Unpopular Opinions.

Dudess · 06-12-2011 04:17PM

smegmar wrote: »

Well done Cavehill, it's good to see some unpopular opinions well researched and backed up with a good argument.

That is true. Because it is extremely, extremely rare.

Cavehill Red · 06-12-2011 04:19PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

No, you responded to what you assumed was an argument against everything you said, I can only assume you are as biased as I in reading what I wrote, let's try again; you cannot judge the individual on the basis of a collective average, so it's not an unpopular opinion to cite research that says black people on average have lower IQs, and it's not racist, you'd have to be dense to think it was, however it becomes racist when someone uses this information to prejudge an individual (which you didn't do by the way), you are for some reason being defensive towards a deserved negative backlash to the latter position when you are pushing the former, which makes no sense.

You're arguing a straw man here. At least you noted that I've consistently avoided any sense of judging any individual on anything other than their merits. Nevertheless, the withdrawing of funding and isolating within the scientific community (often as a result of tabloid hysteria) of researchers in this field indicates that it very much is an unpopular opinion to hold, precisely because people like you continually seek to conflate judging individuals with assessing average traits.

wonderfulname wrote: »

The implication of the information you chose to present as a personal experience of black people still stands as racist, it may merely be in the way you phrased it or you might be confident in tarring all people of one colour with the same brush, but it's not a valid point as it stands and you did put it very poorly.

In your opinion. In the opinion of another poster, it was a well researched argument. I offered supporting evidence for my anecdotal assertion and it is based on extensive interaction with black Africans here and in many sub-Saharan African countries.

To address a point you raised to that other poster, as to the relevance of dealing with averages, I would have thought that was also self-evident. While one deals with individuals on an individual basis, circumstances arise wherein one may have to deal with collectives of individuals, or where one does not have an indentifiable individual with whom to treat.

If, as is the case in the US, some 70% of black children are raised without fathers, then if you are in a position of having to plan or organise infrastructure such as schooling, then you'd need to be willfully blind to ignore that fact, since it requires that you plan into the system measures to address the concomitant effects of that in terms of unruly behaviour, poverty, lack of support for their educational needs and so on. It is in such circumstances that it is entirely legitimate to be cogniscent of averages and statistical likelihoods in a given cohort of people.

keano_afc · 06-12-2011 04:22PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It isn't, which is why they are now cross-referencing with tax returns to identify those claiming the allowance who are actually in relationships and not entitled to the benefit, something they ought to have done a long time ago.

However, the cut also affects those who ought to be entitled to it, despite your judgemental attitude. You're only one serious argument away from being one yourself, let's bear in mind. As a single parent myself, I certainly didn't have a child planning to be the sole parent. But sometimes life's like that.

The correct thing to do should have been to cut out the fraudulent claims, not slash and burn every one of those single parents who are struggling to raise children on the breadline without reference to their individual circumstances.

Well I dont believe anyone should be entitled to it. If I have an argument and break up with my wife, as you refer to, should it be up to the state to give me money then? Of course not. Its not up to the state to financially pick up the pieces if your relationship with the other parent ends.

Cavehill Red · 06-12-2011 04:24PM

keano_afc wrote: »

Well I dont believe anyone should be entitled to it. If I have an argument and break up with my wife, as you refer to, should it be up to the state to give me money then? Of course not. Its not up to the state to financially pick up the pieces if your relationship with the other parent ends.

The way the system works is that the parents, together or apart, are supposed to pay for the raising of their offspring as you seem to desire. However, not all men step up to the plate as I have done. In some cases, as in my own, some women don't step up to the plate either. At that point, either the state steps in to assist where assistance is needed, or else the state is going to have to pay a lot more to raise the child in state care.

hooradiation · 06-12-2011 04:30PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

Given the number of caveats you had to dump on this, I can't imagine why you think it's worth sharing.

keano_afc · 06-12-2011 04:30PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The way the system works is that the parents, together or apart, are supposed to pay for the raising of their offspring as you seem to desire. However, not all men step up to the plate as I have done. In some cases, as in my own, some women don't step up to the plate either. At that point, either the state steps in to assist where assistance is needed, or else the state is going to have to pay a lot more to raise the child in state care.

