/lit/ - Literature

Just did a little wiki-investigation.

Neat I suppose, uses stats and biographies to argue a logical claims.

I've heard motivational speakers do the same kind of deal.

A hack

Stuff you'd buy at cosco for the masses.

He's popular, so pretty much no one here will like him.

But I think his stuff is really interesting and enjoyable to read, if a little bit all over the place at times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html?pagewanted=all
>in which Steven Pinker rips Malcolm Gladwell a new asshole, e.g.:
>The themes of the collection are a good way to characterize Gladwell himself: a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning and who occasionally blunders into spectacular failures.

That said, he's like any pop-sci, field-of-personal-expertise-agnostic writer. He writes articles that ape serious academic research, often pulling together information from lots of fields in which he is clearly not an expert. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Experts in any field he touches on, may balk at his mistakes. But I've also noticed that he's a bit like a Jesus for east-coast cosmopolitan types. His articles take on the form of narrative, stringing together stories where the factual nature is unimportant; they're presented more like parables. At the end of the article/talk/what-have-you, he distills the unifying aspects of the stories and explicitly clarifies the moral of the whole story. It can be fun, if you turn off the pedantic part of your brain.

>>2345876
>pedant

There's that word again!!!

So this guy is like a half nigger or something? Pretty sure that disproves any chance of him being a genius.

Only in fiction care niggers be smart.

>>2345914
When can you be smart though?

>>2345930
I am smart enough.

>>2345914
>Only in fiction care niggers be smart.
So the director of NASA isn't smart?

At least Carl Zimmer has the decency to not go prancing around like hes an actual biologist.

I've read Blink and Outliers. I view them as "glorified newspaper articles" (20 times longer than they should be), in which he takes dozens of pages to make minor points that, at the end, don't seem to add up to the whole argument he's trying to make. I took some good ideas from his books, but far fewer than one would expect from a 200+ page book.

>>2345949
Doesn't take too much intelligence to be a token negro.

>>2345973
Get out

>>2345986
lol

obama is literally the dumbest president ever, yet another example of incredibly dumb negro shoved where he doesn't belong simply because he's a nigger.

>>2345986
Obama was voted into office because Whites didn't want another LA riot on a national scale.

>/lit/s thoughts?

Overrated hack.

>>2345991
>quotes Voltaire
>president of the Harvard Law Review
>graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude
>is quite a good writer
>dumbest president ever
One of these things in not like the others

>>2346017
>president of the Harvard Law Review
>graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude

implying it wasn't politics, connections, and the fact he was a nigger which got him this?

>is quite a good writer
hahahaha no

>>2345991
>literally

Fag

>>2346018
Dream from My Father is probably the best autobiography of a president I've read. No ghost writer either (it was written in the 90s), and his primary source of income for a while was his writing. There are plenty of genuine criticisms you can have of Obama, but questioning his intelligence wouldn't be fair.

>>2346023
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

also: lol, he never met his father so how could he have dreams?

It's just typical white hating nigger, angry that he's a half breed.

>>2346028
The implication that Bill Ayers somehow contributed to the writing of the book is enough to reveal the motives of the article. Absurd, conspiratorial tripe.

>>2346035
So lets just pretend that obongo never had associations with these fucking commies because it might damage his reputation?

>>2346028
>Not born in the US
>secret Muslim
>goes to radical black Christian church (but somehow still a secret Muslim)
>was a member of the Black Panthers
>went to a fundamental Madrasah when he was a kid
>secret love-child of Malcolm X
>didn't write his own autobiography
Any other other unproved slanders I need to know about?

>>2346037
He served on an education board with Bill, and a number of other people, and therefore met him and spoke to him once. Therefore he's an anti-American commie bastard who's trying to destroy western civilization?

>>2346039
you'll notice he hasn't disproven anything either.

>>2346046
ever heard of the null hypothesis imbecile?

>>2346046
herp derp logical fallacy. The onus is on the person making the accusations to come up with proof, not the person being accused. Otherwise you can say literally anything about anyone.

>>2346037
Obong'o wasn't even alive at the time. You're just lost man. In the wrong board.

>>2346048
literally?
he is not a natural born america and as such is ineligible for being the president, he is a fucking commie who attended a black nationalist church for like 20 years.

