The mother of triple gold medalist sprinter Gabby Thomas is Professor Jennifer Randall, who, during the Racial Reckoning, was handed an endowed chair at the U.
One thing Twitter has done is out a lot of "smart" celebrities as liars and idiots. Larry Tribe (communist law professor) and Robert Reich (Clinton administration cabinet member and wonk) were both lauded by everyone --right, left, and center -- for a long time as very smart, honest men who knew their stuff. Even if you disagreed with their conclusions, the theme was, you had to admire their intelligence and logic.
But Twitter outed them both as liars and idiots. Tribe's brain was broken by TDS and he's still ranting about Russian conspiracies long disproven. Meanwhile Reich just recently tried lying and claiming the Fine People Hoax was real and Twitter immediately smacked him around. Turns out neither is very smart, just nobody bothered doing basic fact checks on them for decades.
Which, in turn, raises the inference: all the people who previously claimed those two were smart, erudite, honest men---those people are either liars themselves or else too stupid to bother doing basic checks on facts and arguments.
How much of our "erudite" class are unintelligent, lying boobs?
1. How do we know he didn't cheat, blackmail, or get the answers from a fellow Tribe member at the college? He did go into politics, you know. Biden plagiarized his way through law school and it didn't hurt him running for Senate.
2. Could have given up trying once he saw people didn't check the answers. I knew a guy who had a few revolving door jobs with the federal government. He informed me that each time he had to fill out an FBI background search form which was long and arduous but he was *assured* the FBI would check every single reference going back to high school. By the second time through, he barely filled out any of it, and he was never called on it; he realized the FBI didn't do its job and didn't do the background check except at random. Bill Richardson nearly got an Obama cabinet position until a good background check exposed him. Bernard Kerik was the police commissioner of NYC and nearly secretary of Homeland Security before someone ran basic background on him and found a lot of dirt that got him arrested and convicted.
3. Its stupid to be so dishonest when the fact check showing you to be lying is literally a 10 second Google search away. Yes, his audience is too brainwashed to listen, but long term it destroys him. Tim Walz is getting hammered for his Stolen Valor stuff that was so simple to check it would've taken a decent reporter a few hours, but no one did until this race.
I guess that’s always a possibility, you know? You can say that with literally any person who has credentials. The simpler explanation is that he’s smart, but both fundamentally dishonest and probably able to convince himself falsehoods are true as well. Every smart person does that sometimes.
It certainly makes wisdom more likely though, as a high IQ person is much more likely to be familiar with the ethical precepts of what makes a wise person.
Dementia might be a part of it. Reich does the elderly lib "the past sucked, and look how much worse it's gotten" bit since woke became a thing. And Tribe is even worse.
Unsurprisingly, the daughter is more attractive than the mother. More surprisingly, the academic mother is more masculine-looking than the athlete daughter.
Dumbing down testing for people of color is a result of a racist attitude that they need special props to compete with others. Setting the bar high, not low, brings out the best in people as attested to by her daughter.
Yes. It is possible that decreasing tolerance for feral behavior in American black subcultures would raise American black intelligence. Notice the observation in Steve Farrell's book _The Affirmative Action Hoax_, that US companies sometimes hire African blacks to fill AA quotas because the African blacks are easier to get along with and more intelligent than American blacks. Maybe "easier to get along with" comes first and low intelligence results. Maybe not, but it's worth trying.
In Western Europe businesses - and the labs at state universities, where a friend of mine works - fill the immigrant quota, explicit or implicit, by hiring East Europeans and East Asians. The East Europeans will preferably be from northern Eastern Europe. If you can get Estonians, great.
Funny how that is never brought up. Because that would show that some of the hallowed immigrants have better qualifications than others, and as we know better results can only come from oppressing others, and that would mean you criticize the better-qualified immigrants, which isn't allowed. Also, of course, they prefer to hire female immigrants, less aggressive than the male immigrants. But you can't criticize that either, because feminism.
Speaking of Estonia, I and my girlfriend visited the Old Town in Estonia's capital. Very impressive buildings. There was a market on the side closest to the harbor. We saw an old pigeon with dirty feathers standing next to a market stand, clearly hungry. The two women in the stand completely ignored it. We would never have seen that in Western Europe, at least not in the Germanic countries.