Which is why children should only be brought into a family of married parents. Then there is a legal responsibility on the parent that doesnt "step up to the plate" to contribute to the upbringing of their child.

Cavehill Red · 06-12-2011 04:33PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Given the number of caveats you had to dump on this, I can't imagine why you think it's worth sharing.

Because academics engaged in legitimate research in this field have bee vilified, ostracised and had their funding slashed because morons in the press and those inclined to wave the race card at any given opportunity find such facts to be unpalatable to the extent that they wish to censor such knowledge.

Anyhow, I don't see that I made any caveats. I simply provided extensive evidential support to back up my opinion, as anybody ought to be able to.

wonderfulname · 06-12-2011 04:34PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You're arguing a straw man here. At least you noted that I've consistently avoided any sense of judging any individual on anything other than their merits. Nevertheless, the withdrawing of funding and isolating within the scientific community (often as a result of tabloid hysteria) of researchers in this field indicates that it very much is an unpopular opinion to hold, precisely because people like you continually seek to conflate judging individuals with assessing average traits.

You really don't like reading my posts, let me break it down one more time.

Assessing averages is not unpopular, its not even an opinion
misusing averages is unpopular, for good reason
you appear to be backing the former, but defensive due to reactions to the latter
this reaction makes no sense

In your opinion. In the opinion of another poster, it was a well researched argument. I offered supporting evidence for my anecdotal assertion and it is based on extensive interaction with black Africans here and in many sub-Saharan African countries.

But that's not supporting evidence, it becomes supporting evidence when you can see definite cause and effect, which whilst true of your first point is not true of this.

To address a point you raised to that other poster, as to the relevance of dealing with averages, I would have thought that was also self-evident. While one deals with individuals on an individual basis, circumstances arise wherein one may have to deal with collectives of individuals, or where one does not have an indentifiable individual with whom to treat.

I foresee no situation when in dealing with an unidentifiable individual it becomes relevant to make judgement of innate characteristics based on race, the probabilities are just too low to make a difference, hence the Red Rum analogy.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If, as is the case in the US, some 70% of black children are raised without fathers, then if you are in a position of having to plan or organise infrastructure such as schooling, then you'd need to be willfully blind to ignore that fact, since it requires that you plan into the system measures to address the concomitant effects of that in terms of unruly behaviour, poverty, lack of support for their educational needs and so on. It is in such circumstances that it is entirely legitimate to be cogniscent of averages and statistical likelihoods in a given cohort of people.

That's a considerably larger statistic and a case of nurture, not nature, which you have been steering clear of until now, this isn't a situation relevant to the discussion so I'm not going to address it.

Cavehill Red · 06-12-2011 04:34PM

keano_afc wrote: »

Which is why children should only be brought into a family of married parents. Then there is a legal responsibility on the parent that doesnt "step up to the plate" to contribute to the upbringing of their child.

Marriage has bugger all to do with it. Plenty of kids born into married relationships now live with only one parent, and that parent receives lone parent allowance as a result.

pickarooney · 06-12-2011 04:36PM

smegmar wrote: »

Who is the fastest swimmer in the world: Michael Phelps, American, of White European decent.

Phelps is not, nor has he ever been, the fastest swimmer in the worlds. Currently the record is held by Brazilian César Cielo. He's quite white, for the record.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.

Chrstophe Lemaitre is one of the fastest men in the world and is whiter than I am.

Cavehill Red · 06-12-2011 04:42PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

You really don't like reading my posts, let me break it down one more time.
Assessing averages is not unpopular, its not even an opinion

misusing averages is unpopular, for good reason

you appear to be backing the former, but defensive due to reactions to the latter

this reaction makes no sense

But that's not supporting evidence, it becomes supporting evidence when you can see definite cause and effect, which whilst true of your first point is not true of this.