>>2346048
Christians never understand this

>>2346061
You have to be a troll.
But of course you're an effective one, because there are fools like this out there. Sick sad world.

>>2346061
Him mother was American, therefore he's a natural born citizen by most interpretations of that law whether he was born in the country or not. But that doesn't matter, because it's a FACT that he was born in Hawaii. Even the conservatards had to give it up.

>>2346073
um no
natural born is both your parents are american.

Can you not grasp the importance of having a president who is loyal to america?

>because it's a FACT that he was born in Hawaii.
Birthright citizenship is obviously retarded, plus citizenship doesn't make you a NATURAL BORN citizen, idiot.

>>2346072
>Sick sad world.
shut up nigger lover

>>2346081
>Birthright citizenship is obviously retarded, plus citizenship doesn't make you a NATURAL BORN citizen, idiot.
>natural born is both your parents are american.
Holy shit you're retarded. Natural born citizen is someone born with an American citizenship. There are arguments on whether a person born abroad of American parents (like John McCain) should be considered Natural-born, but anyone born in this country would be eligible to run for president.

>>2346096
>Natural born citizen is someone born with an American citizenship.
no

>There are arguments on whether a person born abroad of American parents

Location of birth is irrelevant.

This birth right citizenship has given rise to all sorts of crazy things like foreigners coming here to give birth in an american hospital and then having american citizenship.

>>2346103
>like foreigners coming here to give birth in an american hospital and then having american citizenship.
The issue is much more complex than that. There has been cases of children, born and educated in this country, with American friends and English as a first language, being forced into the country of their parents origin, a country they know nothing about and have never visited, because their parents happened to be born elsewhere.

Also, anyone born in the US is a natural-born citizen. This is unarguable. The supreme court ruled, and therefore it is law.

>>2346111
>There has been cases of children, born and educated in this country

no there hasn't, and it's not a complicated issue unless you are a retarded bleeding heart liberal.

>"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Did you miss the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", even though the courts have ignored that part recently? Natural Born citizen is not just a citizen, the courts have never ruled on eligibility of presidents or vice presidents.

Also: Obviously there will always be a political slant to "interpreting" the law.

>>2346127
So no child of an immigrant has been born or educated in this country?

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States
Seems pretty straight forward.
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Are you implying that anyone who spent years living in another country automatically forfeits his natural-born status? I honestly can't see where you're getting at. Obama would be natural-born under your definition.

>>2346139
>Are you implying that anyone who spent years living in another country automatically forfeits his natural-born status?

He was born a citizen of the british empire, his father being a british subject.
That's clearly not a fucking natural born citizen of america.

THIS is why the courts have always dismissed lawsuits based on "no jurisdiction" and no standing. There is no basis for obongo being eligible.

Why do you think that citizenship and residency is something that should be given to people based on emotional appeals? Do you FEEL your way through life? It is their business for being here illegally, it's their parents business for bringing them here illegally.

>>2346147
You do realize that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen, right? His father's national status is completely irrelevant to the question. He was born in Hawaii, therefore he's a citizen. If parental status mattered, then people like Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be eligible for the presidency.

"Authorities are saying tonight that they believe they have finally found the killer in the infamous Inna Gadda Da Vidda slayings some 25 years ago. Police say this boy is the so-called Hippie Ripper, who in 1969 killed 16 hippies who were living in a van. Asked how a 15-year-old boy could have committed a crime that happened more than two decades ago, police spokesmen explained, quote, 'He's very clever.' "

>>2346179
Being a citizen doesn't make you a natural born citizen, idiot.

>If parental status mattered, then people like Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be eligible for the presidency.

except they founded the country and added an exception to grandfathered themselves in.

In the Law of Nations
>"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

He is taken too seriously.

>>2346188
You're quoting a French treatise (Le droit des gens) that's older than this country.
This is what an actual constitutional lawyer at the time (William Rawle) had to say about it: "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity"

disregard my previous posts
i suck nigger cocks

I've read some of his stuff, not really my cup of tea.

>>2346210
So you don't mind a nigger being a president?

>>2346233
I'm glad you conceded your argument. Be honest about your racism, don't try to shroud it in this birther nonsense.

>>2346246
I don't want to argue with you, because it's the people who decide the "law" which matter. And 3 kikes 1 nigger and a spic on the supreme court mean birth right citizenship is here to stay.