The interviewer didn’t even blink at “colonial schools,” or maybe she just missed it. The peak madness represented by that interview has passed, but Prof. Randall still has her chair and her money, and will be in a position to do damage for a long time. And as she well knows, there will be additional Reckonings.
I passed the Mensa test and I was a member for a few years. There was absolutely nothing "racial" about the test based on symbols.
No Blacks, all Whites except for an Asian student. But everyone who comes to the meetings is afraid to discuss intelligence. You are not supposed to mention it. And especially not racial differences of course.
A television company sent an email to Mensa which was distributed to the members. They were asking for "non-traditional members" to take part in a documentary. The email mentioned workers, women and immigrants. They'd cheer if they got homosexuals too, of course. Never mind that the vast majority of members were White men. They never made the documentary, but if they had you can be sure it would just be about "Mensa," not about "non-traditional members of Mensa," presenting them as if they were the norm.
We had coffee meetings where you talk about whatever the talkative members come up with, and game evenings, or we went sightseeing. But people with important careers and families will usually not go to Mensa meetings, they are busy. It was mainly students and some older men without families, and then a few of us in between those categories.
Supposedly, there was a standardized question once about regattas, and that proved the tests weren't keyed to IQ but were culturally biased, since rich white folks would be more likely to have gone to regattas than poor folks and black people and therefore know what they are, so a poor person taking the test would fail the question just from lack of experience with regattas.
Insert joke about black people being bad swimmers here.
Speaking of the Olympics, it might not surprise you that the "Hitler refused to shake hands with Jesse Owens!" story is false. Yet that was in our school's history book. No one ever asks, since when is the head of state supposed to shake hands with medalists? The real story was this, confirmed by Jesse Owens' ghost-written autobiography: In the 1936 Olympics Hitler was shaking hands with German medalists. The Olympics Committee then told him that he could either shake hands with all the medalists or none. All would be too many, so Hitler agreed to none. The next day Jesse Owens won gold, and Hitler didn't shake hands with him or anyone else. But Jesse Owens wrote that when he walked past Hitler's seat, Hitler stood up, smiled and waved, and Jesse Owens waved back.
Owens said that the one who really snubbed him was Roosevelt, who was campaigning in the South at the time, and who therefore would not meet with Owens to congratulate him. Owens wrote about the media owners' attacks on Hitler, "I think it was wrong to criticize the man of the hour." (By the way, the NSDAP used the South's KKK as an example in their war posters of how bad the U.S. was. Though Hitler's personal train carriage was named Amerika, until the U.S. attacks on German ships in the Atlantic made them finally declare war.)
Like other athletes Owens saw how Germany had been restored after the British starvation blockade of German ports ("If we lift the blockade the war has been for nothing!" -Churchill a year after WWI), the Versailles treaty taking Germany's money and even horses, and milk cows to deprive the children of milk, the communist riots, lootings and killings and attacks on conservative party meetings. Several athletes wrote about how things had improved in just a few years. The Australian team made the Roman salute when they entered the arena.
While the media endlessly hold up Jesse Owens as their proof of Black racial superiority somehow, Germany dominated completely both in total medals (101) and gold medals (38). (The U.S. came in second with 57 and 24.)
Whites outshine all others in all Olympics, Summer and Winter. It takes the massive East Asian population to come close.
You would think after Claudine Gay a lot of Talented Tenth folks boosted up by the Peter Principle, DEI, and St. George Floyd would learn to keep their mouth shut, not make waves, and enjoy their cushy posts where no work is required while being the picture on the website.
But apparently even that is beyond the intellectual grasp of DEI hires. Sad!
maybe a few oddballs in odd corners of the internet see through her obvious charlatanry, but the white liberals she encounters daily in academia are still ready to wash her feet on command.
the bigotry accusation is the heresy/blasphemy charge of our time, and black women who live under the liberal dispensation (academia, media, HR depts, etc) know that the all the moral weight and power is on their side and this is the sword and shield they wield daily.
one bad word or whisper from her and the stink of moral pollution will cling to you and maybe be impossible to wash off.