On the contrary, this very research has proved so unpopular it has led to academic careers being buried and an almost total effective ban on funding for further research in the area.
Secondly, there are as I stated plenty of good reasons to work off the conclusions of such data when dealing with groups rather than individuals. Your confusion seems to be your own, not arising from what I've written. I'm sorry I can't spell it out any more simply for you.

wonderfulname wrote: »

I foresee no situation when in dealing with an unidentifiable individual it becomes relevant to make judgement of innate characteristics based on race, the probabilities are just too low to make a difference, hence the Red Rum analogy.

You compare people to animals, yet somehow I'm racist? Amusing. Nevertheless, another poster already ran with your horses for courses comparison quite effectively with their athletics versus swimming example. A more likely one to occur in reality is the one I offered. If, as a headmaster, you were to receive a new student in your US-based school, and knew no familial details about the child, as is all too common in such circumstances, school reports detailing academic rather than social data, then it would to my mind seem legitimate to work off the assumption that there is a 70% likelihood that that child is being raised without a father and prepare accordingly. Further down the line, one can then deal with the individual as an individual and clarify their individual circumstances and adjust planning to account for that.

wonderfulname wrote: »

That's a considerably larger statistic and a case of nurture, not nature, which you have been steering clear of until now, this isn't a situation relevant to the discussion so I'm not going to address it.

I'm not entirely clear what you're referring to here. But I would suggest you go back and read that meta-study, which on the basis of intelligence assessment rules out nurture as a relevant causative factor, due to the results gleaned from trans-adoption studies. If what you're suggesting is that you accept the principle of statistical planning, then in turn I'd suggest that in our hypothetical US school, you as headmaster were about to engage in a merger with a predominantly black school as happened in many placed in the 60s and 70s, then it would be poor planning not to account for the fact that on average, that cohort of students would not only have a 70% likelihood of being raised by one parent, but would also be on average 15 percentile points behind on an intelligence scale. Again, individual circumstances may vary from the mean, so an individual black child could well be the next Henry Gates raised in the most stable family around.

wonderfulname · 06-12-2011 04:54PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You compare people to animals, yet somehow I'm racist? Amusing. Nevertheless, another poster already ran with your horses for courses comparison quite effectively with their athletics versus swimming example.

Are you stupid or do you think I am? Either way, I'm not going to bite.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A more likely one to occur in reality is the one I offered. If, as a headmaster, you were to receive a new student in your US-based school, and knew no familial details about the child, as is all too common in such circumstances, school reports detailing academic rather than social data, then it would to my mind seem legitimate to work off the assumption that there is a 70% likelihood that that child is being raised without a father and prepare accordingly. Further down the line, one can then deal with the individual as an individual and clarify their individual circumstances and adjust planning to account for that.

But that's not an actual situation because you'll know the stats for your catchment area as a whole and funding will be distributed according to that?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not entirely clear what you're referring to here. But I would suggest you go back and read that meta-study, which on the basis of intelligence assessment rules out nurture as a relevant causative factor, due to the results gleaned from trans-adoption studies.

I was referring to the quote above that, which is pretty standard layout here, so at this point I figure you're either trolling or the only manner of discussion you know is black and white, right and wrong. That meta study is related to intelligence, not the likelihood of lone parents, so is not remotely relevant, being a lone parent is not a genetic trait, so how can it be a reflection on a race?

Cavehill Red · 06-12-2011 05:08PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Are you stupid or do you think I am? Either way, I'm not going to bite.

Don't accuse people of racism and then go about comparing people to horses then if you don't wish to see that hypocrisy highlighted, there's a good chap.

wonderfulname wrote: »

But that's not an actual situation because you'll know the stats for your catchment area as a whole and funding will be distributed according to that?

