/edu/ - Education

>explain pic related
Europe was at the perfect crossroads of necessity and opportunity due to various geographic and economic conditions.
You can see it more in detail in this video on the dialectical development of history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnqS7G3LmMo?t=1619
The book this is from (Murray's Human Accomplishment) literally tried to explain why. From the ALA review:
"Murray carefully examines why. The greatest achievements of India, China, Japan, and Islam occurred well before the West took off during the Renaissance, and each of those cultures valued duty, family, and consensus, whereas the West prefers individualism, the sine qua non of scientific debate and discovery."

One of the other times someone cited this book (it's written by one of the Bell Curve guys) an anon pointed this out.
This review talked about flaws in the methodology:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious

One of the most notable flaws is that it excludes anything after 1950. Everything after 1950 is apparently not an objective human accomplishment by definition to Murray.
Quote from above review:
"Before 1950, black people had invented gospel, blues, jazz, R&B, samba, meringue, ragtime, zydeco, mento, calypso, and bomba. During the early 20th century, in the United States alone, the following composers and players were active: Ma Rainey, W.C. Handy, Scott Joplin, Louis Armstrong, Jelly Roll Morton, James P. Johnson, Fats Waller, Count Basie, Cab Calloway, Art Tatum, Charlie Parker, Charles Mingus, Lil Hardin Armstrong, Bessie Smith, Billie Holliday, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Mahalia Jackson, J. Rosamond Johnson, Ella Fitzgerald, John Lee Hooker, Coleman Hawkins, Leadbelly, Earl Hines, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Fats Navarro, Roy Brown, Wynonie Harris, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Willie Johnson, Robert Johnson, Son House, Dinah Washington, Thelonious Monk, Muddy Waters, Art Blakey, Sarah Vaughan, Memphis Slim, Skip James, Louis Jordan, Ruth Brown, Big Jay McNeely, Paul Gayten, and Professor Longhair. (This list is partial.) When we talk about black American music of the early 20th century, we are talking about one of the most astonishing periods of cultural accomplishment in the history of civilization. We are talking about an unparalleled record of invention, the creation of some of the most transcendently moving and original artistic material that has yet emerged from the human mind. The significance of this achievement cannot be overstated… Yet in Charles Murray’s “objective” measure of the worth of Western musical creations, none of this appears. Instead, in addition to the usual heavyweights like Bach and Wagner, we get a slew of minor, forgotten English composers like John Jenkins, Nicholas Lanier, and Matthew Locke. This is (and I am not kidding) because Murray believes that their work better fits the Aristotelian standard for transcendent human feeling[.]"

>>7010
Quality of education has quite a bit more to do with stability of family life rather than magnitude of education spending. Success of students is contingent on many factors but in America much of our social spending has to be funnelled through the education system rather than expanded outright. School functions less as education than public daycare assistance and this has to do with the rigid structure of the social safety net's to ability to be expanded where it is needed or public investment placed in areas other than education and basic infrastructure.
Major problem is that liberalism fetishizes education because of an erroneous belief in education as a Merit machine, but education success is much more about standard of living and life stability of the student than the quality or funding of schools. Public investment has to be well rounded and education results will improve, shoveling more money to education alone will not fix it since success therein is multifaceted.
A related text is Fredrik deBoer's The Cult of Smart, which talks about this issue of overemphasizing the efficacy of education in setting American social policy.

>>6917
>Then elaborate, faggot. Why does the CIA want to rehabilitate the enemy they put so much work into vilifying? Lemme answer that for you, they don't.
It benefits corporations. I was thinking about it for the past 3 months, and I've realized that communism - if implemented in a western nation - would be fore-fronted by current private interests. The only reason why you support socialism is because you're given false information to support it. Then, if you actually end up enacting it with your buddies, it'll then be taken over by private interests with either their private armies or a fat paycheck needed to stimulate any sort of economy as a complete restructuring of the power hierarchy ensues.
Apple would just turn into "The People's Apple", with former corporate types now legislating. What do you think happened with stalin and vodka production?