For a very long time I have wondered if one of the main issues of B/W--or really B/all other races--friction is a profound, perhaps heritable , difference in how an individual perceives the world and their place in it. I don't mean one's cultural traditions, except as a second order influence; I mean literally cannot *perceive* certain relationships, or even imagine them long enough to explore their implications.
This statement:
"Why can’t we have word problems in math that deal with something other than counting rocks or ice cream flavors? Those are just boring items that no kid – white, Black, Jew, Gentile – wants to take. They’re tedious."
...all of a sudden showed me that Dr. Thomas implies that the test, essentially, has to come to the student being tested, rather than the student adapting to the test in whatever form it tuns out to be.
In short, it is an individual-centric view, one that must meet *subjective* personal requirements. And because if this, it is impossible to create an objective test vehicle since it would have to be tailored on an individual--or at least identity group--basis.
Of course this revelation, if accurate, makes objective testing of *anyone* impossible, but the real payload here is that perhaps blacks are neurally wired in such a way that they cannot easily perceive the external world in anything approaching objectivity: they can see it only one way, and that's from their own point of view. And objectivity is of course impossible thru what is at core a subjective lens (each individual's interface with their environment will differ a bit from individual to individual), but perhaps the ability to consciously approach an objective state of mind is a variable genetic tendency that differs among racial groups.
And of course this would certainly go a long way towards explaining a whole lot of differing social outcomes at almost any scale. Because of this (supplies an easy and plausible answer for very many social frictions), one must be very wary of using it casually, without large amounts of testing for validity.
The argument that counting ice cream flavours is boring is plain silly. Counting anything is not particularly interesting. But there’s no other way to test it.
At the heart of what I'm trying to say is that I'm hypothesizing an ability that I've never really seen broken out as a discrete behavioral response that can be labeled and/or tested for. It is basically the ability for an individual to bring concentration and problem-solving to bear on *any* problem presented, at will, and without regards to personal interest. This is simply being able to relate to situations from a viewpoint in which my subjective response have been checked.
I can see in myself a limited ability to enforce concentration on an abstract problem, perhaps at work, for which I receive satisfaction either from a sense of personal accomplishment, or in the case of employment, payment. The point is that I, and others like me, can--and do--bring effort to bear whether it's boring, or personally meaningless.
I have always had to really work at detaching myself from my own motivations and adopt temporarily a sort of objective state where I view the problem purely as a problem to solve, and then follow thru with solving it. It may well be a longer term task and I must maintain this objective state until it's complete, or take breaks, but find a way to resume--again, at will. I've also known others who can do this better, and for much longer periods, than I.
In other words, the ability to adapt oneself to a problem, whether or not one has a a particular interest in it, routinely and at will, may be heritable and may differ among racial groups in a consistent and detectable manner.
My feeling is that people respond to incentives, and that if doing or saying X or Y always gets you the juicy pellet of attention and promotion, anyone who wants to get ahead will do or say X or Y.
Under the white-liberal dispensation that controls our culture, esp academia from K-Phd, black people are trained to show their scars, to play a lead role in the oppression porn that tickles all the liberal erogenous zones, so all their incentives are to portray their lives as an endless Via Dolorosa.
And especially as personal freedom, individual autonomy and self-esteem are paramount values here, saying things like: "I don't feel seen! All those white men on the walls make me feel unsafe! You can't expect me to work or achieve until everything I see looks like me!" basically triggers a nervous breakdown in white liberals (esp women) who are ready to write a large check or denounce every person, place or thing to make the guilt go away.
The sad truth is that white guilt pulls the strings here, black people know making white liberals feel guilty gets them checks and rewards, and this weird black/white S&M dynamic is a major part of our culture, most esp in academia, where white guilt is the reigning shared faith.
Yes, I agree that what you're describing is going on and that it undercuts self-motivation. This is is a very large part of the current phenomenon of black underachievement.
But what I'm talking about is orthogonal to this trend of black manipulation of white guilt for personal gain, however small it is in concrete terms. Both your phenomenon--ready manipulation for immediate satisfaction--and my phenomenon--a differential ability among races to bring problem-solving to bear *at will* and regardless subjective interest--can bot happen concurrently.