You liberals dig your own graves.

>>2346247
>3 kikes 1 nigger and a spic on the supreme court
Which one is Scalia?

>>2346249
and 1 wop

>>2346247
Well, William Rawle was hardly a liberal.

Also, keep in mind that the white-majority America you grew up in is fading quite rapidly. I know not having a privileged position due to your ethnic background is something you'll desperately miss, but clinging on to these outdated racist notions won't do you any good. United States isn't a white nation, it's a white majority nation.

>>2346251
One? Is there anyone you like on the supreme court? Are the Reaganites not right enough for you?

>>2346254
fuck off kike.

can the racist dude explain his background so we get why he's like that? i'm actually really curious

>>2346295
So you see no problem with what that guy said or with a nigger being the president?

How can you be so clueless as to actually pretend in this day and age that race doesn't matter?

>>2346300
Race only matters because people like you keep going on about it. Other than to study the sociological aspects of it, it matters little to educated people.

>>2346307
>this is what liberals who haven't left their ivory tower actually believe

>>2346300
>pretend in this day and age that race doesn't matter?
It doesn't matter to most people. Attitude, demeanor, and socioeconomic status matters. If my sister starting dating a cosmopolitan black guy no one would give a shit, but if she started dating a hip-hop loving uneducated "gangsta," then people would care.

>>2346314
I'm getting really tired and bored of you, everyone-who-doesn't-agree-with-me-is-liberal guy.

>>2346314
>ivory tower
Is that what you like to call your penis?

>>2346314
>racist can't fathom other people not being racist
It's 2012. Unless you live in the hick-city sister-fucking flyover bible-belt, no one cares.

op here, i fell asleep. wtf happend to this bread? you /lit/fags are trolled so easy. glad there were at lest a few responses to my question

>>2346323
so you reject genetics and human nature?

The race of an individual doesn't matter a bit. However, there is no denying that in the aggregate there are statistical differences between racial groups that have biological origins.

>>2346330
>genetics and human nature
>sister-fucking

>>2346330
You do realize that genetic variation among people of the same "race" is nearly equal to that of people within different "races." Richard Dawkins says that variation among humans is so small, that you're likely to get a wider range between two orangutans in the same forest than between any to humans on the planet. Most scientists see race as a social construct, not a biological one.

>>2346334
Yeah. That's why Asians are going to take over, they're smarter than us.

>>2346343
>lewontin's fallacy

>>2346345
Asians sure as fuck aren't "color blind"

>>2346335
>ad hominem
>vicious anti-white racism while claiming to be "anti-racist"

pretty standard for a liberal.

>>2346349
>ad hominem
>vicious anti-white racism while claiming to be "anti-racist"
I don't see how this makes sister fucking come down to genetics or human nature.

>>2346357
I haven't seen you make a valid argument yet, but i guess that will never stop you, now will it?

>>2346349
Dawkins was stating a fact, and disagreed with Lewontin anyhow. His point wasn't that variation between groups doesn't exist, he simply demonstrated that the difference is so small that we wouldn't subdivide a particular species into race if we found a similar number of variations among them.

>>2346368
I like how you skipped the next part of the dawkins quote you posted where he goes

>What is not correct is the inference that race is therefore a meaningless concept.

>>2346368
>he simply demonstrated that the difference is so small that we wouldn't subdivide a particular species into race if we found a similar number of variations among them.

This is also a blatant lie. Do you know anything about the fixation index?

>>2346300
i think race matters, but i'm ok with obama being the president of your country. better than almost any other president you guys have had.
but you should answer my question, i want to know why you are this way. i'm racist too, but i'm not a retard about it.

>>2346345

>2012
>Doesn't realise that geopolitical factors are more important overall than intelligence.

Europe industrialised because of geography (coal belt), a competitive system of economics (war and trade between states), superpower succession (meaning countries had to improve on one another) and acting as the middleman for worldwide trade that eventually led to imperialism.

China may be intelligent, but that intelligence is devoted to faux status in gaudy wealth. They still rip off German technologies because they're that behind.

>>2346389

Oh, and despite what you think, Europe is still the centre of the world. Think a little harder about it and you'll see.

I'm not saying it's right, but ask yourself why these Middle Eastern revolutionary parliamentarians aren't wearing Mameluke dress or turbans.