>>8729
>rehabilitating USSR benefits corporations
Fucking unreal. You have to be doing a bit because there is no way you are genuinely this retarded LMAO
Nevermind the fact that private interests already run everything you dumb fuck

>>8729
>It's "muh commissars and uthurutariunism" tripe again
>"stalin and vodka production?"
Holee fuk this is some hilarious shit. Go back glowie

>>8729
>communism - if implemented in a western nation - would be fore-fronted by current private interests
Is this why Mao committed classicide?

>>8739
Do you honestly, and I mean honestly, think that private interests aren't going to try to take over your pissant "revolution"? And if they don't, because you destroyed all of them, do you really think that a "diverse" and polarized America would even think for half a second to try and pull their shit together?

>>8740
>Communism is when everyone is poor and doesn’t have shit
>Communism is capitalism rebranded
Well, what is it?

>Do you honestly, and I mean honestly, think that private interests aren't going to try to take over your pissant "revolution"?
People being well armed, working councils/soviets being formed, and ocasional purges should keep private interests from taking over. Unless a Titoist/Dengist party is the one coming to power, which is incredibly unlikely to happen.

>do you really think that a "diverse" and polarized America would even think for half a second to try and pull their shit together?
Not a burger, you'll probably get a better answer from one. Regardless.

Do not underestimate the changes on zeitgeist required for such an event to happen. The most orthodox country in the world was blowing up its own churches when things got bad enough. And polarization eventually goes away, in the case of a supposed civil war, as most people that disagree die, flee or stop caring.

>>8740
>America
burger spotted, opinion invalid

>>8754
>Well, what is it?
It's both dipshit. Fascism is the answer. Perhaps a mixed economy, strong economic competition yet encouragement for classes to cooperate. Arm the unions, encourage faith, tradition, and ethnonationalism to unite the people. Badda boom, you're on your way to a post-scarcity Marxist society.

>>8763
but every fascist country was just conservatist neoliberalism, your attempt of selling your retarded sistem by rebranding it did not work.

>>8764
>conservatist neoliberalism
>Nazi germany was literally just america nowadays but they didn't like them gays and jews or whatever
?

>>8765
Pretty much, nazi germany cut salaries and subsidized/tax cuts for corporations that made shit for them, for example, Bayer, and privatised (reminder the first time the term was used was in nazi germany) state-owned fabrics for the porkies that suporter the Reich.
i don't know why you are surprised, it's basic knowledge.

>>8766
>nazi germany cut salaries
This in itself is a base-level retard sentance. So you're telling me the fucking Nazi German government walked up and said "yo chieftan, your salary is gonna b cut 50% fuck you"? That's retarded, and even if it was true - which I doubt it was - that would be more close to a Socialist economy, since it'd be a central figure, da gubment, trying to force the economy's hand without large over-arching changes to everyone.
But all of that shit isn't true. Them nazis didn't cut them salamis, you fucking ape. Or at least, they didn't cut the salaries in the way that would mirror the Neo-Liberal method. Neo-Liberal economies distinctly cut salaries through flooding the workforce with neo-slave immigrants, women, and outsourcing labour. All three of those things are distinctly opposed by both Nazis of 1930's/1940's Germany, and by Neo-Nazis of today.

>>8769
NTA, just chiming in
You're correct that they did not have neoliberalism, neolibs arose directly as a response to more traditional decaying capitalist methods like in Nazi Germany failing. They did undercut salaries, but hid it using price changes and other manipulations. I suggest reading Tooze's book on the Nazi economy that has a section going into this.
>Arm the unions
The Unions under the Nazis came under "management" and control of corporations and certainly got no arms. A main point of fascism is clas-collaboration using rhetoric of "greater good" and other crap to ssntially say, "bend your neck for now and the higher ups cna tell you the time that you'll get your good life"… except that didn't happen for many people and for those that did rise out of poverty, it came at the cost of the lives and living standards of others.
>encourage faith, tradition, and ethnonationalism
the latter just encourages shit like in 90s Russia and fSU. Tradition and faith for their own sake are also detrimental, BUT I also think (and so did the USSR) that you cannot just attack religion and traditional ideas for the sake of it, as these things arose over centuries for a reason.