It's also important to understand that a part of the satisfaction gained from ready manipulation is in the personal satisfaction of having so easily manipulated a disliked racial group who had historically held lawful power over people like you, and in recognizing this history, seek redress, whether justified or not. In this sense the satisfaction has an element of revenge to it. However, taking your valid example:
"if doing or saying X or Y always gets you the juicy pellet of attention and promotion, anyone who wants to get ahead will do or say X or Y."
I'm postulating that if doing/saying something that requires extra and prolonged effort and itself is not intrinsically of interest to the hypothetical black individual, or provides no sense of comeuppance fulfilled, they may be more likely to simply drop the task uncompleted: they don't find it interesting enough to become engaged to completion. I mean, they could obtain even more of these emoluments doled out by the white guilt system, simply by staying in school and deferring gratification, but this route does not satisfy a need for personal interest, nor immediate, reward, nor the revenge factor, so...
The actual nut of what my speculation is, is that for some groups the need for immediate personal and subjective satisfaction is not *required* to motivate them to abstract problem-solving. They detach problem-solving from immediate interest and gratification in favor of the possibly for longer term and cumulative advantage. It may be *easier* for them to disengage, personally, than for other groups, on average.
The irony here is that these same people who require that they have a personal interest in a problem before tackling it, may indeed have as much mental horsepower as anyone else, and even more, but cannot bring it to bear at will, as is required in today's social if one wish a moderate level of material success.
The struggle around psychometric tests seems to mirror the equality of outcomes mentality. It’s assumed that the scores for different groups must be equal or there’s a problem to be solved. But the tests are good. They do their jobs perfectly. Even if you throw millions at solving a problem which never existed, you will never undue the predictive utility of a test assembled on the basis of factor analysis and predictive validity. That’s true no matter how many times you call the test nasty names when you don’t like the results.
> But it assumes a lot of things that are white-centric
LOL she should have gone full anti-racist and explicitly said that expecting people to be on time is a white concept
> ETS [Educational Testing Service] should be donating to make up for all the harm that they have done. When I say ETS, I mean every single one of them: ACT, Curriculum Associates, NWEA, Pearson
I'm not sure if she truly realizes that ETS doesn't own all of these testing companies
> Why can’t we have an item that is about students preparing meals for Black Lives Matters protests, and they are protesting holding asylum seekers at the border? Or about disparate dress codes for middle schoolers?
I promise Dr. Randall that no matter the setting of the questions, Asians would do the best at them, then whites, &c.
> if we hadn’t watched Eric Garner murdered on TV
For those who aren't inclined to keep track of which black person is which, this was the morbidly obese one who was illegally selling cigarettes outside of convenience stores on Staten Island. The death resulted in payout of $5.9 million to his family and the firing of the cop who tried to arrest him, although he wasn't criminally charged.
I had an unflattering reading comp. series about the KKK on the SAT in 1978. It set me off that they would be racy and political, but what did it trigger in black teenagers? Probably not what they intended. That might have been my first clue about our rotten cognitive elite.
Only a “PhD” could respond to serious questions with such garbage. Her academic field is a joke and her crusade only hurts black kids.
One question for the “equity” crowd: If equity is such a laudable goal, why don’t we handicap the Olympic races so everyone finishes with the same time?
One thing Twitter has done is out a lot of "smart" celebrities as liars and idiots. Larry Tribe (communist law professor) and Robert Reich (Clinton administration cabinet member and wonk) were both lauded by everyone --right, left, and center -- for a long time as very smart, honest men who knew their stuff. Even if you disagreed with their conclusions, the theme was, you had to admire their intelligence and logic.
But Twitter outed them both as liars and idiots. Tribe's brain was broken by TDS and he's still ranting about Russian conspiracies long disproven. Meanwhile Reich just recently tried lying and claiming the Fine People Hoax was real and Twitter immediately smacked him around. Turns out neither is very smart, just nobody bothered doing basic fact checks on them for decades.
Which, in turn, raises the inference: all the people who previously claimed those two were smart, erudite, honest men---those people are either liars themselves or else too stupid to bother doing basic checks on facts and arguments.
How much of our "erudite" class are unintelligent, lying boobs?