>>2346389
SURE IS GUNS GERMS AND STEEL LOL

sure is ignoring all prerequisites to industrialization.

Does geopolitical factors create geniuses and inventors?

>>2346385
>fixation index?
I know the concept, and I know that the differential values between ethnic groups are very small. I never said that variation didn't exist, just that they were small enough to discredit the claims made by racists.

>>2346395

Yup. They create the education behind the crafting of such geniuses through a military-industrial-economic complex.

Think how many Chinese geniuses died alone in their shitty rice paddies, thinking of a glory they couldn't ever hope to achieve under a stable, stagnant society?

>>2346398
>I never said that variation didn't exist, just that they were small enough to discredit the claims made by racists.
So racial variation exists, but just in a manner that leads to no measurable differences between races whatsoever?

>>2346398
http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

you are wrong

>>2346395

But ask yourself. Do you really think a lower-caste Indian could ever aspire to something. Sure, the ancien regime was classy, but if you wanted to, you could aspire. Look at Marlowe, Shakespeare, or the hardships of Newton.

I don't buy it that Napoleon wouldn't have existed as he did were it not for the French Revolution.

>>2346394
The middle east would probably be the intellectual center of the world if Islam didn't fuck everything up. 4th century Baghdad was only rivaled by ancient Athens.

>>2346406
>Do you really think a lower-caste Indian could ever aspire to something.
Sikhism?

>>2346404

I agree, but the important thing is that they DID fuck up. Zheng He travelled a fuckton, but the distance and size of his fleet is irrelevant - he didn't circumnavigate the globe or leave any tangible impact on most of the societies he visited, hence why the Yemeni politicians wear suit and tie, endeavor to be educated at Oxford and why democracy is such a palatable idea nowadays.

>>2346407

Sure, in a certain part of India in a certain time. Regardless, they didn't have other necessary conditions.

Europe was, and remains, unique.

>>2346401
Have you been reading my posts at all? Variation exists between people of the same family, the question is how much leads to a substantial difference. I don't think the difference between different humans groups is enough to warrant subdivision, and many scientists agree with me (although some don't)

To quote Jonathan Marks
"By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small. A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist."

>>2346410
How nice of the affluent white man to spread democracy and freedom around the world.
People always have the ability to make radical choices.

>>2346416
>To quote Jonathan Marks

http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf
>It is nowadays a dominant opinion in a number of disciplines (anthropology, genetics, psychology, philosophy of science) that the taxonomy of human races does not make much biological sense. My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race. I will try to show that the way ‘‘race’’ was defined by biologists several decades ago (by Dobzhansky and others) is in no way discredited by conceptual criticisms that are now fashionable and widely regarded as cogent. These criticisms often arbitrarily burden the biological category of race with some implausible connotations, which then opens the path for a quick eliminative move. However, when properly understood, the biological notion of race proves remarkably resistant to these deconstructive attempts. Moreover, by analyzing statements of some leading contemporary scholars who support social constructivism about race, I hope to demonstrate that their eliminativist views are actually in conflict with what the best contemporary science tells us about human genetic variation.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
>The culture-only (0% genetic–100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic–50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black–White differences in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence: the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables. The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black–White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the discrimination model (i.e., Black–White differences in socially valued outcomes will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model (i.e., Black–White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics).

>>2346421
What? He's pretty highly respected in the field of genetics and biological anthropology...

seriously just tell us why you're like this
it's fucking boring otherwise

>>2346435
Black stepfather.

>>2346416
You don't think, for example, that an average IQ score one standard deviation higher or lower between what we consider to be racial groups within the same culture to be noteworthy at all?

You can quote all the academics you like claiming the differences are irrelevant, but ratios like that are ultimately what the numbers boil down to.

>>2346440
>white males do well on tests for white males
...

>>2346440
You're not taking into account socioeconomic, anthropological, and political reasons for that IQ difference. Even if you were to make a case involving IQ score, then Asians would be the dominant race.

>>2346445
>You're not taking into account socioeconomic, anthropological, and political reasons for that IQ difference.

Actually they have been. They don't fully explain the disparities. See: >>2346430

>Even if you were to make a case involving IQ score, then Asians would be the dominant race.

North-East Asians do on average score higher than Western Europeans. Thank you captain obvious.