Fascism is not needed for post-scarcity, that's an illusion mirroring and attempting to dissuade people from Marxism-Leninism. Link related is a video about IG-Farben and just how they pulled this porky scam offю
Russian video on IG-Farben (Eng Subtitles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtPGaG7g3CE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyJTv_qLqsI English vid on Krupp

>>8763
>Communism is when capitalism
>Fascism is the answer
I'm starting to think the retarded rightoid tourists on this board are just radlibs who like edgy aesthetics

>>8770
All I'm saying is chieftan, I'm not going through 800 pages of shit by some literal who with a fucking goofy last name. Cite the pages with quotes from the .PDF if you want me to care.
>it came at the cost of the lives and living standards of others
I assume this is 6 gorillionb8

>>8778
>I CANT READ
Every. Fucking. Time.
Literally just skim the table of contents or CTRL+F to get to the part you want you actual retard LMAO
>I'm not reading shit written by some literal who
Says the guy getting his history and politics from sexless chinlets on an anonymous imageboard

>>8782
>Refuses to cite pages and give quotes
>Onion hominem ensues
So *thats* why you hate capitalism. Too many job interviews were ended early because you wanted someone to waste 2 hours of their life reading some dogshit.
I have better things to do, smoke cigarettes, drink, lift, scream the N word online, then read your dogshit. You're either gonna cite specific pages that express your point, or your source is invalidated because in any context, assuming that someone will read a whole fucking book just to confirm or deny a singular point you offer is retarded.
This is the real world, I'm not your fucking grade 3 teacher, I'm not reading your fucking entire shit. Be concise.

>>8786
Not the guy who sent you the book, retard LOL. My memory of the book is rusty but I'm pretty sure Chapter 2 is what you want, learn to skim a book shithead
You know as well as I do you don't have better things to do, you're spending your friday night on an Albanian basket weaving forum arguing about why CIA are communists and why Faggotism is the way to go, even though you already got destroyed in this thread months prior. Go outside. Read a book. Have sex.

>>8786
>I. Can't. READ! SPOONFEED ME DADDY /leftypol/
>I just like being a retard, let m be a retard on a board made specifically for the opposite ofo that!
>N-no u!
KEK

thread summed up

I'll just paste one of my favorite articles here (verbatim):
>The skyscraper is capitalism materialised in steel and glass. It is a machine to extract rents from the skies, and the skylines of cities across the world are bar charts of property values. For many people, this is precisely the problem, as the tall building’s shadow turns streets into darkened canyons, and its arrogant erection demands that everyone pays attention.
>These “machines to make the land pay” only get built if someone agrees to pay colossal rent and someone else can borrow towering piles of cash at less interest than the rent they receive. Without a financial architecture founded on big money – big profits to pay big rents – nothing much grows.
>In a global economy where gigantic piles of cash get made, and need to find resting places, skyscrapers will continue to be built, and to be traded. That is what makes them so sublime, in Edmund Burke’s sense of being both terrifying and beautiful at the same time. They are both monuments to human ingenuity, and to massive inequality, as their occupants look down on the people living in cardboard on the city streets. The question they provoke is not really about boom or slump, but about the nature of an economic system which makes such projects possible.
https://theconversation.com/skyscrapers-show-capitalism-at-its-worst-and-its-most-sublime-30223

>>6685
>finer details like economic policy or how to deal with the transition from our current society into our ideal society are to be handled.

Other finer details include, y'know, how to handle the lives of all the groups that don't fit into your fascist wet dream.