Possibly you will, possibly you won't. All I'm suggesting is that in planning matters using statistical averages data is a perfectly legitimate practice, which is something you appear to now accept.

wonderfulname wrote: »

I was referring to the quote above that, which is pretty standard layout here, so at this point I figure you're either trolling or the only manner of discussion you know is black and white, right and wrong. That meta study is related to intelligence, not the likelihood of lone parents, so is not remotely relevant, being a lone parent is not a genetic trait, so how can it be a reflection on a race?

I didn't suggest it was. I was offering the lone parent data as an example of utilising such data in a planning environment. I then went on to offer a second example drawing on the very intelligence data cited in the meta-study to indicate that nurture need not be a factor in such planning.

hooradiation · 06-12-2011 05:12PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Anyhow, I don't see that I made any caveats. I simply provided extensive evidential support to back up my opinion, as anybody ought to be able to.

of course you don't, the same way you believe this is "legitimate" research.

Cavehill Red · 06-12-2011 05:14PM

hooradiation wrote: »

of course you don't, the same way you believe this is "legitimate" research.

Of course, you're qualified and capable of discrediting ninety years of scientific research in your very next post, which I await breathlessly ...

TinfoilTinman · 06-12-2011 05:52PM

In my opinion, sausages go well with jam (normally berry jams).

Discuss.

06-12-2011 06:27PM

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

In my opinion, sausages go well with jam (normally berry jams).

I'd really like to hear about non-berry jams.

I'm a strawberry girl myself but I wouldn't put it on a sausage. Bit too racy for me.

languagenerd · 06-12-2011 06:33PM

keano_afc wrote: »

I really cant understand the fuss about Lone Parent allowance being cut. In my opinion, it is a financial reward for irresponsibly having children outside a stable relationship and should be cut altogether. My wife and I have one child, which we quite rightly receive no weekly payment for. Our neighbour, who has a boyfiend and they both work, receives a weekly payment for her child as she is unmarried. How can that be right?

I don't think it should be cut completely. What about cases where one parent has died? Or where one parent leaves the other and completely disappears out of their lives? If the one left behind is trying to raise kids and pay for childcare on one salary, they could be dependant on it. It should be provided to people who genuinely need it.

It's one of the most exploited payments though, loads of fraudulent claims. They need to tighten up controls, but they shouldn't completely axe it.

(For the record, I have no children, so no bias)

TinfoilTinman · 06-12-2011 06:45PM

true-or-false wrote: »

I'd really like to hear about non-berry jams.

I'm a strawberry girl myself but I wouldn't put it on a sausage. Bit too racy for me.

Well, I've been told that my tastes in food/combinations are a little strange. I eat most things except:

Unpopular opinion no.2 -- I hate ketchup. It is the devil. I like tomatoes and tomato based sauces/pureés/soups but hate ketchup.

As for jams, rhubarb is really nice. Apricot too.

Mike Litoris · 06-12-2011 07:24PM

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

Unpopular opinion no.2 -- I hate ketchup. It is the devil. I like tomatoes

:eek:OMG, you do realise that scientists around the globe would kill to have you as a test subject.:D

TinfoilTinman · 06-12-2011 07:57PM

Mike Litoris wrote: »

:eek:OMG, you do realise that scientists around the globe would kill to have you as a test subject.:D

I know, i'm a freak. It makes ordering fast food a pain though as they normally misinterpret NONE as BUCKET LOADS.

Chuck Stone · 06-12-2011 08:29PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This meta-study was quite revealing.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

It debunks all the usual rejoinders offered to IQ testing differences.

On this type of research.

Melvin Konner wrote in the notes to his book The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit:

Statements made by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and other investigators in the late 1960s and early 1970s about race and IQ or social class and IQ rapidly passed into currency in policy discussions. Many of these statements were proved wrong, but they had already influenced some policymakers, and that influence is very difficult to recant.

Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote in 2005 that Jensen has largely ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy unwaveringly for over 30 years. During this time, Jensen has received more than one million dollars from the sometimes controversial Pioneer fund.

