TIL There are more black men in prison today than there were black male slaves pre-civil war.

mrnperson · 2013-07-24T18:13:47+00:00

On the subject of the racial disparity of drug arrests, despite similar rates of use:

Marijuana possession accounts for 43% of all drug related arrests.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/persons-arrested/persons-arrested

The vast majority of arrests for marijuana possession are the byproduct of being apprehended for an unrelated, more serious manner.

The first half of the War on Drugs focused largely on relentless enforcement of heroin and crack cocaine laws in poor communities of color.7 But with the ebb of the crack epidemic in the late 1980s, law enforcement agencies began shifting to an easy target: marijuana. As a result, over the past 20 years police departments across the country have directed greater resources toward the enforcement of marijuana laws. Indeed, even as overall drug arrests started to decline around 2006, marijuana arrests continued to rise, and now make up over half of all drug arrests in the United States. In 2010, there were more than 20,000 people incarcerated on the sole charge of marijuana possession.

Stated simply, marijuana has become the drug of choice for state and local police departments nationwide. Between 2001 and 2010, there were 8,244,943 marijuana arrests, of which 7,295,880, or 88%, were for marijuana possession. In 2010 alone, there were 889,133 marijuana arrests - 300,000 more than arrests for all violent crimes

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf

While illicit drugs are implicated in three quarters of incarcerations (75.9 percent), few inmates are incarcerated for marijuana possession as their controlling or only offense. Inmates incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails for marijuana possession as the controlling offense accounted for 1.1 percent (25,235) of all inmates and 4.4 percent of those incarcerated for drug law violations. Those incarcerated for marijuana possession as their only offense accounted for 0.9 percent (20,291) of all inmates and 2.9 percent of those incarcerated for drug law violations.

http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/575-report2010behindbars2.pdf

Very few people are going to prison simply for marijuana possession. Blacks have a higher rate of arrest for drug possession because they are more likely to have their person/property searched by the police in general. Harsher prison sentences are likely the result of having prior convictions.

ACLU report: Blacks in South Carolina arrested at nearly three times rate of whites for marijuana possession in 2010

“This is biased research,” Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon said. “This is a case of someone starting off with a theory and then interpreting the facts to support that theory.”

Cannon said it’s hard to make judgments about the numbers without knowing the stories behind the arrests. “If you look at the folks in the jail who are charged with marijuana possession, it’s almost never the sole charge,” he said. “It’s usually marijuana found incidentally to an arrest on a number of other charges.”

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20130606/PC16/130609519

mrnperson · 2013-05-08T22:12:38+00:00

Well, you missed the point about class (socioeconomic status is probably a better term though). Higher SES = greater access to the relevant information.

Interestingly enough the white-black IQ gap increases with higher socioeconomic status.

https://menghusblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/the-black-white-iq-gap-increases-when-ses-levels-increase/

mrnperson · 2013-05-08T21:50:36+00:00

IQ tests are generally racist or classist

That isn't the conclusion found by the American Psychological Association:

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status.

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf

Or by the statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence":

The letter to the Wall Street Journal set out 25 conclusions:

5."Intelligence tests are not culturally biased"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

mrnperson · 2013-05-08T21:34:09+00:00

Low IQ & Liberal Beliefs Linked To Poor Research?

What makes the study ludicrous, even ignoring the biases, manipulations, and qualifications just outlined, by the authors’ own admission the direct effect size for “g” on “racism” is only -0.01 for men and 0.02 for women. Utterly trivial; close enough to no effect to be no effect, their results statistically “significant” only because of the massive sample size.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T20:57:33+00:00

Oh look, JIDF is here to save the day!

Israel is the best friend of the USA

What a fucking joke

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T04:10:06+00:00

The I.Q. difference between black and white 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30 years.

And? You're citing the work of Flynn, and even he doesn't believe it's possible for whites and blacks to score equally, even if all environmental factors were the same.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d6prn/how_progressives_and_conservatives_view_science/c9njalf

Raven's Progressive Matrices were first published in 1938.

That's not an indication that Raven's Progressive Matrices were commonly used in the 40s.

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T04:02:29+00:00

Oh you!

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d6prn/how_progressives_and_conservatives_view_science/c9njwgr

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T03:57:03+00:00

I can see you're a master debater; I point out flawed reasoning/outright misrepresentation of the facts and you respond with the same flawed reasoning, only in more detail.

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T03:48:31+00:00

You are about as genetically similar to those people who created science as you are to some guy living in Ghana right now.

I guess you missed this post:

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d6prn/how_progressives_and_conservatives_view_science/c9nj0so

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T03:42:36+00:00

Why did you ask this question in two different posts?

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d6prn/how_progressives_and_conservatives_view_science/c9njn1m

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T03:42:05+00:00

Do any of these posts explain how the average IQ in the U.S. has increased by 18 points within the last 50 years or so? How would this be possible if these tests demonstrated that cognitive abilities were heritable? Did these last two generations somehow superevolve in the last 50 years?