>>5601
the test should have been conducted more than once on the same farmers, because people giving an IQ test again, will score higher.
im assuming the test was conducted only once, because it says between 2010 and 2011, and it also says the farmers harvest the sugarcane once a year.

Vidrel talks about the holodomor, and how the narrative that it happened as target terror-famine/genocide is patently absurd, even if the soviet government wasn't without its flaws during the famine.

>>10155
targeted terror-famine/genocide against the ukrainians*

Is this book worth debunking on its own, or has it already been done? Should I just download resources from the google doc and counter with those facts right off the cuff without wasting time? If there's anything I can learn from this, I look forward to it.

>>10309
Does the book say anything other than "Molotov-Ribbentrop existed and was bad"?
If not, there's plenty of resources debunking/ contextualising the pact, such as pic related. Also worth mentioning that a non-aggression pact (undertaken when the USSR was surrounded by hostile nations) is significantly different from, say, an alliance, which books like that like to imply it was.

>>10310
The book implies nothing, the book explicitly says that they "stood side by side as allies" and makes every attempt to suggest(even if acknowledging both leaders had different goals) Horseshoe Theory "totalitarians are all the same" bullshit.

>>10394
The book's argument is that the Soviets and Reich were allies due to them doing several acts of collaboration in order to fight the Polish Army, such as sharing intelligence on the size of Polish ranks.

>>10397
By that metric the Poles and Soviets had been allies because the Polish Military specifically ordered the army to not engage the Red Army.
Also the book cites the fake "Nazi-Soviet Parade" nonsense every other "muh Molotov-Ribbentrop alliance" retard says.

Loose fit maybe, but this was posted in /ITG/ about why trying to discuss identity politics on the site is a problem.

Here's a list I've compiled of popular anticommunist authors (plus some others) admitting there was no such thing as the Holodomor. Feel free to copypaste it.

