The above map shows variations in average IQs in Europe, an arbitrarily selected area. Why not do it (discriminate) on Geography?

Or, if people with lower socio-economic standing have lower IQs (some say the pressures can lower IQ by 13 points) or thatit affects IQ more in the US than elsewhere, then surely we should just do away with the poor. They are lowering our average IQs!

All this kind of position does is advocate elitism along whatever arbitrary line the claimant desires.

Lets look again at the biological sex category, but this time in terms of violence and safety. This, in my opinion, utterly destroys Rob Smiths and OTGs argument.

There is a subset of humanity that is 882% more likely to violent crime. It would be wise to restrict their participation in society, or their migration, or to vilify them in some other way, etc etc.

Of course, they are men. You are one, Mr. Smith/OTG. I would say that being a man isFAR, FAR, FARmore problematic in comparison to blacks vs. white violence. Just reading books likeThe Anatomy of Violenceby Adrian Raine orIncognitoby David Eaglemanshould cause Rob Smith to pause and reflect on his very dubious position. He should be far more vehemently protesting againstmenif safety and violence is important to him, if hereallyfeels strongly about it. Men are 882% more likely to commit violent behaviour. This is a huge difference and dwarfs that claimed between blacks and whites. Women iun the UK account for only 5% of the prison population, but are 50% of teh population.

We men should be more like women, no?

I mean, that is what OTG is saying: blacks should be more like whites?

I said this to OTG:I can ignore your statistics there because you seem to ignore the statistics on men against women. We know the statistics for men committing violent crime and gun crime far outstrips that committed by women. However, you seem to ignore these statistics in your hellbent desire to persecute blacks. Your double standards are quite incredible because you never seem to campaign so vociferously against men. However, the statistics of men versus women compared to blacks versus whites is considerably different.

His reply?

Its not a double standard, and observing facts is not persecution. No one denies the fact men are more violent and criminal than women, but liberals like you deny the fact blacks are much more violent and criminal than whites. Blacks are 12% of the population and commit more total homicides than whites and Hispanics combined.

Tumbleweed.

And eventually:

And black men commit crimes at a much higher rate than white men.

This is his modus operandi.When presented with a difficult corner to fight out of, he simply repeats his original claim. In this case, both, myself and another commenter (Anri) asked him several times what he wanted to do with his claimed information, even ignoring my points:

Okay, so if I agreed to your narrative about blacks (I dont), then what? What is your point that you want to raise whenever you raise this narrative? Because whatever you suggest should happen with blacks should happen to massively far greater extent with men. And herein lies your double standards, no doubt.

His reply?

Why do you insist on denying the fact blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites? You present yourself as a rational, truth seeker, but thats clearly not the case.

One of the reasons it needs to be raised is because people like you attribute American crime to guns.

And thats the closest, after many times of asking, that he has got to answering the oft-asked question.

But it need not just be IQ that is used. We could divide people up on any number of abilities or skill sets. Coordination, cultural heritage, art, use of logic, survival skills, musicality The list goes on.

And, to me, that is what makes him racist. He is being arbitrarily (non-rationally) phobic or discriminatory of a race. He could choose any number of elitist categorisations to attack others, but he chooses race.

It is also worth noting that if iQ is his thing, then he needs to accept that lower IQ is also linked to higher religiosity:

In a 2013 meta-analysis of 63 studies, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, a correlation of -.20 to -.25 between religiosity and IQ was particularly strong when assessing beliefs (which in their view reflects intrinsic religiosity)

Naturally, it is worth really unpicking the data for a number of confounding causal variables, but we know OTG doesnt like to do that, so we can assume that he will accept that the negativity of violence and crime as caused by lower IQ in blacks (his claim) also causes another negativity or religiosity. Unless he wants to mess around with religiosity being a good thing and undermining his argument such that a low IQ can cause bad things, but this is balanced by good things.

But that would be far too nuanced for him

I could go on, but I will stop here. I will ask again: why do these people botherwith this crusade at all? I could vilify autistic people, or quadriplegics, as not offering something or another to society. But I dont because I am a compassionate human. Where is Rob Smiths and Ottos humanity? Are they simply advocating for eugenics based on the colour of someones skin? Commenter Thanks4AllTheFish made a couple of comments that, for me, nailed it (on Duvals piece):

Sub-Saharan Africa is very fertile and has an abundance of animal life. If you understood evolution at all, you would know that environment plays a critical part in evolutionary change. With all this abundance, the indigenous people had no need for huge cities and castles to defend their realm. Hunting and gathering satisfied their needs whereas in Europe, the climate was much harsher and necessitated evolutionary change. Does this make European peoples better than sub-Saharan Africans? Absolutely not. It only makes them different. This is what you fail to understand.

Journals from early European explorers write about how they were amazed at the variety and richness of African culture that had developed outside of white influence. Discoveries of the Monomotapa Kingdom, Zagwe Dynasty, the Axumite, Ghana, Mali, Sonhai, Kanem, Nri, and Bornull Empires showed a richness of culture unknown to Europeans prior to the 1200s. You dismiss all of this because it doesnt fit into your superiority narrative and I understand that. What you need to understand is that a written language, IQ, or intelligence is not what really bothers YOU about Blacks,et al.

