a revelation to the person it's revealed to. Everything else is heresay testimony.
2005-04-11 01:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "Well Petr, You pointing the "pride" finger at Angler is a bit much."[/I] [/B]
I am feeling somewhat theatrical and cranky today. In such a state of mind I can behave in an unpredictable manner.
:)
Petr[/QUOTE]
Quite understood. :)
2005-04-11 01:23 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Everything else is heresay testimony."[/I][/B]
So what? All secular histories (and even sciences, when you think about it) are just "hearsay" as well.
Here you can also see that something being "hearsay" doesn't necessarily make it unreliable - check out some modern legal definitions of "hearsay":
[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][I] [B]"A Pushback to Skeptics Who Use the "Hearsay" Argument"[/B][/I][/SIZE][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hearsay.html[/url]
Petr
2005-04-11 01:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr] - "Everything else is heresay testimony."
So what? All secular histories (and even sciences, when you think about it) are just "hearsay" as well.
Here you can also see that something being "hearsay" doesn't necessarily make it unreliable - check out some modern legal definitions of "hearsay":
[color=darkred][size=3] "A Pushback to Skeptics Who Use the "Hearsay" Argument"[/size][/color]
[url="http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hearsay.html"]http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hearsay.html[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE]Well, thanks for the interesting article on "heresay", but I think you grasped my meaning. Of course all history is open to interpretation -- it's up to us personally to discern who's telling the truth. However, asking the guy sitting next to you to believe, with all his heart, that you have just spoken to God -- in the flesh -- and that He told you to do this or to do that, well...