Anne Applebaum, Red Famine:
>"In practice, ‘genocide’, as defined by the UN documents, came to mean the physical elimination of an entire ethnic group, in a manner similar to the Holocaust. The Holodomor does not meet that criterion. The Ukrainian famine was not an attempt to eliminate every single living Ukrainian; it was also halted, in the summer of 1933, well before it could devastate the entire nation"
Stephane Courtois/Nicolas Werth, The Black Book of Communism:
>"Should one see this famine as a genocide of the Ukrainian people, as a number of Ukrainian historians and researchers do today? It is undeniable that the Ukrainian peasantry were the principal victims in the famine of 1932-33 (…) But proportionally the famine was just as severe in the Cossack territories of the Kuban and the Don and in Kazakhstan"
Orlando Figes, Revolutionary Russia 1891-1991:
>"No hard evidence has so far come to light of the regime's intention to kill millions through famine, let alone of a genocide campaign against the Ukrainians. Many parts of Ukraine were ethnically mixed. There is no data to suggest that there was a policy of taking more grain from Ukrainian villages than from the Russians or other ethnic groups in the famine area. And Ukraine was not the only region to suffer terribly from the famine, which was almost as bad in Kazakhstan."
Robert Service, Stalin - A Biography:
>"Although Stalin did not seek the extermination of all Ukrainians and Kazakhs, he certainly aimed to extirpate all opposition real and potential from among them. The ultimate objective, though, was to turn Ukraine and Kazakhstan into economically efficient Soviet republics. He therefore allowed both peoples to retain their culture…"
Stephen Kotkin, Stalin - Waiting for Hitler 1929-1941:
>This becomes “genocide” when the authors include the executions of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, poets, musicians, artists, church officials. They offer no evidence of intentional starvation or of ethnic targeting. They do not dwell on the ethnic Ukrainian agency in the alleged genocide against Ukrainians (in regions where lots of Russians lived and died). They do not include the Volga Valley, Kazakhstan, the Urals, Western Siberia, and other famine-wracked regions where Ukrainians did not form a large percentage of the population.
Alexander Solshenistyn:
>In 2008, he published an article on Izvestia calling the Holodomor a "provocatory cry about a 'genocide' that was started in the minds of Ukrainian chauvinists decades later" (Source: https://iz.ru/news/335020)
On Robert Conquest backpedaling:
>"In 2003, Dr. Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it" (R.W. Davies & Stephen G. Wheatcroft. "Debate. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 - 33: A Reply to Ellman.")
>"In June 2006 a Ukrainian delegation of experts on the Holocaust and the Golodomor met Robert Conquest in Stanford University and enquired about his views, and were told directly by him that he preferred not to use the term genocide (Kul’chitskii (2007), 176)" (From R.W. Davies / Stephen Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger - Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933)
Grover Furr on the reaction of other historians (From Blood Lies):
>"There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians," said Alexander Dallin of Stanford, the father of modern Sovietology. "That would be totally out of keeping with what we know — it makes no sense."
>"This is crap, rubbish," said Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, whose 'Russian Peasants and Soviet Power' broke new ground in social history. "I am an anti-Stalinist, but I don't see how this [genocide] campaign adds to our knowledge. It's adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology.
>"I absolutely reject it," said Lynne Viola of SUNY-Binghamton, the first US historian to examine Moscow's Central State Archive on collectivization. "Why in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when they were terrified of war [with Germany]?
>"He's terrible at doing research," said veteran Sovietologist Roberta Manning of Boston College. "He misuses sources, he twists everything."
>In a polite but firmly negative review of Conquest's book in the London Review of Books in 1987 American Soviet scholar J. Arch Getty wrote: Conquest's hypothesis, sources and evidence are not new. Indeed, he himself first put forward his view two years ago in a work sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. The intentional famine story, however, has been an article of faith for Ukrainian émigrés in the West since the Cold War. Much of Conquest's most graphic description is taken from such period-pieces as The Golgoltha of the Ukraine (1953), The Black Deeds of the Kremlin (1953) and Communism the Enemy of Mankind (1955). Conquest's book will thus give a certain academic credibility to a theory which has not been generally accepted by non-partisan scholars outside the circles of exiled nationalities. In today's conservative political climate, with its 'evil empire' discourse, I am sure that the book will be very popular.
On the Russian release of archival documents:
>“In the archives of Russia, in the archives of the republics of the former USSR, millions of documents have been preserved [of] the famine in the USSR at the beginning of the 1930s of the last century in various regions of the large country. Not a single document has been found confirming the conception of a ‘Holodomor-genocide’ in Ukraine or even a hint in the documents about ethnic motives of what occurred, including in Ukraine.” (Source: V. P. Kozlov, Golod v SSSR 1930-1934; Famine in the USSR 1930­-1934 (2009)

>>10444
Man, that I recognize damn near every name on this copy-paste is a real indicator of just how long I've studied this topic.

>>10425
Excellent post though they deemphasize the impact of liberals and their fascist counter-parts. It's not just rationalizing, but its also a formation of golden calves (in the form of vague but generally accepted concepts so that disagreeing makes you appear to be a bad person) that they use to gaslight anyone that attempts to criticize idpol from an objective standpoint. For example the liberal slogan of black lives matter". On a base, superficial level, yeah there's nothing incorrect, but the problem is that
A) focusing on a specific identity in your rhetoric for ethics, immediately attracts the porky rhetoric about "muh privleg" and other identarian, divisive nonsense
B) it ignores the subversive and often rightist context of these phrases and concepts and their inherent use as a justification for dumb idpol shit promoted by rainbow-capitalist ideologues; a gateway for literal fed propaganda
It goes without saying that this also applies to rightoid slogans about stuff like "de jooz"

>>10444 (cheka'd)
>Robert Service
>tfw i inherited one of his books from my father

>>8763
Are you fucking retarded. In other words a society specifically designed to oppress me, many of my friends, and entire ethnic groups, sexual minorities, neurological minorities, etc. It's materially impossible for me to support your system because it results in my being destroyed. Which proves the psychopathy of you right wingers: that you think this is okay because you think I deserve to die.

