On 8/11/2013 3:47 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 05:44:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:





When Piers Morgan took over from Larry King, I started watching
him for a bit. Then he had on Christine O'Donnell, who had been
the Republican candidate for US Senate in MD. This was at least
a year or more after she lost the election. You probably
recall that there were some folks saying she had been a witch,
and she made the dumb mistake of running a commercial where she
denied that and other accusations.

Well, Piers starts attacking her over the witch thing, about
her running the commercial, etc. And she
was very nice about it. She was light hearted, took it in stride,
answered his questions about it, tried to make jokes about it,
but Morgan just kept it up, non-stop. Not just one question about
it, he went at her for several minutes, despite the fact that there
was no point to be made, no answer that she hadn't already given
that he was trying to get. He was just being mean and unfair
because he's a liberal AH. Finally she had enough and it was clear
she was getting ****ed off. But Morgan just kept going, so she
walked off the show. If that had been any liberal Democrat,
they would never have received that kind of treatment. That was the last time I ever watched his show. I also sent CNN a letter telling them why.

You should watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLN7btxAX5k which is
Larry elders, a black talk show host, and is a follow up to the Piers
interview with the girlfriend (you should watch that too first to get
the full effect of the Larry elders one). Larry tears Piers a new
flaming ahole.


P.L.L.C.F. don't quite know what to make of intelligent Conservative
Negro Americans who refuse cut some slack for other Negro Americans. ^_^

TDD

On 8/11/2013 3:52 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
One thing that I always found interesting is that Blacks, who LIVE
here, and KNOW the place, can't seem to manage to get a 7-11 going.
Yet people from some third world country who manage to snag a visa,
and can't speak English none to well, can come over here, work a
couple crappy jobs, scrape together some money, and open a 7-11 and
make their way in life.


I think it's funny that immigrants from China or India can run a
business because they know how to deal with a corrupt government and
make a business succeed because their ancestors have dealt with corrupt
governments for thousands of years. ^_^

TDD

Interesting thought. Of course, you can't say something like that in
today's society without being called a racist. Not even allowed to
discuss it. Just like it's off limits to even RESEARCH differences in
intelligence that might be race based. It's glaringly obvious that
Blacks are better at certain sports and people sort of joke about it
and accept it. But suggest that in other areas of endeavor there
might also be innate differences in abilities between races and Katy
bar the door, you GD racist.....

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 09:02:01 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

A white man explained it to me, one time. Says it's a
difference in climate. In Africa, it's warm all year,
and there is fruit on the trees all year round. But
in Europe, you plant, harvest, tend, or starve.

So, the black man lives as his culture and thousands
of years of tradition. Day to day, meal to meal. The
white man plans seasons in advance.

He wasn't being racist, he was describing the cultures,
and climates, and adaptive behaviors.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

On 8/11/2013 4:52 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
One thing that I always found interesting is that Blacks, who LIVE
here, and KNOW the place, can't seem to manage to get a 7-11 going.
Yet people from some third world country who manage to snag a visa,
and can't speak English none to well, can come over here, work a
couple crappy jobs, scrape together some money, and open a 7-11 and
make their way in life.

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

Interesting thought. Of course, you can't say something like that in
today's society without being called a racist. Not even allowed to
discuss it. Just like it's off limits to even RESEARCH differences in
intelligence that might be race based. It's glaringly obvious that
Blacks are better at certain sports and people sort of joke about it
and accept it. But suggest that in other areas of endeavor there
might also be innate differences in abilities between races and Katy
bar the door, you GD racist.....

I also wish that if they were going to do racial norming of things
(like for instance SAT tests), that they would do racial NORMING.
You design a test and then you give to bunches and bunches of people
and follow them for however long it takes to measure what you want
measure (say the score where 75% or more of those taking the test
graduate in 5 from college). That is norming.
Now I have no problem if you break that out by race (or any other
variable.. left handed, red-haired, albinos) as long as you keep the
same cutoff. It isn't a big deal if that cut off is 600 for whites and
550 for blacks, because you still have 75% or more taking the test, etc..
Most racial norming, however, is based not on the original criteria,
but rather how low one needs to go to get the correct number of insert
ethnicity here that you want in your program.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 08-11-2013 09:02, Stormin Mormon wrote:
A white man explained it to me, one time. Says it's a
difference in climate. In Africa, it's warm all year,
and there is fruit on the trees all year round. But
in Europe, you plant, harvest, tend, or starve.

So, the black man lives as his culture and thousands
of years of tradition. Day to day, meal to meal. The
white man plans seasons in advance.

He wasn't being racist, he was describing the cultures,
and climates, and adaptive behaviors.

He wasn't being racist, he was being an idiot. The culture of someone
whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. never left USA
since before he was born has no connection with the climate in Africa.

--
Wes Groleau

I won't burn your Koran because I don't want you to burn my Bible;
but if you burn my Bible, no one's going to die.
€” Robert Rhee

On 08-11-2013 22:31, Tony Hwang wrote:
Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-11-2013 09:02, Stormin Mormon wrote:
A white man explained it to me, one time. Says it's a
difference in climate. In Africa, it's warm all year,
and there is fruit on the trees all year round. But
in Europe, you plant, harvest, tend, or starve.

So, the black man lives as his culture and thousands
of years of tradition. Day to day, meal to meal. The
white man plans seasons in advance.

He wasn't being racist, he was describing the cultures,
and climates, and adaptive behaviors.

He wasn't being racist, he was being an idiot. The culture of someone
whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. never left USA
since before he was born has no connection with the climate in Africa.

Hmmm
Ever heard of DNA based on evolution?

Culture also has very little to do with DNA.