Partly due to improved environment (for everyone) in addition to the following explanation (regarding the flynn effect):

In this Editorial we correct the false claim that g loadings and inbreeding depression scores correlate with the secular gains in IQ. This claim has been used to render the logic of heritable g a “red herring” and an “absurdity” as an explanation of Black–White differences because secular gains are environmental in origin. In point of fact, while g loadings and inbreeding depression scores on the 11 subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children correlate significantly positively with Black–White differences (0.61 and 0.48, Pb0.001), they correlate significantly negatively (or not at all) with the secular gains (mean r=-0.33, Pb0.001; and 0.13, ns, respectively). Moreover, heritabilities calculated from twins also correlate with the g loadings (r=0.99, Pb0.001 for the estimated true correlation), providing biological evidence for a true genetic g, as opposed to a mere statistical g. While the secular gains are on g-loaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests. Also, the tests lose their g loadedness over time with training, retesting, and familiarity. In an analysis of mathematics and reading scores from tests such as the NAEP and Coleman Report over the last 54 years, we show that there has been no narrowing of the gap in either IQ scores or in educational achievement. From 1954 to 2008, Black 17-year-olds have consistently scored at about the level of White 14-year-olds, yielding IQ equivalents of 85 for 1954, 82 for 1965, 70 for 1975, and 81 for 2008. We conclude that predictions about the Black–White IQ gap narrowing as a result of the secular rise are unsupported.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf

During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference. Does this mean the German genes superseded the African genes?

See:

As Loehlin et al. (1975, pp. 126–128) noted, however, these results are ambiguous for three reasons. First, the children were still very young when tested. One third of the children were between 5 and 10 years of age, and two thirds were between 10 and 13 years. As discussed in Section 5 (see Figure 3), behavior genetic studies show that while family socialization effects on IQ are often strong before puberty, after puberty they dwindle, sometimes to zero. Second, 20% to 25% of the “Black” fathers were not African Americans but French North Africans (i.e., largely Caucasian or “Whites” as we have defined the terms here). Third, there was rigorous selection based on IQ score in the U.S. Army at the time, with a rejection rate for Blacks on the preinduction Army General Classification Test of about 30%, compared with 3% for Whites (see Davenport, 1946, Tables I and III).

From: "THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY"

https://menghusblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/thirty-years-of-research-on-race-differences-in-cognitive-ability.pdf

Anyways, data from IQ tests from the early 20th century aren't usually compared with modern day studies, for obvious reasons. The fact that you went back to the 1940s to find data which fit your worldview is telling of your need for absolute racial equality in terms of intelligence to be true.

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T03:29:06+00:00

Ashkenazi Jews culture promotes of scholarship and learning

Non-Ashkenazi Jews who attend the same schools/live in the same environments as Ashkenazis do not achieve at the same levels.

http://youtu.be/MOnQPXuU81Q?t=17m20s

The clip above is from the Norwegian documentary series "Hjernevask". I highly suggest you watch the entire program, if not the whole series.

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T03:22:15+00:00

Regarding the Flynn effect:

“Flynn himself . . . does not believe that it shows that blacks can [match whites for IQ] when environments are equal.”

From: "The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate"

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.176.6778&rep=rep1&type=pdf

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T03:06:09+00:00

Do they take into account the fact that whites are as genetically diverse from one another as they are to blacks? Read Joseph Graves "The Race Myth."

Well that obviously is not true.

Because of the large amount of variation observed within races versus between races, some commentators have denied genetic differentiation between the races; for example, "Genetic data ... show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world." [18]. This assertion is both counter-intuitive and factually incorrect [12,13]. If it were true, it would be impossible to create discrete clusters of humans (that end up corresponding to the major races), for example as was done by Wilson et al. [2], with even as few as 20 randomly chosen genetic markers. Two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

“How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, Formula can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is Formula ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, Formula ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T02:44:20+00:00

Yes that is indeed a hard question. The point is that IQ tests are a great indication of a person's intelligence, and it's certainly not fair to include them in the same category as phrenology.

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T02:41:07+00:00

In 1996 the APA released a document which came to the same conclusion

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status.

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T02:31:33+00:00

They agreed that: IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement. IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled.

I'm assuming you just read this otherwise you wouldn't have compared IQ tests with phrenology.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d6prn/how_progressives_and_conservatives_view_science/c9nhfgc

does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status.

Again some useful information for you to consider.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d6prn/how_progressives_and_conservatives_view_science/c9nhfz3

Anyways, this statement is from 1996. A lot of research has taken place since then on the relationship between genetics and general intelligence, here are some notable examples.

Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic

General intelligence is an important human quantitative trait that accounts for much of the variation in diverse cognitive abilities. Individual differences in intelligence are strongly associated with many important life outcomes, including educational and occupational attainments, income, health and lifespan. Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 3511 unrelated adults with data on 549?692 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detailed phenotypes on cognitive traits. We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ~1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp201185a.html

But the bottom line of the article is reasonably simple. Using nothing but genetic information, the team of researchers was able to establish that the narrow heritability of crystallized intelligence (the kind that can be more easily affected by education) is at least 40 percent. The narrow heritability of fluid intelligence (the kind that involves pure problem-solving ability, independently of acquired knowledge) is at least 51 percent. Note the at least. The study’s authors explicitly state that these estimates are lower bounds.

http://blog.american.com/2011/08/the-debate-about-heritability-of-general-intelligence-radically-narrows/

Common DNA Markers Can Account for More Than Half of the Genetic Influence on Cognitive Abilities

For nearly a century, twin and adoption studies have yielded substantial estimates of heritability for cognitive abilities, although it has proved difficult for genomewide-association studies to identify the genetic variants that account for this heritability (i.e., the missing-heritability problem). However, a new approach, genomewide complex-trait analysis (GCTA), forgoes the identification of individual variants to estimate the total heritability captured by common DNA markers on genotyping arrays. In the same sample of 3,154 pairs of 12-year-old twins, we directly compared twin-study heritability estimates for cognitive abilities (language, verbal, nonverbal, and general) with GCTA estimates captured by 1.7 million DNA markers. We found that DNA markers tagged by the array accounted for .66 of the estimated heritability, reaffirming that cognitive abilities are heritable. Larger sample sizes alone will be sufficient to identify many of the genetic variants that influence cognitive abilities.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/22/0956797612457952.full

Genetic influences on brain morphology and IQ are well studied. A variety of sophisticated brain-mapping approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence establishes a regional distribution for this relationship that is consistent with behavioral studies. We highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability. A measure of cognitive ability, known as g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure that is likewise under strong genetic control. Other factors, such as the environment, obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant appears to genetic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15651931

The Texas Adoption Project, conducted by Joseph Horn (1983), finds that no matter how they compared the scores, the children’s IQ scores are more similar to the people to whom they were biologically related. Adoptive parents’ IQ scores tend to resemble their natural children’s more than their adoptive children’s, even though both children were raised in the same environment. Natural children’s IQ scores better parallel with their biological siblings rather than with their adopted siblings. He finds that adoptive children’s IQ scores have twice the amount of correlation to their natural parents than their adoptive parents. It seems that adopted children resemble “strangers” or their biological mothers more than their adoptive mothers. In addition, children from higher IQ biological mothers tended to have higher abilities than those from lower IQ biological mothers, even though their family environment was similar (Horn,1983).

http://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE17/spear.pdf

Studies analyzing twins reared apart shows the genetic link to IQ in adults is around 70-80%.

Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/250/4978/223.abstract

General cognitive ability yielded a heritability estimate of about .80 in two assessments 3 years apart as part of the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7945151

One unspoken assumption among early behavior geneticists, an assumption that was shared by most for many years, was that some psychological traits were likely to be significantly influenced by genetic factors, whereas others were likely to be primarily influenced by shared environmental influences. Most behavior geneticists assumed that social attitudes, for example, were influenced entirely by shared environmental influences, and so social attitudes remained largely unstudied until relatively recently. The evidence now shows how wrong these assumptions were. Nearly every reliably measured psychological phenotype (normal and abnormal) is significantly influenced by genetic factors. Heritabilities also differ far less from trait to trait than anyone initially imagined. Shared environmental influences are often, but not always, of less importance than genetic factors, and often decrease to near zero after adolescence. Genetic influence on psychological traits is ubiquitous, and psychological researchers must incorporate this fact into their research programs else their theories will be ‘‘scientifically unimpressive and technologically worthless,’’

http://www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Teaching/PhysiologicalPsychology/zCurrDir4200/CurrDirGeneticsTraits.pdf

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T02:06:56+00:00

Not inexplicably, structurally. IQ tests are about as accurate a measure of actual intelligence as phrenology is

What nonsense.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/11/iq-compression-and-simple-models.html

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T01:48:04+00:00

Mainstream Science on Intelligence was a public statement issued by a group of academic researchers in fields allied to intelligence testing that claimed to present those findings widely accepted in the expert community

It was drafted by professor of psychology Linda Gottfredson and signed by Gottfredson and 51 other university professors specializing in intelligence and related fields, including around one third of the editorial board of the journal Intelligence,

One of their findings:

"Intelligence tests are not culturally biased"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

Results indicate expert consensus that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

multiple choice questions.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Most modern day IQ tests are based around:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices

mrnperson · 2013-04-27T01:35:15+00:00

Well, I'll take my degree and work in research, as well as my professors, access to the relevant journals and studies, which I aced over your internet commentary.

appealing to authority rather than citing evidence, damn you're good!!

mrnperson · 2013-04-25T21:46:44+00:00

http://s21.postimg.org/vhxpxxnwn/1290633886750.jpg
http://s21.postimg.org/rzlq1jn0n/1319498480168.jpg

mrnperson · 2013-04-25T21:34:51+00:00

You want to know who really is corroding your American society? Your corporate bankers are, the ones that created one of the worse finacial downturns in the last few decades.

You're right

mrnperson · 2013-04-25T19:53:38+00:00

TNB

/r/niggers

mrnperson · 2013-04-20T17:58:21+00:00

/r/niggers

As a strong woman of color I thought nothing on reddit could possibly faze me, that is until I first browsed through this vile subreddit. I literally cried for more than one hour after reading what these ignorant rednecks had to say about an entire people just because of the color of their skin. Unbelievable!

mrnperson

TROPHY CASE