Wiki.

The author is probably a Hereditarian, which is perhaps more a reflection on his stance than his scientific rigour.

You will see below (from your own link) that this paper appeared with one positive commentary and three critical ones.

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

Nurture is ruled out

It is?

steddyeddy · 06-12-2011 09:48PM

keano_afc wrote: »

I really cant understand the fuss about Lone Parent allowance being cut. In my opinion, it is a financial reward for irresponsibly having children outside a stable relationship and should be cut altogether. My wife and I have one child, which we quite rightly receive no weekly payment for. Our neighbour, who has a boyfiend and they both work, receives a weekly payment for her child as she is unmarried. How can that be right?

You understand lone parent can also mean widow, widower or deserted wife or husband?

paddythere · 06-12-2011 09:53PM

Steve Kean is a great manager

Cavehill Red · 06-12-2011 10:31PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The author is probably a Hereditarian, which is perhaps more a reflection on his stance than his scientific rigour.

It's a meta-study. It's a survey appraisal of the existing data relating to the subject. If there is any form of study that prohibits authorial bias, it's a meta-study, since it is a survey of many other people's work.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You will see below (from your own link) that this paper appeared with one positive commentary and three critical ones.

Which simply reflects the political values of the era which have led to scientific ostracism. What are the substances of those critiques, I'd ask? Are they based on querying the data, or are they based on a political objection to this form of inquiry (which amounts to little more than censorship of science)?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It is?

Sure it is. Trans-adoption studies found that a significant differential still existed in relation to IQ even after all subjects received similar levels of affluent upbringing and education. In fact, they actually uncovered the fact that mixed race children performed almost exactly between the caucasian average and the black average.
In other words, when black kids were adopted by affluent middle class white families, they did no better.

coonecb1 · 06-12-2011 11:46PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

I remember seeing a documentary about this on Channel 4 a year or two ago. From the first few minutes, it was clear what their angle would be. It focussed on the racist element to it, rather than accepting or refuting the evidence. The overall conclusion was that we're all equal.

What's funny is that it was part of a 'season' of race-based programmes, one of which claimed that mixed-race people were superior to other races. But, I thought we were all equal

AstridBean · 07-12-2011 12:11AM

I do think Father Ted WAS a teensy bit racist in 'Are You Right There, Father Ted?'.

languagenerd · 07-12-2011 12:14AM

TinfoilTinman wrote: »

Unpopular opinion no.2 -- I hate ketchup. It is the devil. I like tomatoes and tomato based sauces/pureés/soups but hate ketchup.

Me too! I actually have a sort of ketchup-phobia

.

K-9 · 07-12-2011 12:48AM

smegmar wrote: »

Well done Cavehill, it's good to see some unpopular opinions well researched and backed up with a good argument.

To often people jump on the "It's racist" point and can't see an underlying reality. Yea African blacks lack some amount of cranial capacity, and abstract thought however in physical fields (sport) and music blacks win hands down.

It's about time we recognise there are some traits that on average give one race advantages or disadvantages, and use that for our collective gain.

Who is the fastest sprinter in the world: Usain Bolt Jamaican of African black decent.

Who is the fastest swimmer in the world: Michael Phelps, American, of White European decent.

If I need someone to sprint and I know nothing more then the colour of candidates skin, I won't voluntarily blind myself to be politically correct. Likewise if I need someone to do math I'll pick the guy with a Asian name.

It's a bit like betting on horses, you can only have indicators of potential speed of the horse, and never know for sure. However you're still going to bet knowing that you're playing on the statistics.

That's a fair point, IQ is a very restrictive basis of intelligence.

Sporting, artistic, spatial and in particular, social intelligence are very under rated.

Putting a big emphasis on IQ without also considering the above seems a bit dim to me tbh!

SeanW · 07-12-2011 01:00AM

Nuclear Electricity FTW!

(Hides behind a wall to dodge the flaming) :cool:

Unpopular Opinions.

Comments