--
Wes Groleau

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns
it, and finds himself no wiser than before ... He is full of
murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having
come by their ignorance the hard way.
€” Kurt Vonnegut

"...are each from a home that has both parents present?"

Very good point.

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-11-2013 09:02, Stormin Mormon wrote:
A white man explained it to me, one time. Says it's a
difference in climate. In Africa, it's warm all year,
and there is fruit on the trees all year round. But
in Europe, you plant, harvest, tend, or starve.

So, the black man lives as his culture and thousands
of years of tradition. Day to day, meal to meal. The
white man plans seasons in advance.

He wasn't being racist, he was describing the cultures,
and climates, and adaptive behaviors.

He wasn't being racist, he was being an idiot. The culture of someone
whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. never left USA
since before he was born has no connection with the climate in Africa.

Hmmm
Ever heard of DNA based on evolution?

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-11-2013 22:31, Tony Hwang wrote:
Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-11-2013 09:02, Stormin Mormon wrote:
A white man explained it to me, one time. Says it's a
difference in climate. In Africa, it's warm all year,
and there is fruit on the trees all year round. But
in Europe, you plant, harvest, tend, or starve.

So, the black man lives as his culture and thousands
of years of tradition. Day to day, meal to meal. The
white man plans seasons in advance.

He wasn't being racist, he was describing the cultures,
and climates, and adaptive behaviors.

He wasn't being racist, he was being an idiot. The culture of someone
whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. never left USA
since before he was born has no connection with the climate in Africa.

Hmmm
Ever heard of DNA based on evolution?

Culture also has very little to do with DNA.


Hi,
They are closely related.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:52:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

Interesting thought. Of course, you can't say something like that in
today's society without being called a racist. Not even allowed to
discuss it. Just like it's off limits to even RESEARCH differences in
intelligence that might be race based. It's glaringly obvious that
Blacks are better at certain sports and people sort of joke about it
and accept it. But suggest that in other areas of endeavor there
might also be innate differences in abilities between races and Katy
bar the door, you GD racist.....

I also wish that if they were going to do racial norming of things
(like for instance SAT tests), that they would do racial NORMING.
You design a test and then you give to bunches and bunches of people
and follow them for however long it takes to measure what you want
measure (say the score where 75% or more of those taking the test
graduate in 5 from college). That is norming.
Now I have no problem if you break that out by race (or any other
variable.. left handed, red-haired, albinos) as long as you keep the
same cutoff. It isn't a big deal if that cut off is 600 for whites and
550 for blacks, because you still have 75% or more taking the test, etc.

Huh? Are you saying that it it's OK to hold one group to a different
standard than another?

Most racial norming, however, is based not on the original criteria,
but rather how low one needs to go to get the correct number of insert
ethnicity here that you want in your program.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:52:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

Interesting thought. Of course, you can't say something like that in
today's society without being called a racist. Not even allowed to
discuss it. Just like it's off limits to even RESEARCH differences in
intelligence that might be race based. It's glaringly obvious that
Blacks are better at certain sports and people sort of joke about it
and accept it. But suggest that in other areas of endeavor there
might also be innate differences in abilities between races and Katy
bar the door, you GD racist.....

I also wish that if they were going to do racial norming of things
(like for instance SAT tests), that they would do racial NORMING.
You design a test and then you give to bunches and bunches of people
and follow them for however long it takes to measure what you want
measure (say the score where 75% or more of those taking the test
graduate in 5 from college). That is norming.
Now I have no problem if you break that out by race (or any other
variable.. left handed, red-haired, albinos) as long as you keep the
same cutoff. It isn't a big deal if that cut off is 600 for whites and
550 for blacks, because you still have 75% or more taking the test, etc..
Most racial norming, however, is based not on the original criteria,
but rather how low one needs to go to get the correct number of insert
ethnicity here that you want in your program.


I'm not following your idea unless you goal has nothing to do with
holding people to the same standard but is just intended to find the
75% level, for example, of a particular race's competence on a
standard test. What would be the point of that as far as admission?
It sounds like just another way to set the bar lower for some people.
Do you want their grades in their classes to be determined the same
way? Grade on a curve but a different curve for each race? If you
are Race A you would have to get 85% of the answers correct to get an
A but Race B would only need to get 70% correct to get the same A.
That's the system you seem to be suggesting.

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:52:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

Interesting thought. Of course, you can't say something like that in
today's society without being called a racist. Not even allowed to
discuss it. Just like it's off limits to even RESEARCH differences in
intelligence that might be race based. It's glaringly obvious that
Blacks are better at certain sports and people sort of joke about it
and accept it. But suggest that in other areas of endeavor there
might also be innate differences in abilities between races and Katy
bar the door, you GD racist.....

I also wish that if they were going to do racial norming of things
(like for instance SAT tests), that they would do racial NORMING.
You design a test and then you give to bunches and bunches of people
and follow them for however long it takes to measure what you want
measure (say the score where 75% or more of those taking the test
graduate in 5 from college). That is norming.
Now I have no problem if you break that out by race (or any other
variable.. left handed, red-haired, albinos) as long as you keep the
same cutoff. It isn't a big deal if that cut off is 600 for whites and
550 for blacks, because you still have 75% or more taking the test, etc.

Huh? Are you saying that it it's OK to hold one group to a different
standard than another?
Nope. I am saying that if the test score for one group reaching the
same standard (75% or more taking the test, etc) is different, it is
fine to use the different score. Don't get hung up on the score, focus
on the outcome. There is no reason that I can think of from a
statistical standpoint to think there is always only one "right" score.
The problem with racial "norming" is (1) it isn't because it looks at
things from the perspective of what you need to get a specific number of
people from a specific group into whatever it is you are trying to do
(2) if not norming isn't specific to the group, you get a bunch of
people who should not be going to that school because they aren't likely
to succeed. (This is another thing that ****es me off. You let people
into Harvard to satisfy make the Chosen Ones happy and then they fail.
If they had gone to a descent "regular" college, they are much more
likely to succeed, get a college degree, and maybe succeed in other
endeavors.