Ehhh… I don’t think anyone who graduated summa cum laude at Dartmouth in 1968 can realistically be called an idiot. Robert Reich is just dishonest.
1. How do we know he didn't cheat, blackmail, or get the answers from a fellow Tribe member at the college? He did go into politics, you know. Biden plagiarized his way through law school and it didn't hurt him running for Senate.
2. Could have given up trying once he saw people didn't check the answers. I knew a guy who had a few revolving door jobs with the federal government. He informed me that each time he had to fill out an FBI background search form which was long and arduous but he was *assured* the FBI would check every single reference going back to high school. By the second time through, he barely filled out any of it, and he was never called on it; he realized the FBI didn't do its job and didn't do the background check except at random. Bill Richardson nearly got an Obama cabinet position until a good background check exposed him. Bernard Kerik was the police commissioner of NYC and nearly secretary of Homeland Security before someone ran basic background on him and found a lot of dirt that got him arrested and convicted.
3. Its stupid to be so dishonest when the fact check showing you to be lying is literally a 10 second Google search away. Yes, his audience is too brainwashed to listen, but long term it destroys him. Tim Walz is getting hammered for his Stolen Valor stuff that was so simple to check it would've taken a decent reporter a few hours, but no one did until this race.
I guess that’s always a possibility, you know? You can say that with literally any person who has credentials. The simpler explanation is that he’s smart, but both fundamentally dishonest and probably able to convince himself falsehoods are true as well. Every smart person does that sometimes.
"probably able to convince himself falsehoods are true as well. Every smart person does that sometimes."
You had me until that. Nah, he's not convincing himself; he knows he's a liar, he's just gotten away with it until Twitter.
This is digging. IQ doesn't equal wisdom. You can use a good brain to create subterfuges & dodges.
It certainly makes wisdom more likely though, as a high IQ person is much more likely to be familiar with the ethical precepts of what makes a wise person.
Dementia might be a part of it. Reich does the elderly lib "the past sucked, and look how much worse it's gotten" bit since woke became a thing. And Tribe is even worse.
I ain't letting any of the commies off with a dementia pass. Would they be so generous?
You have a point.
Unsurprisingly, the daughter is more attractive than the mother. More surprisingly, the academic mother is more masculine-looking than the athlete daughter.
https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Jennifer-Photo.jpg
Irrespective of her mother's anti-whitism, daughter Gabby seems to prefer the company of white men.
https://nybreaking.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/1722967792_293_Meet-US-Olympics-superstar-Gabby-Thomas-boyfriend-Spencer-McManes-who.jpg
"blacks did as good as whites"
Well, they should have done gooder.
"Ebonics is da future, yo!"
Dumbing down testing for people of color is a result of a racist attitude that they need special props to compete with others. Setting the bar high, not low, brings out the best in people as attested to by her daughter.
Yes. It is possible that decreasing tolerance for feral behavior in American black subcultures would raise American black intelligence. Notice the observation in Steve Farrell's book _The Affirmative Action Hoax_, that US companies sometimes hire African blacks to fill AA quotas because the African blacks are easier to get along with and more intelligent than American blacks. Maybe "easier to get along with" comes first and low intelligence results. Maybe not, but it's worth trying.
In Western Europe businesses - and the labs at state universities, where a friend of mine works - fill the immigrant quota, explicit or implicit, by hiring East Europeans and East Asians. The East Europeans will preferably be from northern Eastern Europe. If you can get Estonians, great.
Funny how that is never brought up. Because that would show that some of the hallowed immigrants have better qualifications than others, and as we know better results can only come from oppressing others, and that would mean you criticize the better-qualified immigrants, which isn't allowed. Also, of course, they prefer to hire female immigrants, less aggressive than the male immigrants. But you can't criticize that either, because feminism.
Speaking of Estonia, I and my girlfriend visited the Old Town in Estonia's capital. Very impressive buildings. There was a market on the side closest to the harbor. We saw an old pigeon with dirty feathers standing next to a market stand, clearly hungry. The two women in the stand completely ignored it. We would never have seen that in Western Europe, at least not in the Germanic countries.
The interviewer didn’t even blink at “colonial schools,” or maybe she just missed it. The peak madness represented by that interview has passed, but Prof. Randall still has her chair and her money, and will be in a position to do damage for a long time. And as she well knows, there will be additional Reckonings.