>>2346443
>white males do well on tests for white males
No, the test is dominated by east Asians and Ashkenazi Jews, which you would know if you looked at the data for five minutes.

>>2346445
>You're not taking into account socioeconomic, anthropological, and political reasons for that IQ difference. Even if you were to make a case involving IQ score, then Asians would be the dominant race.
No, I'm willing to admit that all those may well play a part. But the data we record on racial differences in IQ tests is consistent across every country we test for it in. That's a very, very strong argument that biology not only plays a role, but plays a much more dominant role than any of the things you listed.

And yeah, Asians are probably smarter than whites for biological reasons. So the fuck what?

I don't really give a shit about the Race Question, some are born with different shit to deal with than others -- but o'boy do I love right wing guys who can argue their point through statistics and scientific means, leaving the left guys in dismay because for once they have to face the issues and not handwave them aside with "that's racist, dude."

Give it you best anon~!

>>2346453
>No, the test is dominated by east Asians and Ashkenazi Jews, which you would know if you looked at the data for five minutes.
And here I was looking at the American data over a number of years, where in the first half of the 20th C all Asians and Jews do rather badly. Hang on, isn't that when things like anti-Semitism was rife?

>>2346462
>Give it you best anon~!
You can't spell.
Jews can't spell.
You must be a Jew.

>>2346459
So what? You're obviously opposed to a biological explanation, so are you insinuating that we now have a global culture that asymmetrically privileges European descended (and only European descended) Jews and eastern Asians?

>>2346467
>keyboard drops the R
>JEW
u just jelly i run the world

>>2346468
No. I'm saying the test is stupid, and that you're stupid.

IQ is a fundamentally flawed concept. It's a way for people who've never done an intelligent thing in their lives to console themselves with the idea that they're inherently intelligent, and to bolster their own prejudices with the idea that certain groups are inherently intelligent.

Enjoy Cancer. Enjoy aids.

If everyone just ignored stormfront anon, he might not go away, but we wouldn't have these cancerous pages on the front page on the time.
Pretty sure he's just arguing against himself, though.

If everyone just ignored stormfront anon, he might not go away but we wouldn't have these cancerous threads on the front page on the time.
Pretty sure he's just arguing against himself, though.

>>2346459
>And here I was looking at the American data over a number of years, where in the first half of the 20th C all... Jews do rather badly.

http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf
>This high IQ and corresponding high academic ability have been long known. In 1900 in London Jews took a disproportionate number of academic prizes and scholarships in spite of their poverty (Russell & Lewis, 1900). In the 1920s a survey of IQ scores in three London schools (Hughes, 1928) with mixed Jewish and non-Jewish student bodies showed that Jewish students had higher IQs than their schoolmates in each of three schools – one prosperous, one poor, and one very poor. The differences between Jews and non-Jews were all slightly less than one standard deviation. The students at the poorest Jewish school in London had IQ scores equal to the overall city mean of non-Jewish children.

>The Hughes study is important because it contradicts a widely cited misrepresentation by Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of the tests (Seligman, 1992).

>>2346484
>American data
>In 1900 in London
Uhh... reading comp?

>>2346486
>American data
>In 1900 in London
>Uhh... reading comp?

Maybe you should read the whole post before reacting to it. Or is that too difficult for you?

>>2346478
>IQ is a fundamentally flawed concept. It's a way for people who've never done an intelligent thing in their lives to console themselves with the idea that they're inherently intelligent, and to bolster their own prejudices with the idea that certain groups are inherently intelligent.
Oh. So you're just an egalitarian fundamentalist who refuses to understand or is simply unaware of all the measurable correlations IQ has with success in academia and job performance on a personal level, and GDP and crime rate on a national level, along with a slew of other things?

I guess if you're statistically illiterate, ad hominem arguments will have to suffice.

>>2346485
I saw you post in that other thread.

It's obviously not the same person, you fucking moron.

>>2346488
I did read the whole thing. There is no counterargument.
>>2346490
>Oh. So you're just an egalitarian fundamentalist who refuses to understand or is simply unaware of all the measurable correlations IQ has with success in academia and job performance on a personal level, and GDP and crime rate on a national level, along with a slew of other things?
Correlation does not mean causation.
>I guess if you're statistically illiterate, ad hominem arguments will have to suffice.
No such thing as "statistical literacy".