--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:


I'm not following your idea unless you goal has nothing to do with
holding people to the same standard but is just intended to find the
75% level, for example, of a particular race's competence on a
standard test. What would be the point of that as far as admission?
That is EXACTLY what the SATs, for instance does. "Specifically,
the College Board states that use of the SAT in combination with high
school grade point average (GPA) provides a better indicator of success
in college than high school grades alone, as measured by college
freshman GPA. Various studies conducted over the lifetime of the SAT
show a statistically significant increase in correlation of high school
grades and freshman grades when the SAT is factored in."


It sounds like just another way to set the bar lower for some people.
Do you want their grades in their classes to be determined the same
way? Grade on a curve but a different curve for each race? If you
are Race A you would have to get 85% of the answers correct to get an
A but Race B would only need to get 70% correct to get the same A.
That's the system you seem to be suggesting.

Not at all. What I am suggesting is that because of the structure of the
test, or any number of other reasons, there may be valid statistical
reasons to suggest that different groups may produce different scores
that express the same thing. It also may not. What I am saying is that
we can look for statistically valid reasons that different scores may
mean the exact same thing for different groups. The score isn't
important, it is the outcome.
Current racial "norming" though is not based on what I think is the
appropriate outcome (attempting to measure a part of the equation of
success in college) but rather the numerical outcome of enough people of
a specific type being admitted. I a merely stating that if you are going
to norm something differently for a specific group, it should be based
on sound statistics and not the need of the honchoes to feel all warm
and fuzzy inside by reaching some level of group participation without
regard to how well they might actually do.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Monday, August 12, 2013 7:18:22 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

Ashton Crusher wrote:





I'm not following your idea unless you goal has nothing to do with

holding people to the same standard but is just intended to find the

75% level, for example, of a particular race's competence on a

standard test. What would be the point of that as far as admission?

That is EXACTLY what the SATs, for instance does. "Specifically,

the College Board states that use of the SAT in combination with high

school grade point average (GPA) provides a better indicator of success

in college than high school grades alone, as measured by college

freshman GPA. Various studies conducted over the lifetime of the SAT

show a statistically significant increase in correlation of high school

grades and freshman grades when the SAT is factored in."





It sounds like just another way to set the bar lower for some people.

Do you want their grades in their classes to be determined the same

way? Grade on a curve but a different curve for each race? If you

are Race A you would have to get 85% of the answers correct to get an

A but Race B would only need to get 70% correct to get the same A.

That's the system you seem to be suggesting.



Not at all.


It sure equates to that. Call it what you like, but if
a score of 75 means it's an excellent score for race X, but not so great for race Y, then it is in fact holding them
to different standards, provided the test results are in
fact used for something. Two guys take a job test. One
of race X gets an 80, he gets the job because a 75 is
excellent for that race. The other gets an 80, but he
doesn't get the job because he's a different race. How is
that anything other than holding people to different
standards? And if the guy that got the job is a doctor,
do you want him operating on your child?



What I am suggesting is that because of the structure of the

test, or any number of other reasons,

Other reasons like one guy knows the subject matter
better, took the time to study for the test, went
back and checked each answer before turning the test
in? Reasons like that?












there may be valid statistical

reasons to suggest that different groups may produce different scores

that express the same thing. It also may not. What I am saying is that

we can look for statistically valid reasons that different scores may

mean the exact same thing for different groups. The score isn't

important, it is the outcome.

Current racial "norming" though is not based on what I think is the

appropriate outcome (attempting to measure a part of the equation of

success in college) but rather the numerical outcome of enough people of

a specific type being admitted. I a merely stating that if you are going

to norm something differently for a specific group, it should be based

on sound statistics and not the need of the honchoes to feel all warm

and fuzzy inside by reaching some level of group participation without

regard to how well they might actually do.

--

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late

to work within the system, but too early to shoot

the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

You're not making any sense here.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:31:41 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 8/10/2013 11:47 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/10/2013 7:17 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2013 08:42, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I have great respect for people of all or any color
who speak with intelligence, manners, and education.
Who are polite to each other, work hard, and are
honest.

I don't give a hoot what their native language is.

But if people of any group want another group to stop stereotyping them
as all bad, then they have to stop the unconditional defense of the ones
that ARE bad.

Stereotyping a group is generally called prejudice....I can't name a
"group" of any race, gender or religion that is all alike and deserving
of stereo type (including Mormons).


Really, you don't stereotype any groups? So when you're in the mood
for a hot date you don't care whether you chat up a guy or a gal? When
you are speeding you don't worry any more about blasting past a cop
then you do about blasting past just another plain citizen? When you
go out to dinner and you want to go someplace "nice" you're just as
likely to pick a McDonalds as a Ruth Chris's? When you are thinking
of investing a large sum of money you'd be just as likely to call some
guy working out of his house in his pj's as a guy working in the
Penthouse at the Largest building downtown? When you want to get your
oil changed you are just as likely to go to Billy Bobs Auto Repair and
Bait shop as to the Chevron Station that services Fleet Vehicles for
the local Utility?

Everyone stereotypes.

On 08-12-2013 08:15, wrote:
It sure equates to that. Call it what you like, but if
a score of 75 means it's an excellent score for race X, but not so great for race Y, then it is in fact holding them
to different standards, provided the test results are in
fact used for something. Two guys take a job test. One
of race X gets an 80, he gets the job because a 75 is
excellent for that race. The other gets an 80, but he
doesn't get the job because he's a different race. How is
that anything other than holding people to different
standards? And if the guy that got the job is a doctor,
do you want him operating on your child?