Blacks do even worse compared to whites on so-called "culture-free" (non-verbal) tests of intelligence. Both the professor and the donators should know that. An example of the "culture-free" test is Cattell's: https://iqtestprep.com/cattell-culture-fair-test/. Of course, science-deniers bitten by the radic-lib virus claim the facts are false: https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00350-w
I passed the Mensa test and I was a member for a few years. There was absolutely nothing "racial" about the test based on symbols.
No Blacks, all Whites except for an Asian student. But everyone who comes to the meetings is afraid to discuss intelligence. You are not supposed to mention it. And especially not racial differences of course.
A television company sent an email to Mensa which was distributed to the members. They were asking for "non-traditional members" to take part in a documentary. The email mentioned workers, women and immigrants. They'd cheer if they got homosexuals too, of course. Never mind that the vast majority of members were White men. They never made the documentary, but if they had you can be sure it would just be about "Mensa," not about "non-traditional members of Mensa," presenting them as if they were the norm.
We had coffee meetings where you talk about whatever the talkative members come up with, and game evenings, or we went sightseeing. But people with important careers and families will usually not go to Mensa meetings, they are busy. It was mainly students and some older men without families, and then a few of us in between those categories.
Very interesting insights.
Thank you.
Good lord, my mother was a nurse and worked the night shift often. I learned how to tell time. Also, what is the notorious “regatta” question?
Supposedly, there was a standardized question once about regattas, and that proved the tests weren't keyed to IQ but were culturally biased, since rich white folks would be more likely to have gone to regattas than poor folks and black people and therefore know what they are, so a poor person taking the test would fail the question just from lack of experience with regattas.
Insert joke about black people being bad swimmers here.
Speaking of the Olympics, it might not surprise you that the "Hitler refused to shake hands with Jesse Owens!" story is false. Yet that was in our school's history book. No one ever asks, since when is the head of state supposed to shake hands with medalists? The real story was this, confirmed by Jesse Owens' ghost-written autobiography: In the 1936 Olympics Hitler was shaking hands with German medalists. The Olympics Committee then told him that he could either shake hands with all the medalists or none. All would be too many, so Hitler agreed to none. The next day Jesse Owens won gold, and Hitler didn't shake hands with him or anyone else. But Jesse Owens wrote that when he walked past Hitler's seat, Hitler stood up, smiled and waved, and Jesse Owens waved back.
Owens said that the one who really snubbed him was Roosevelt, who was campaigning in the South at the time, and who therefore would not meet with Owens to congratulate him. Owens wrote about the media owners' attacks on Hitler, "I think it was wrong to criticize the man of the hour." (By the way, the NSDAP used the South's KKK as an example in their war posters of how bad the U.S. was. Though Hitler's personal train carriage was named Amerika, until the U.S. attacks on German ships in the Atlantic made them finally declare war.)
Like other athletes Owens saw how Germany had been restored after the British starvation blockade of German ports ("If we lift the blockade the war has been for nothing!" -Churchill a year after WWI), the Versailles treaty taking Germany's money and even horses, and milk cows to deprive the children of milk, the communist riots, lootings and killings and attacks on conservative party meetings. Several athletes wrote about how things had improved in just a few years. The Australian team made the Roman salute when they entered the arena.
While the media endlessly hold up Jesse Owens as their proof of Black racial superiority somehow, Germany dominated completely both in total medals (101) and gold medals (38). (The U.S. came in second with 57 and 24.)
Whites outshine all others in all Olympics, Summer and Winter. It takes the massive East Asian population to come close.
You would think after Claudine Gay a lot of Talented Tenth folks boosted up by the Peter Principle, DEI, and St. George Floyd would learn to keep their mouth shut, not make waves, and enjoy their cushy posts where no work is required while being the picture on the website.
But apparently even that is beyond the intellectual grasp of DEI hires. Sad!
maybe a few oddballs in odd corners of the internet see through her obvious charlatanry, but the white liberals she encounters daily in academia are still ready to wash her feet on command.
the bigotry accusation is the heresy/blasphemy charge of our time, and black women who live under the liberal dispensation (academia, media, HR depts, etc) know that the all the moral weight and power is on their side and this is the sword and shield they wield daily.
one bad word or whisper from her and the stink of moral pollution will cling to you and maybe be impossible to wash off.