>>10665

Why are you entertaining bait

>>10399

Can you provide a source?

>>6659
> The Nazis and killers were punished, but many were rehabilitated. It's a complex ethical and moral question which most people frankly do not want to go into because it is so much easier to say "fascists are subhumans to be killed" rather than to try and stop and save these deluded people.

Reading as I play Wolfenstein. It’s funny, because in this last level I’m trying to beat General Deathshead is trying to guilt B.J.Blaskowics over the families of the Nazis he has killed. Sardonically, it’s noted he must have killed thousands!

>>6659
Ok anon, but fact of the matter is, the resources and bandwidth needed to save and reform any of these people aren't available on the left, or will be in a very long time. For that reason, we can't let the humanity of these people interfere with our goals, even if recognize these things to be true. I am for crushing the fascist, while also recognizing their humanity. I do not shed any tears for them, but rather who they could've become. I hope for the day when the Left can reform reactionaries and the like. Until then, it's a struggle for power.

>>5578
>African Americans and Latinos report lower levels of trust, regardless of where they live.
but what are the reasons for this? is it because they are hated by nonblacks or nonhispanics? "regardless of where they live" includes homogenous societies with large majority black/latino?
>THE DIFFERENCE IN TRUST BETWEEN A 100% WHITE NEIGHBOURHOOD AND A 1% WHITE NEIGHBOURHOOD WHERE NEIGHBOURS SHARE THE SAME LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
you know "diversity" doesn't mean non-white?
>Economy is important in determining trust, materialists proved correct again
in a land of plenty there aren't things to kill over, or steal.

>>5589
>Blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes.
an extension of their lower average IQ
>There is a genetic IQ gap between races.
genetic or not, there is a gap, and if it were entirely environmental, then when things became more equal, the gap should have closed, do you have data proving this? mlk jr got black voting rights in 1965, that's plenty of time.
>single motherhood is another factor which is stronger than race [as a predictor of criminality]
what does that mean, that the women are doing the crime, or the criminal was raised by a single mother? anyone who is a single mother made bad choices, and the partner was a bad choice if he is the kind of scum who leaves his partner, so are you surprised an improperly raised kid born of two lowlifes turns criminal? not to mention they are probably poorer too without a breadwinner.
>if we look at poor countries without any inequality or active conflicts we see that the homicide rate is ridiculously low… rates between 1-3
again, nothing to kill over. wtf does 1-3 mean? 1-3%? 0.1-0.3%?
>citing wikipedia
don't.

>>5601
>A persons IQ can fluctuate by 13 points in a few months thanks to wealth and poverty.
>researchers found stress hinders people's cognitive performance
no shit sherlock

I'm interested in what you leftists think of The Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray. Mostly the focus isn't specifically on race, but pretty much every single bad thing like single motherhood, low income, low education, low SES, is negeatively correlated with high IQ. Specifically, you should find the section on b/w test bias, in ch13, and in affirmative action in education (where they discuss how the situation looks from the ground) ch19, p252 in this pdf, interesting.

>>6706
>nazi-crossdress.png
doubtful it's real. the nazis hated homos and similar degeneracies. here's some reasons why given by himmler:
they are cowards, delusional
they will have in-group preference which undermines a meritocracy
"our people will die out"
https://nseuropa.org/English/Heinrich%20Himmler%20speech%20-%2018.02.1937.pdf

>>7010
see attached please. they pissed the money away with bloated administration, an enforced black/white ratio (with expensive bussing), plenty of magnet schools. the funding was a strain on the area.