Depends on the type of test and its purpose.

IQ tests attempt to judge your intelligence by how well you know things
that "most people" of a certain age know.

The problem is that most twenty-year-olds of one culture know a the
different set of things than most twenty-year-olds of another culture.

There are people trying to say that the resulting lower scores prove
that blacks are less intelligent. Obviously that's total crap.

But we can't PROVE it's crap because of the cultural bias of the test.
We can adjust the tests so that each group has the same
mean and standard deviation. But we have no independent instrument
that can "prove" the assumption is true.

I happen to believe it is true. But that won't stop the flames
I'll get for the audacity of admitting we can't prove it.

--
Wes Groleau

€œThere are more people worthy of blame
than there is blame to go around."

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 07:18:22 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:


I'm not following your idea unless you goal has nothing to do with
holding people to the same standard but is just intended to find the
75% level, for example, of a particular race's competence on a
standard test. What would be the point of that as far as admission?
That is EXACTLY what the SATs, for instance does. "Specifically,
the College Board states that use of the SAT in combination with high
school grade point average (GPA) provides a better indicator of success
in college than high school grades alone, as measured by college
freshman GPA. Various studies conducted over the lifetime of the SAT
show a statistically significant increase in correlation of high school
grades and freshman grades when the SAT is factored in."


It sounds like just another way to set the bar lower for some people.
Do you want their grades in their classes to be determined the same
way? Grade on a curve but a different curve for each race? If you
are Race A you would have to get 85% of the answers correct to get an
A but Race B would only need to get 70% correct to get the same A.
That's the system you seem to be suggesting.

Not at all. What I am suggesting is that because of the structure of the
test, or any number of other reasons, there may be valid statistical
reasons to suggest that different groups may produce different scores
that express the same thing. It also may not. What I am saying is that
we can look for statistically valid reasons that different scores may
mean the exact same thing for different groups. The score isn't
important, it is the outcome.
Current racial "norming" though is not based on what I think is the
appropriate outcome (attempting to measure a part of the equation of
success in college) but rather the numerical outcome of enough people of
a specific type being admitted. I a merely stating that if you are going
to norm something differently for a specific group, it should be based
on sound statistics and not the need of the honchoes to feel all warm
and fuzzy inside by reaching some level of group participation without
regard to how well they might actually do.


The scores are what they are. Some people are just looking for
reasons to excuse poor performance. It could be that some excuses are
valid but it doesn't change the low score. I would agree that if a
particular admittance test is not a very good predictor of success in
terms of graduating with a B average then a better test, or
combination of tests should be used. I would not agree that merely
predicting "did they manage to graduate" is a very good statistic if
that statistic includes people who made it thru with a D average and
really never learned anything. If that's not clear, let me put it
this way, which would you rather have

A) 100 people apply, 80 get accepted based on whatever your
admittance test is, and 70 of them graduate with a A- average for the
bunch.
or
B) 100 people apply, 90 get accepted based on your admittance test,
and 75 of them graduate with a C- average for the bunch.

Do you want 70 A- quality doctors going out into the world to practice
medicine or do you want 75 C- doctors going out there?

I find it a bit sad, that each attempt to deal with
discrimination or racism tends to rely on more and
more racism. Just pointed in a different direction.
Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I liked the concept Dr.
Martin Luther King promoted, where a man is judged
by the content of his character, not by the color
of his skin. So, maybe we find that Japanese make
good gardeners, and Swiss make good watch makers.
I'm not happy with the idea that 15% of all watch
makers have to be negro, because the USA had slavery
150 years ago.

I can't remember the source, but years ago I read
of an ebonic IQ test. I remember not being able to
answer what were boxcars, or a deuce and a quarter.
Being a po cracka, din doo too good. Know ahm sayin?

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/13/2013 3:09 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
fact used for something. Two guys take a job test. One
of race X gets an 80, he gets the job because a 75 is
excellent for that race. The other gets an 80, but he
doesn't get the job because he's a different race. How is
that anything other than holding people to different
standards? And if the guy that got the job is a doctor,
do you want him operating on your child?

Depends on the type of test and its purpose.

IQ tests attempt to judge your intelligence by how well you know things
that "most people" of a certain age know.

The problem is that most twenty-year-olds of one culture know a the
different set of things than most twenty-year-olds of another culture.

There are people trying to say that the resulting lower scores prove
that blacks are less intelligent. Obviously that's total crap.

But we can't PROVE it's crap because of the cultural bias of the test.
We can adjust the tests so that each group has the same
mean and standard deviation. But we have no independent instrument
that can "prove" the assumption is true.

I happen to believe it is true. But that won't stop the flames
I'll get for the audacity of admitting we can't prove it.

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:09:31 AM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-12-2013 08:15, wrote:

It sure equates to that. Call it what you like, but if

a score of 75 means it's an excellent score for race X, but not so great for race Y, then it is in fact holding them

to different standards, provided the test results are in

fact used for something. Two guys take a job test. One

of race X gets an 80, he gets the job because a 75 is

excellent for that race. The other gets an 80, but he

doesn't get the job because he's a different race. How is

that anything other than holding people to different

standards? And if the guy that got the job is a doctor,

do you want him operating on your child?



Depends on the type of test and its purpose.



IQ tests attempt to judge your intelligence by how well you know things

that "most people" of a certain age know.



That simply is not true. Intelligence tests typically don't ask you who the most famous singer is, what collard greens are, or what the capital of California is. They typically present logical problems that
you have to solve. Like which of the following 4 words
doesn't belong in this group. Which of the following
4 shapes is different from the other three.