… and Gerry was Jewish, too. A veritable Sandy Koufax of track, in 1964. And he’s still jogging, at age 82. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Ashworth
It didn't hurt to have Bob Hayes running the anchor leg of the 1964 Tokyo 4 x 100m relay.
For a very long time I have wondered if one of the main issues of B/W--or really B/all other races--friction is a profound, perhaps heritable , difference in how an individual perceives the world and their place in it. I don't mean one's cultural traditions, except as a second order influence; I mean literally cannot *perceive* certain relationships, or even imagine them long enough to explore their implications.
This statement:
"Why can’t we have word problems in math that deal with something other than counting rocks or ice cream flavors? Those are just boring items that no kid – white, Black, Jew, Gentile – wants to take. They’re tedious."
...all of a sudden showed me that Dr. Thomas implies that the test, essentially, has to come to the student being tested, rather than the student adapting to the test in whatever form it tuns out to be.
In short, it is an individual-centric view, one that must meet *subjective* personal requirements. And because if this, it is impossible to create an objective test vehicle since it would have to be tailored on an individual--or at least identity group--basis.
Of course this revelation, if accurate, makes objective testing of *anyone* impossible, but the real payload here is that perhaps blacks are neurally wired in such a way that they cannot easily perceive the external world in anything approaching objectivity: they can see it only one way, and that's from their own point of view. And objectivity is of course impossible thru what is at core a subjective lens (each individual's interface with their environment will differ a bit from individual to individual), but perhaps the ability to consciously approach an objective state of mind is a variable genetic tendency that differs among racial groups.
And of course this would certainly go a long way towards explaining a whole lot of differing social outcomes at almost any scale. Because of this (supplies an easy and plausible answer for very many social frictions), one must be very wary of using it casually, without large amounts of testing for validity.
Wildly speculative, but who knows?
The argument that counting ice cream flavours is boring is plain silly. Counting anything is not particularly interesting. But there’s no other way to test it.
"Counting anything is not particularly interesting."
It is to me.
Yes, agreed.
At the heart of what I'm trying to say is that I'm hypothesizing an ability that I've never really seen broken out as a discrete behavioral response that can be labeled and/or tested for. It is basically the ability for an individual to bring concentration and problem-solving to bear on *any* problem presented, at will, and without regards to personal interest. This is simply being able to relate to situations from a viewpoint in which my subjective response have been checked.
I can see in myself a limited ability to enforce concentration on an abstract problem, perhaps at work, for which I receive satisfaction either from a sense of personal accomplishment, or in the case of employment, payment. The point is that I, and others like me, can--and do--bring effort to bear whether it's boring, or personally meaningless.
I have always had to really work at detaching myself from my own motivations and adopt temporarily a sort of objective state where I view the problem purely as a problem to solve, and then follow thru with solving it. It may well be a longer term task and I must maintain this objective state until it's complete, or take breaks, but find a way to resume--again, at will. I've also known others who can do this better, and for much longer periods, than I.
In other words, the ability to adapt oneself to a problem, whether or not one has a a particular interest in it, routinely and at will, may be heritable and may differ among racial groups in a consistent and detectable manner.
My feeling is that people respond to incentives, and that if doing or saying X or Y always gets you the juicy pellet of attention and promotion, anyone who wants to get ahead will do or say X or Y.
Under the white-liberal dispensation that controls our culture, esp academia from K-Phd, black people are trained to show their scars, to play a lead role in the oppression porn that tickles all the liberal erogenous zones, so all their incentives are to portray their lives as an endless Via Dolorosa.
And especially as personal freedom, individual autonomy and self-esteem are paramount values here, saying things like: "I don't feel seen! All those white men on the walls make me feel unsafe! You can't expect me to work or achieve until everything I see looks like me!" basically triggers a nervous breakdown in white liberals (esp women) who are ready to write a large check or denounce every person, place or thing to make the guilt go away.