>>2346502
>I did read the whole thing. There is no counterargument.

The "American data... in the first half of the 20th C" you are referring to is the Goddard study which was misrepresented by Kamin & Gould as claiming that Jews have a low IQ. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the Goddard study because it never even pretended to be a representative sample of the population, but a group of Jews who were preselected as being suspected of mental retardation.

This is basically what these arguments boil down to.

The so-called "stormfront anons" (i.e anyone with an opinion that is pro-white or negative toward non-whites) presentation of facts (with some use of the words nigger and other racial slurs thrown in; sometimes outdated studies are used):
>Blacks commit 90% of interracial crime between blacks and whites in America, while being 15% of the population

Kids who just aquired their liberal arts degree a month ago:
>IT'S BCUZ THEY ARE POOR (please don't point out affirmative action or racial quotas in the workforce or other such anti-white laws) AND THERE IS RACISM IN DA INSTATOOSHUNS AND AND AND U A RACCIS


To the guy who is trying to argue with these morons (you're on lit, remember?), try another board. This really is off topic.

>>2346502
>Correlation does not mean causation.
So, you want mathematical proofs for subjects that are the domain of the social sciences? Or do you only want mathematical proofs for subjects that are the domain of the social sciences when you disagree with the results?

>>2346508
You've misunderstood what's being said in your quotes. Have you even looked at the Goddard study? How would that be "American data" for IQ?

I can see why your racist, you just want someone to blame your deficiencies on.

>>2346511
>Blacks commit 90% of interracial crime between blacks and whites in America, while being 15% of the population

By the way, only 27% of that is from theft, which tells us that it's not poverty; the other 63% is rape, assault, murder.. etc.


DERPDERPDERP

>>2346511
Being pro-white or anti-non whites has nothing to do with it. It's simply a case of acknowledging and describing the influence of heredity, and understanding that some people who evolved in different environments are going to be different on average because of said influence.

Anyone who thinks Jews were perceived as stupid during the first half of the 20th century has a poor understanding of history. Colleges instituted quotas against Jews because they didn't want their institutions being over-run by them. Makes it kind of hard not to notice their academic success.

>>2346517
>I can see why your racist, you just want someone to blame your deficiencies on.

>your


OH, THE IRONY.

>>2346523
I was actually making fun of the highschool kids ITT, not you.

>>2346517
>You've misunderstood what's being said in your quotes.

How so?

>Have you even looked at the Goddard study?

Yes. You can read it here:

http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/goddard.html

>How would that be "American data" for IQ?

It was conducted on American shores. But if this isn't the "American data" you were thinking of, feel free to cite the study you were referring too.

I only read Outliers and he sounds pretty convincing in the 10000 hours part.

intellectual lightweight

>>2346834
A term used only by intellectual lightweights

he's a clever reporter but no genius

Just saw this thread, and I'm not reading any of the comments because I imagine there will be nothing but intellectual dick measuring from the cerebral eunuchs that populate this board. I found Outliers to be really informative, enlightening and a good read, the perfect book to get people in statistical analysis, sociology and psychology. It was well written and balanced in its arguments. To be honest, more of you c/lit/oral infections should read it, as it explores the notion that there is more to success than talent and determination- this should help prop up the fantasy of intellectual and artistic superiority you all seem to have whilst simultaneously achieving nothing more than liberal arts degrees from mediocre educational establishments and getting that one poem published in TAR. Seriously /lit/, fuck yourselves.

>>2346872

you are everything you hate

>>2346872
There's a reason why sociologists and anthropologists tore the book apart: It's the work of a dilettante. Junk arguments with little to no evidence and logical fallacies abound.

>>2346524
Er no, it's more like they didn't want kikes at all in their schools.

You know, because they want their own kin in their, whites.

And now look at the schools today, run by jews so they are less then 30% whites in the combined ivy league schools. If you are a rural student you have absolutely no chance of getting in.

>>2346872
yea there is more to success then just talent and determination, your talent must be in demand, and he helps to be born a kike, or like gladwell, a nigger.

>>2347813
>Er no, it's more like they didn't want kikes at all in their schools.

Irrelevant. Point was that people had to notice the high intelligence of the Jews for this to be an issue. They still generally favored quota limits that were significantly higher than the Jewish representation in the general population.

>>2346872
Such obvious projection.