Tests that ask what's the capital of California and
how much 99 x 7 is are generally given to students to
measure how much they have learned of what has been
taught to them in the classes they have taken. So,
yeah, that measures what they know. But it's not
relying on their life experience knowledge. It's what
they should have learned in the school they are sitting
in, taking the test.




The problem is that most twenty-year-olds of one culture know a the

different set of things than most twenty-year-olds of another culture.


See above.







There are people trying to say that the resulting lower scores prove

that blacks are less intelligent. Obviously that's total crap.



That would be true if the tests had cultural things
on them. They don't, but you libs like to make excuses
for failure.




But we can't PROVE it's crap because of the cultural bias of the test.

Sure, everything is biased against blacks. It's a
"cultural" thing that Johnny who is black can't figure
out what 99 x 7 is. Or that Treyvon's friend girl, who
is 18, can't read and write.




We can adjust the tests so that each group has the same

mean and standard deviation. But we have no independent instrument

that can "prove" the assumption is true.



I happen to believe it is true. But that won't stop the flames

I'll get for the audacity of admitting we can't prove it.


When you show us actual test questions that are indeed
culturally biased, then I'll believe you. Until then,
it's just lib nonsense and excuse making, based on a
strawman.

On 8/13/2013 3:41 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I find it a bit sad, that each attempt to deal with
discrimination or racism tends to rely on more and
more racism. Just pointed in a different direction.
Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I liked the concept Dr.
Martin Luther King promoted, where a man is judged
by the content of his character, not by the color
of his skin. So, maybe we find that Japanese make
good gardeners, and Swiss make good watch makers.
I'm not happy with the idea that 15% of all watch
makers have to be negro, because the USA had slavery
150 years ago.

And lynchings 60 years ago. The end of slavery wasn't the end of
slavery ) LDS church is one example.

I can't remember the source, but years ago I read
of an ebonic IQ test. I remember not being able to
answer what were boxcars, or a deuce and a quarter.
Being a po cracka, din doo too good. Know ahm sayin?

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

On 8/13/2013 3:09 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
fact used for something. Two guys take a job test. One
of race X gets an 80, he gets the job because a 75 is
excellent for that race. The other gets an 80, but he
doesn't get the job because he's a different race. How is
that anything other than holding people to different
standards? And if the guy that got the job is a doctor,
do you want him operating on your child?

Depends on the type of test and its purpose.

IQ tests attempt to judge your intelligence by how well you know things
that "most people" of a certain age know.

The problem is that most twenty-year-olds of one culture know a the
different set of things than most twenty-year-olds of another culture.

There are people trying to say that the resulting lower scores prove
that blacks are less intelligent. Obviously that's total crap.

But we can't PROVE it's crap because of the cultural bias of the test.
We can adjust the tests so that each group has the same
mean and standard deviation. But we have no independent instrument
that can "prove" the assumption is true.

I happen to believe it is true. But that won't stop the flames
I'll get for the audacity of admitting we can't prove it.

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:



The scores are what they are. Some people are just looking for
reasons to excuse poor performance. It could be that some excuses are
valid but it doesn't change the low score. I would agree that if a
particular admittance test is not a very good predictor of success in
terms of graduating with a B average then a better test, or
combination of tests should be used. I would not agree that merely
predicting "did they manage to graduate" is a very good statistic if
that statistic includes people who made it thru with a D average and
really never learned anything. If that's not clear, let me put it
this way, which would you rather have
I am not saying that these tests do (or don't for that matter)
predict what they are supposed to. I am merely saying that the great
overarching scores may not accurately reflect across all categories.
That needs to be checked statistically and if there are differences,
they need to be acknowledged. These scores are not the equivalent of
papal infalliability when looking at overall measures. There may very
well be times when a group has a different score (not better or worse
just different) that measures exactly the same thing.
I am saying that **IF** there are statistically backed differences
they should be acknowledged. Now, we are showing differences based
entirely on ways to get a certain numerical goal.




A) 100 people apply, 80 get accepted based on whatever your
admittance test is, and 70 of them graduate with a A- average for the
bunch.
or
B) 100 people apply, 90 get accepted based on your admittance test,
and 75 of them graduate with a C- average for the bunch.

Do you want 70 A- quality doctors going out into the world to practice
medicine or do you want 75 C- doctors going out there?
But that indicates that the score as it sits really is measuring
what it says it does. On the other hand, I'd hate to not admit a whole
bunch of A quality doctors merely because they scored differently on a
test. They NEED to be looked at statistically to make sure they really
are measuring what they say they do across many groups. .
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Now, that's a thought. I'll admit, I'm not all sure
what you mean. Do some Mormons in the US own slaves?
I'd sure appreciate you tell me about this.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/13/2013 7:58 AM, Norminn wrote:
On 8/13/2013 3:41 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I find it a bit sad, that each attempt to deal with
discrimination or racism tends to rely on more and
more racism. Just pointed in a different direction.
Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I liked the concept Dr.
Martin Luther King promoted, where a man is judged
by the content of his character, not by the color
of his skin. So, maybe we find that Japanese make
good gardeners, and Swiss make good watch makers.
I'm not happy with the idea that 15% of all watch
makers have to be negro, because the USA had slavery
150 years ago.

And lynchings 60 years ago. The end of slavery wasn't the end of
slavery ) LDS church is one example.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:09:31 -0400, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 08-12-2013 08:15, wrote:
It sure equates to that. Call it what you like, but if
a score of 75 means it's an excellent score for race X, but not so great for race Y, then it is in fact holding them
to different standards, provided the test results are in
fact used for something. Two guys take a job test. One
of race X gets an 80, he gets the job because a 75 is
excellent for that race. The other gets an 80, but he
doesn't get the job because he's a different race. How is
that anything other than holding people to different
standards? And if the guy that got the job is a doctor,
do you want him operating on your child?

Depends on the type of test and its purpose.

