> Police and prosecutors can and do make mistakes, inadvertently or sometimes prejudiciously.
That's one of the reasons murder is used. Hard to fudge the statistics on it, immune to overpolicing, most of it is intra-racial, and it's hard to misidentify a perpetrator so bad that they go from white to black.
US homicide rate: 6.5, Black population: 12.1%, homicide rate/Black %: 0.54
UK homicide rate: 1.1, Black population: 3.15%, homicide rate/Black %: 0.35 (0.65x that of the US)
So gun control seems to have helped, but not as much as 1500 vs 50,000. It would be interesting to see the homicide rate for UK Blacks specifically, but I could only find data about homicide victims by race, not perpetrators. Sources:
A comedy, but based in fact - e.g. educational attainment is inversely correlated with fertility. For a less individual view, you can visit Wikipedia's list of countries by fertility rate, and sort them by said rate.
There are no grounds to argue that there are distinct subpopulations of people with different potentials for intelligence. Genes flow fluidly — if you sneer at the underclass and think your line is superior, I suspect you won't have to go back very many generations to find your stock comes out of that same seething mob. Do you have any Irish, or Jewish, or Italian, or Native American, or Asian, or whatever (literally—it's hard to find any ethnic origin that wasn't despised at some time) in your ancestry? Go back a hundred years or so, and your great- or great-great-grandparents were regarded as apes or subhumans or mentally deficient lackeys suitable only for menial labor.
Are you staring aghast at the latest cluster of immigrants in this country, are you fretting that they're breeding like rabbits? That generation of children will be the people your kids grow up with, go to school with, date, and marry. It may take a while, but eventually, your line will merge with theirs. Presuming you propagate at all, your genes are destined to disperse into that great living pool of humanity. Get used to it.
Furthermore, intelligence is an incredibly plastic property of the brain. You can nurture it or you can squelch it — the marching morons will birth children with as much potential as a pair of science-fiction geeks, and all that will matter is how well that mind is encouraged to grow. Even a few centuries is not enough to breed stupidity into a natural population of humans — that brain power may lay fallow and undernourished, but there isn't enough time nor enough pressure to make substantial changes in the overall genetics of the brain.
> Furthermore, intelligence is an incredibly plastic property of the brain. You can nurture it or you can squelch it
As a parent, I grapple with this often. I want to believe that I can influence my child's intelligence. But there are some studies on same-age unrelated siblings in the same household that show IQ has a very weak correlation compared to biologically related siblings in the same household: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-06271-015
> Are you staring aghast at the latest cluster of immigrants in this country, are you fretting that they're breeding like rabbits? That generation of children will be the people your kids grow up with, go to school with, date, and marry. It may take a while, but eventually, your line will merge with theirs. Presuming you propagate at all, your genes are destined to disperse into that great living pool of humanity. Get used to it.
I wasn’t clear. Yes that’s what I meant for people staring aghast. I believe the only division that matters between people is material or class division.
Interracial marriage is "bigoted"? I thought I had seen everything here, but I never thought I'd see an outright racist call someone "bigoted" for supporting interracial marriage.
Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
> Are you staring aghast at the latest cluster of immigrants in this country, are you fretting that they're breeding like rabbits? That generation of children will be the people your kids grow up with, go to school with, date, and marry. It may take a while, but eventually, your line will merge with theirs.
Please don't spread the great replacement conspiracy theory.
> There are no grounds to argue that there are distinct subpopulations of people with different potentials for intelligence. Genes flow fluidly
I don't see why we need to talk about "distinct subpopulations" at all, when individuals suffice. Besides, if you think "gene flow" means intelligence is immune to evolution, doesn't that apply to every other trait as well? What you're arguing is that evolution doesn't happen.
as for the twin experiment, he's not talking about heredity of iq, he's talking about heredity of perceived/expressed iq. there's an important difference that gets lost in the noise.
I did. It's using a lot of words to obfuscate its central thesis: That even if you select against a trait, that trait won't diminish. It may as well be arguing that antibiotic resistance cannot develop, or that corn can't be selectively bred to increase yield.
It's sad that even 163 years after On the Origin of Species, people are still trying to deny it.
The younger generations are the target audience, who will believe these lies about your education. As old times slip from living memory, they are rewritten into a caricature of themselves to serve the current zeitgeist.
This is not an isolated case, e.g. this article [1] about appropriating babywearing fashion that tried to gaslight us into thinking Europeans simply had no way of carrying their children prior to strollers, and so we should feel appropriately guilty over using modern baby carriers based on "indigenous knowledge".
> It's really depressing how we totally fail to permanently learn our lessons. [..] It's so bizarre that people will campaign for and champion the rollback of regulations that negatively affect them directly.
From my exposure to the political right, they've been preoccupied with CRT, drag queen story hour, and censorship. Occasionally immigration pops up, but politicians even on the right prefer to ignore that (as any graph of immigration to the US vs. which party is in power will show).
I haven't seen even a hint of a grassroots campaign against child labor restrictions - or any kind of campaign at all, just bills suddenly appearing out of the blue. This is strictly a top-down push, not even from the politicians, but their puppet-masters. They're banking on voters' loyalty and lack of alternatives to not lose any votes.
If there's a lesson we forgot, it's how to limit corruption in politics, not that maybe child labor is OK.
The puppet masters at the top are the 'tail wagging the dog' about the whole CRT/LBGT/etc issues. When you tell a group they are threatened they'll stop paying attention to 'little things' and focus on the threat. Meanwhile the oligarch class robs their pockets blind.
As people such as Martinez fill Stanford and rise through its ranks, each subsequent president becomes more likely to endorse such actions, instead of demanding apologies for them.
Surely we can agree that a protest out on the streets, or inside a lecture hall, differ. And for outdoors, "loud and disruptive" is the norm. There the line is usually drawn at violence.
The objection is one can't effectively lecture while heckled, not that they can't "handle" it. Disrupting class, in other words.
Though FIRE also calls that heckling "unlawful", which, unless I'm missing something, I disagree with - I don't see which laws the hecklers broke, since as far as protesting goes, they were tame, if allegedly uncivil and in the wrong venue.