>>12146
>mlk jr got black voting rights in 1965, that's plenty of time.
political equality is not economic equality, this being the main thing liberals cannot get their head around
>the bell curve
lmao

>>12160
>political equality is not economic equality
I avoided referencing the bell curve there as I can see it's well challenged here. but picrel, they get what they work for.
>attached, gould
I've read a few criticisms of them, to find all of them misinterpreted the book, some so wildly you wonder if they had even read the book at all. so I'll read the section "CritiqueofTheBellCurve"
>slashing social programs canbe so abetted byan argument thatbeneficiaries cannotbeaided duetoinborn cognitivelimits ex-pressed as low1Q scores
the point of slashing the programs were to build community and to discourage the stupid from making rash decisions. H&M find it is mostly the low IQ who are on welfare and related
>Intelligence, in their formulation, mustbe depictable as asinglenumber, capableof rankingpeople in linearorder, geneticallybased, and effectively immutable. Ifany ofthese premises arefalse, theentire argument collapses.
There is no requirement of a genetic basis of intelligence to be true.
>Disingenuousness of content
H&M compared differences between groups, including race, but their main focus was intelligence. Unfortunately in almost every criticism there's screeching about race and no solid acknowledgement of anything else.
>the book gets validity from being big and intimidating!
jfc
>no justification for g
while g was mostly given as an assumption, there are sections, including the one he sites about the three schools, in bell curve which show
>tests of the varying in-telligences in his theory seem to be intercorrelated (p19)
Gould admits this himself before going completely offtopic, saying "it isn't indicative of the cause".
>Admittedly, factoranalysis isadifficult andmathematical sub-ject, butitcan beexplained tolayreaders witha geometrical formu-lation [which I used but admit didn't "suffice for adequate explanation"]
lol, lmao
>…so, althoughI offersome sketchyhints below,readers shouldnot question their ownIQ's ifthetopic stillseems arcane.
you don't understand, don't feel bad, it's my fault!
>Inanycase,onecan't graspthe issueatall withouta clear expositionof factoranalysis
>says it again, [proof required]
if he can't explain his evidence it means nothing
ironically, just earlier he accused the bell curve of appearing ofcusicated and the text looking complicated (it isn't).
>V-bias
TBC acknowledges affrimative action and you can see and picrel what they think of it. They dismiss racism as being prominent in denying opportunity to blacks in their time, and anyway, how does blacks being treated socially unfairly by society affect their reaction times when tested?
>they don't show the scatter plot
finally a good criticism
>muh correlationdoesnotimplycause
so propose a different mechanism!
>appendix 4 statement
also good argument, I will check those
Gould writes in a way that suggests TBC promotes "the cessation of Head Start" (TBC notes that Head Start may have other benefits but not increasing intelligence)
>WemustfightthedoctrineofTheBellCurvebothbecauseitiswrongandbecauseitwill,ifactivated,cutoffallpossibilityofpropernurturanceforeveryone'sintelligence.Ofcoursewecannotallberocketscientistsorbrainsurgeons(tousethetwocurrentslangsynecdochesforsmartestofthesmart),but
critiqueofTheBellCurvethosewhocan'tmightberockmusiciansorprofessionalathletes(andgainfarmoresocialprestigeandsalarythereby)—whileotherswillindeedservebystandingandwaiting
>conclusion
>useless irrelevant blurb about TBC suggested policies preventing people from becoming rockstars or athletes
>strawmans TBC as denying an environmental factor like childhood nutrition in intelligence

so the only criticisms worth investigating:
>g is contested
>they don't show a scatter plot and they don't use the conventional goodness of fit, and when they do, the relationships are tiny
big if true

>>12171
you're about 30 years behind on the literature in this debate m8

>>12179
What's the new lit then?

>three weeks
>no replies
>page 2
sure is slow around here.

Playboi Carti skeleton but its Communist




Whole lotta red, uh
Whole lotta red
One shot to the head (One shot to the head)
Bougie, you dead
I don't give a fuck 'bout a roader
Kill a piggie off red
Just bought a new K
That's a brand new leg
Got a brand new org
That's some brand new friends, huh
Got a brand new bag, hold up
And some brand new ends, hold up
Got a brand new troops, uh
That's a brand new cadre, huh
Got a brand new watch, uh
Skeleton, hold up (What?)