IQ tests attempt to judge your intelligence by how well you know things
that "most people" of a certain age know.

The problem is that most twenty-year-olds of one culture know a the
different set of things than most twenty-year-olds of another culture.


That is exactly correct. Our culture, not the ghetto culture, is what
matters. If they want to live in our culture, and prosper, they need
to understand our culture -- not the ghetto culture. Many of them
have failed, or in many cases, refused to assimilate. That is their
choice and their problem, not mine.


There are people trying to say that the resulting lower scores prove
that blacks are less intelligent. Obviously that's total crap.


Bull ****! They are less intelligent for one simple reason, because
they made the choice to ignore the education that was offered to them.
I didn't make that choice.


But we can't PROVE it's crap because of the cultural bias of the test.
We can adjust the tests so that each group has the same
mean and standard deviation. But we have no independent instrument
that can "prove" the assumption is true.

I happen to believe it is true. But that won't stop the flames
I'll get for the audacity of admitting we can't prove it.


It is proven countless times every day. You, unfortunately, refuse to
believe it. That is the choice you made.

How about if I said negros have brown skin, and
Europeans have pink skin. Would that get the
same comment from you?

Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/13/2013 12:32 PM, Norminn wrote:
On 8/13/2013 8:19 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
And we again illustrate the diff between liberals and
conservatives. Liberals see everyone as a victim,
needing government assistance. Conservatives see people
with great potential for success, if government would
get out of the way.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Again, you paint the world with a very broad brush. That is, unless you
have interviewed all liberals and conservatives to understand their
positions and beliefs.

Economic success isn't only determined by getting a good education that will lead (in most cases) to a high paying job.

It's also determined to a large extend by self destructive behaviour. If people take drugs so that they can't sleep properly at night, and can't remember what they're taught in school, and end up being pushed through high school but know they don't stand a chance in university, so they end up getting a job flipping burgers, then that's a situation where self destructive behaviour ends up wrecking your karma.

If 16 year olds end up having babies, then they need to find someone to look after that baby so that they can continue to go to school, and there may not always be someone available that will do that for them. The result, in most cases, is kids dropping out of school to look after their baby themselves, and that usually ends up with both mother and baby living on society's social safety nets, like welfare and the local food banks.

If people aren't mature, they end up screwing up their lives when they're still too young to realize there are serious consequences to their actions. I rented an apartment to a guy who killed a cop with a shot gun when he was only 18 years old. Google Jeff Breese and you should find him. He eventually got out of jail, but by that time he had missed out on all the normal things that would have shaped his life, like graduating from high school, going to university and finding a job. This way, he's getting out of jail at 35 years old with no training except for what's available in prison. I felt kinda sorry for the guy cuz despite his past, he really was a nice guy. Now, all he can do is find a job doing whatever he can and settling for whatever it pays. So, kids that decide to start selling drugs to get the cars, the bling and the hos can end up in jail or the morgue, and that's a self destructive behaviour too.

Life is a long road, and you have to stay vigilant every step of the way so that you don't screw it up. It's not how well you do on an IQ test that determines how successful you'll be. It's how well you do every step of the way through life that determines where you end up. Anthony Weiner is a perfect example. He screwed up when most people his age are old enough and mature enough to know better.

On 8/13/2013 2:08 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:31:41 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 8/10/2013 11:47 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/10/2013 7:17 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2013 08:42, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I have great respect for people of all or any color
who speak with intelligence, manners, and education.
Who are polite to each other, work hard, and are
honest.

I don't give a hoot what their native language is.

But if people of any group want another group to stop stereotyping them
as all bad, then they have to stop the unconditional defense of the ones
that ARE bad.

Stereotyping a group is generally called prejudice....I can't name a
"group" of any race, gender or religion that is all alike and deserving
of stereo type (including Mormons).


Really, you don't stereotype any groups? So when you're in the mood
for a hot date you don't care whether you chat up a guy or a gal? When
you are speeding you don't worry any more about blasting past a cop
then you do about blasting past just another plain citizen? When you
go out to dinner and you want to go someplace "nice" you're just as
likely to pick a McDonalds as a Ruth Chris's? When you are thinking
of investing a large sum of money you'd be just as likely to call some
guy working out of his house in his pj's as a guy working in the
Penthouse at the Largest building downtown? When you want to get your
oil changed you are just as likely to go to Billy Bobs Auto Repair and
Bait shop as to the Chevron Station that services Fleet Vehicles for
the local Utility?

Everyone stereotypes.


And everyone "profiles". ^_^

TDD

On 8/13/2013 2:53 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:33:58 PM UTC-4, NorMinn wrote:
On 8/13/2013 8:33 AM, wrote:

**********Trim Pathetic Argument*********


Funny thing. A hundred years ago there used to be Jewish, Irish,
Italian, ghettos in places like NYC. There was widespread
discrimination against those groups as they immigrated to America.
Yet they didn't disintegrate into families with with no father, no
work ethic, etc. Instead of robbing and shooting each other and
spawning families with no fathers, for the most part, they helped
each other get ahead and assimilate into mainstream America. They
remained strong families, with two parents. Others still come here
today, with nothing, like all those fleeing Vietnam in the 70s.
Despite obstacles like speaking little or no English, they've mostly
succeeded and are part of the middle class today, many owning small
businesses.


Don't feed the bears, if you do they stop hunting for food and behaving
like bears are supposed to. The same applies to man animals, if you give
them everything, they stop working, they stop producing except for more
little man animals and the most tragic thing of all, they stop striving
to improve themselves and their lot in life. o_O

TDD

On 8/13/2013 12:02 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
How about if I said negros have brown skin, and
Europeans have pink skin. Would that get the
same comment from you?