What bothers you about Blacks is that they exist and they apparently threaten your sense of superiority. The rest of us dont see black people we just see people. That is the primary difference between a racist and an actual Human Being.

and:

So what? None of this matters to anyone but white supremists. All of us used to wriggle around in the primeval slime. You paint with a broad brush but the fact is some blacks are smarter than some whites and many Asians are smarter than many whites. My post indicates that those who worry about such matters are in need of a mental health professional.

Black people in America have demonstrated one overwhelming superiority to white people enormous restraint. If I had been treated the way Blacks and Native Americans have been treated, I would have slaughtered you all in your sleep.

Is the point of this discussion to show that white people are somehow superior to others because they have a greater IQ? If one were to accept this premise (as if it even mattered), is the end goal to round up all the Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc. folks and put them to work picking cotton or something? Why should anyone care what race is the smartest? That seems like a fools errand unless some sinister eugenics plot or cross burning is in the offing. If your whole life revolves around trying to justify how smart and superior you are because your skin happens to be white, frankly you are a racist jackass and you need to get over yourself. One thing pretty much everyone agrees on is that being a racist or bigot is not a sign of superiority, higher IQ or intelligence. It is a sign of mental illness, however.

Treating people as fellow human beings. Thats what it is to be a humanist, and of that Im proud.

Although I said I would grant them their claims for sake of argument, I cant resist a bit of a dig. I will refer to Explaining the Gaps in White,Black, and Hispanic Violencesince 1990: Accounting forImmigration, Incarceration,and Inequality byMichael T. Lightand Jeffery T. Ulmer. It is a recent meta-analytical paper that is well worth a read. Here are some relevant snippets:

Across all three comparisonswhite-black, white-Hispanic, and blackHispanicwefind considerable convergence in homicide rates over the past two decades.Consistent with expectations, structural disadvantage is one of the strongest predictors oflevels and changes in racial/ethnic violence disparities. In contrast to predictions based on strain theory, racial/ethnic wealth inequality has not increased disparities in homicide.Immigration, on the other hand, appears to be associated with declining white-black homicidedifferences. Consistent with an incapacitation/deterrence perspective, greater racial/ethnicincarceration disparities are associated with smaller racial/ethnic gaps in homicide.

Combined with theincarceration findings, our research suggeststhat rather than policies focused solely on criminal elements within communities (e.g.,incarceration and more police), policies aimedat improving overall community conditions inminority areas through economic investment,housing equality, and spending on education,drug treatment, and work training programs,would go a long way toward reducing racial/ethnic differences in violence without worseningracial inequality in other social domains.

Taken together, our results have importantimplications for understanding the future ofracial/ethnic disparities in violent crime. Onthe one hand, disparities in homicide betweenwhites, blacks, and Hispanics decreased overthe past two decades, to the point where thereis now near parity between whites and Hispanics.

Ulmer et al also recently found strong causal drivers in disadvantage, family structure and poverty in racial differences in violent crime.

As Wiki states:

While there is a correlation between blacks and Hispanics and crime, the data imply a much stronger tie between poverty and crime than crime and any racial group, when gender is taken into consideration.[63]The direct correlation between crime and class, when factoring for race alone, is relatively weak. When gender, and familial history are factored, class correlates more strongly with crime than race or ethnicity.[64][65]Studies indicate that areas with low socioeconomic status may have the greatest correlation of crime with young and adult males, regardless of racial composition, though its effect on females is negligible.[64][65]A 1996 study looking at data fromColumbus, Ohiofound that differences in disadvantage in city neighborhoods explained the vast majority of the difference in crime rates between blacks and whites,[66]and two 2003 studies looking at violent offending among juveniles reached similar conclusions.[67][68]

The evidence is mixed on the causality for racial disparity, and at least part of this (as Duval pointed out) is the difficulty in finding comparable data between ethnic groups in terms of SES (and this tells another story!). Simply put, we cant seem to find the same sort of deprivation amongst a comparable white US population.

Controlling for variables does certainly lead to, at best, aweak correlation. When it comes to men vs women, that correlation stands strong. So a controlled statistic that starts getting toward parity versus a difference of almost 9 times (theres movement either way on this depending on how you define it).

If there was still to be a difference in black and white IQ and/or violence, then this would be far, far smaller than the difference in, say, male-female statistics, after controlling. And yet Otto chooses race over sex because, you know, racism.

This is my challenge, as succinctly as possible:

If Otto is attacking blacks on account of being more violent (due to some kind of genetic determinant), such that when controlling for all other variables, then whatever action he wants taken on account of this must be taken to a much greater degree against men. If he wants to disallow immigration from/lock them up/shoot them/generally pour scorn on them, then he must start doing this to all men. From now. Thats, you know, logical.

In other words, since he will not do this, or since it will lead to ridiculous and no doubt sexist conclusions, he doesnt have a leg to stand on.

Either he deals with this point by destroying the data on male violence, or he accepts it and changes his tack to not only include men in his consistent comments and attacks but to start seeing them as the far greater problem. Every comment would now need to state something like:

High crime in the US correlates to blacks men, because they commit crimes at a much higher rate than other races biological sexes.

Perhaps we can make a feminist of Otto?

If he does not deal with at least this point in substantial robustness, I will simply delete all further invocations of his agenda.

I also want to repeat the question directly to him:Anyway, what doyouwant to do with the information (even if we accepted your claims)?

He has started peddling these claims again, hence the reposting here. You can see the original comment thread here. He has to the end of the week to rebut the challenge or his latest comments will be deleted.

Read the original post:
A Challenge to Race Realists Race vs Biological Sex - Patheos

Comments are closed.