But, but, that's so racist! (in my best gay voice) O_o

TDD

I love what you've done with your hair.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/14/2013 6:00 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/13/2013 12:02 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
How about if I said negros have brown skin, and
Europeans have pink skin. Would that get the
same comment from you?


But, but, that's so racist! (in my best gay voice) O_o

TDD

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 11:42:17 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:20:24 -0700 (PDT), US President is the Enemy

wrote:



I wonder how us evil white folk can be blamed for that.



You and the piece of **** should have been beaten to death with baseball bats.





Stand up or shut up



Justice will be served when every piece of **** that voted for Reagan or Bush is beaten to death with baseball bats.



I guess you are bright enough to take a bat to a gun fight.

Violins!
Al Capone whacked gramps competition on St. Valentines day. G-ggggrt grandpa Bomb got no quarter.

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 11:42:17 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:20:24 -0700 (PDT), US President is the Enemy

wrote:



I wonder how us evil white folk can be blamed for that.



You and the piece of **** should have been beaten to death with baseball bats.





Stand up or shut up

I told Nixon to the maggots face after they drugged me.

On 08-13-2013 07:41, wrote:
That would be true if the tests had cultural things
on them. They don't, but you libs like to make excuses
for failure.

Good IQ tests try to be "non-cultural," but it is impossible.

IQ is ideally a measure of intelligence, but intelligence can't be
measured, so we ASSUME that it correlates to how your knowledge compare
with "typical" knowledge of a person of a partacular age. But what
is "typical" knowledge for a fourteen-year-old in culture P is not
exactly the same as what is "typical" for a fourteen-year-old in culture Q.

So again, the good ones try to compensate for that, but it can't
be done perfectly.

The "bad" ones may not even try. My favorite example is a question
tht had five pictures. "Which one doesn't fit?" One fellow got the
question "wrong" because he knew too much, and the other
fellow who got it "wrong" because his native language is Spanish.

To the creator of the test, the Knife doesn't fit because Screwdriver,
Spoon, Shovel, and Saw all start with 'S'. OBVIOUSLY that is culturally
unfair to someone who didn't grow up speaking English.

Less obvious is that it is culturally unfair to the kid whose father was
teaching him to use tools and fix things before he was ten. To him, the
pictures were

Paring Knife
Philips Screwdriver
Teaspoon
Garden Spade
Hacksaw

and of course his "culture" led him to think about what he would use
them for. After he thought about it a long time, he chose the Philips
Screwdriver because "all the others could be used to separate stuff from
itself."

--
Wes Groleau

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

On 08-13-2013 07:41, wrote:
When you show us actual test questions that are indeed
culturally biased, then I'll believe you. Until then,
it's just lib nonsense and excuse making, based on a
strawman.

Anyone who accuses me of liberalism just because I won't parrot
conservative misinformation is misguided. And anyone who accuses me of
conservatism when I decline to endorse liberal lies is even more misguided.

--
Wes Groleau

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

On 08-13-2013 08:19, Stormin Mormon wrote:
And we again illustrate the diff between liberals and
conservatives. Liberals see everyone as a victim,
needing government assistance. Conservatives see people
with great potential for success, if government would
get out of the way.

One thing their not very different on is the myth that
there are only two kinds of people. Too many people define
conservative as a person who believes A, B, C, D and a
liberal who believes W, X, Y, Z -- and they can't imagine that
there might be someone somewhere who believes A, B, C, Y.

Stereotyping isn't only about skin color. (It's actually
about using both hands on the keyboard.)

--
Wes Groleau

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

On 08-13-2013 13:02, Stormin Mormon wrote:
How about if I said negros have brown skin, and
Europeans have pink skin. Would that get the
same comment from you?

There are no black people. There are no white people.
We're all six billion shades of brown.
-- Bill Nye


--
Wes Groleau

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

On 08-13-2013 09:43, Gordon Shumway wrote:
That is exactly correct. Our culture, not the ghetto culture, is what
matters. If they want to live in our culture, and prosper, they need
to understand our culture -- not the ghetto culture. Many of them
have failed, or in many cases, refused to assimilate. That is their
choice and their problem, not mine.

A test that measures understanding of "our" culture, is _obviously_ a
culturally biased test!

An IQ test is supposed to _estimate_ intelligence--something that can't
be measured--by examining what you have learned.

If one person has learned less because he is lazy, even though intelligent,

another because he is intelligent but hatse the culture that he could
have otherwise learned more from

and a third because even though he's intelligent, his poverty-stricken
single mother had to work two jobs and kept him locked up in an empty
house because she didn't know how else to keep him safe.

Some of the things I know, a person of equal intelligence and age might
not know, because he didn't live on a farm for ten years. And he might
know things I don't know because I didn't live in a security-patrolled
expensive high-rise for ten years.

A test that measures your ability to DO something required should be the
same for everyone.

A test that tries to guess your ability to LEARN something has to be
inaccurate unless it actually teaches you a little of that thing and
measures how well you do.

If it assumes that your intelligence correlates to how much you have
learned, that's a reasonable hypothesis, but if it assumes that everyone
everywhere has had the exact same opportunities to learn the exact same
things, it's preposterous.

I'm personally convinced that most IQ tests are garbage. In addition to
the reasons above, I have more personal reasons. Depending on which
"IQ" test you want to believe, (all of them allegedly professionally
produced instruments given in schools of the "dominant culture"), I am

- smarter than sixty percent of the population; or

- smarter than 80% of the population; or

- smarter than 99% of the population.

Obviously at least two of those tests weren't worth the paper they were
printed on. And my opinion is that none of them were.

--
Wes Groleau

If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage.
But this garbage, having passed through a very expensive machine,
is somehow ennobled and none dare criticize it.

On 8/14/2013 10:33 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-13-2013 07:41, wrote:
When you show us actual test questions that are indeed
culturally biased, then I'll believe you. Until then,
it's just lib nonsense and excuse making, based on a
strawman.

Anyone who accuses me of liberalism just because I won't parrot
conservative misinformation is misguided. And anyone who accuses me of
conservatism when I decline to endorse liberal lies is even more misguided.


I'm not a Republican, Republicans disgust me but Democrats are special,
they horrify me. ^_^

TDD

On 8/13/2013 2:32 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 07:18:22 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:


I'm not following your idea unless you goal has nothing to do with
holding people to the same standard but is just intended to find the
75% level, for example, of a particular race's competence on a
standard test. What would be the point of that as far as admission?
That is EXACTLY what the SATs, for instance does. "Specifically,
the College Board states that use of the SAT in combination with high
school grade point average (GPA) provides a better indicator of success
in college than high school grades alone, as measured by college
freshman GPA. Various studies conducted over the lifetime of the SAT
show a statistically significant increase in correlation of high school
grades and freshman grades when the SAT is factored in."


It sounds like just another way to set the bar lower for some people.
Do you want their grades in their classes to be determined the same
way? Grade on a curve but a different curve for each race? If you
are Race A you would have to get 85% of the answers correct to get an
A but Race B would only need to get 70% correct to get the same A.
That's the system you seem to be suggesting.

Not at all. What I am suggesting is that because of the structure of the
test, or any number of other reasons, there may be valid statistical
reasons to suggest that different groups may produce different scores
that express the same thing. It also may not. What I am saying is that
we can look for statistically valid reasons that different scores may
mean the exact same thing for different groups. The score isn't
important, it is the outcome.
Current racial "norming" though is not based on what I think is the
appropriate outcome (attempting to measure a part of the equation of
success in college) but rather the numerical outcome of enough people of
a specific type being admitted. I a merely stating that if you are going
to norm something differently for a specific group, it should be based
on sound statistics and not the need of the honchoes to feel all warm
and fuzzy inside by reaching some level of group participation without
regard to how well they might actually do.


The scores are what they are. Some people are just looking for
reasons to excuse poor performance. It could be that some excuses are
valid but it doesn't change the low score. I would agree that if a
particular admittance test is not a very good predictor of success in
terms of graduating with a B average then a better test, or
combination of tests should be used. I would not agree that merely
predicting "did they manage to graduate" is a very good statistic if
that statistic includes people who made it thru with a D average and
really never learned anything. If that's not clear, let me put it
this way, which would you rather have

A) 100 people apply, 80 get accepted based on whatever your
admittance test is, and 70 of them graduate with a A- average for the
bunch.
or
B) 100 people apply, 90 get accepted based on your admittance test,
and 75 of them graduate with a C- average for the bunch.

Do you want 70 A- quality doctors going out into the world to practice
medicine or do you want 75 C- doctors going out there?


I would want a physician like Dr. Ben Carson involved in my medical
care. He's an example of how anyone can succeed if they want to and
don't slack off because someone told them they were victims and can't
do it. He got a big push from his single mother who refused to let him
fail and he didn't. ^_^

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

I left college four decades ago and before that back in high school
before that Affirmative Action nonsense invaded the educational system,
the valedictorian at my high school was a Negro American girl. Nobody
gave her a pass, she kept her nose in the books, studied hard and
succeeded where others failed. I know that her parents encouraged her to
better herself and didn't cut her any slack either. This wonderfully
intelligent young lady had two parents at home who gave her the tools
and opportunity to excel and she did. A friend of mine who is one of the
smartest guys I know, has darker skin than me. I wish I knew what he did
about telephone central office systems and fiber optic splicing
and connections. He learned it all in The Army where he wasn't given a
pass, he was expected to succeed or he didn't get the job and promotions
based on the color of his skin but he excelled because of the knowledge
he possessed and goals he strived for. I don't want to hear that Negro
Americans are stupid and can't do it because that's a load of male
bovine droppings. If the P.L.L.C.F. are kept away from Black children
where they teach them that they are victims instead of potential
geniuses, the kids will grow up with a much different attitude. It all
starts with the children, most children have a great potential to
succeed, they just need someone to convince them that they can. O_o

TDD

On 08-15-2013 01:21, The Daring Dufas wrote:
he possessed and goals he strived for. I don't want to hear that Negro
Americans are stupid and can't do it because that's a load of male
bovine droppings. If the P.L.L.C.F. are kept away from Black children
where they teach them that they are victims instead of potential
geniuses, the kids will grow up with a much different attitude. It all
starts with the children, most children have a great potential to
succeed, they just need someone to convince them that they can. O_o

A fellow I know graduated unable to read from the same high school as my
sons. As he put it, "It was the sixties, and the white teachers were
afraid they'd be called racist if they looked at us." He has since
learned to read and is now president of the local NAACP chapter.

--
Wes Groleau

€œThinking I'm dumb gives people something to
feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?€�
€” Charles Wallace
(in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)

On 8/15/2013 12:32 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-15-2013 01:21, The Daring Dufas wrote:
he possessed and goals he strived for. I don't want to hear that Negro
Americans are stupid and can't do it because that's a load of male
bovine droppings. If the P.L.L.C.F. are kept away from Black children
where they teach them that they are victims instead of potential
geniuses, the kids will grow up with a much different attitude. It all
starts with the children, most children have a great potential to
succeed, they just need someone to convince them that they can. O_o

A fellow I know graduated unable to read from the same high school as my
sons. As he put it, "It was the sixties, and the white teachers were
afraid they'd be called racist if they looked at us." He has since
learned to read and is now president of the local NAACP chapter.


Just think of where the fellow would be if someone had kicked his ass
and told him to buckle down when he was a child. It all starts with the
children. ^_^

TDD