The sad truth is that white guilt pulls the strings here, black people know making white liberals feel guilty gets them checks and rewards, and this weird black/white S&M dynamic is a major part of our culture, most esp in academia, where white guilt is the reigning shared faith.
Yes, I agree that what you're describing is going on and that it undercuts self-motivation. This is is a very large part of the current phenomenon of black underachievement.
But what I'm talking about is orthogonal to this trend of black manipulation of white guilt for personal gain, however small it is in concrete terms. Both your phenomenon--ready manipulation for immediate satisfaction--and my phenomenon--a differential ability among races to bring problem-solving to bear *at will* and regardless subjective interest--can bot happen concurrently.
It's also important to understand that a part of the satisfaction gained from ready manipulation is in the personal satisfaction of having so easily manipulated a disliked racial group who had historically held lawful power over people like you, and in recognizing this history, seek redress, whether justified or not. In this sense the satisfaction has an element of revenge to it. However, taking your valid example:
"if doing or saying X or Y always gets you the juicy pellet of attention and promotion, anyone who wants to get ahead will do or say X or Y."
I'm postulating that if doing/saying something that requires extra and prolonged effort and itself is not intrinsically of interest to the hypothetical black individual, or provides no sense of comeuppance fulfilled, they may be more likely to simply drop the task uncompleted: they don't find it interesting enough to become engaged to completion. I mean, they could obtain even more of these emoluments doled out by the white guilt system, simply by staying in school and deferring gratification, but this route does not satisfy a need for personal interest, nor immediate, reward, nor the revenge factor, so...
The actual nut of what my speculation is, is that for some groups the need for immediate personal and subjective satisfaction is not *required* to motivate them to abstract problem-solving. They detach problem-solving from immediate interest and gratification in favor of the possibly for longer term and cumulative advantage. It may be *easier* for them to disengage, personally, than for other groups, on average.
The irony here is that these same people who require that they have a personal interest in a problem before tackling it, may indeed have as much mental horsepower as anyone else, and even more, but cannot bring it to bear at will, as is required in today's social if one wish a moderate level of material success.
The struggle around psychometric tests seems to mirror the equality of outcomes mentality. It’s assumed that the scores for different groups must be equal or there’s a problem to be solved. But the tests are good. They do their jobs perfectly. Even if you throw millions at solving a problem which never existed, you will never undue the predictive utility of a test assembled on the basis of factor analysis and predictive validity. That’s true no matter how many times you call the test nasty names when you don’t like the results.
It's amazing how you can accurately estimate someone's IQ is simply by looking at them and learning their name.
The moment I looked at Gabby Thomas and heard her speak one sentence, I said to myself, "Smart girl. Must be from a good background."
You'd think that people would learn from this. Well, maybe already smart people do, but the ones with nothing going on between their ears do not.
As much as we hate to admit it, physiognomy is a thing
I don't hate to admit it and I think the online right makes too much of it. Some brilliant people look awful.
But when you're as good-looking as Gabby Thomas is, and have a nice name as well, it's a sure bet that you're above-average in IQ.
> "They figured out how to develop items that make it through bias and sensitivity review. And those tend to be white-centered."
Wait, so bias review and sensitivity review are racist white things?
Good to know.
> But it assumes a lot of things that are white-centric
LOL she should have gone full anti-racist and explicitly said that expecting people to be on time is a white concept
> ETS [Educational Testing Service] should be donating to make up for all the harm that they have done. When I say ETS, I mean every single one of them: ACT, Curriculum Associates, NWEA, Pearson
I'm not sure if she truly realizes that ETS doesn't own all of these testing companies
> Why can’t we have an item that is about students preparing meals for Black Lives Matters protests, and they are protesting holding asylum seekers at the border? Or about disparate dress codes for middle schoolers?
I promise Dr. Randall that no matter the setting of the questions, Asians would do the best at them, then whites, &c.
> if we hadn’t watched Eric Garner murdered on TV
For those who aren't inclined to keep track of which black person is which, this was the morbidly obese one who was illegally selling cigarettes outside of convenience stores on Staten Island. The death resulted in payout of $5.9 million to his family and the firing of the cop who tried to arrest him, although he wasn't criminally charged.
I had an unflattering reading comp. series about the KKK on the SAT in 1978. It set me off that they would be racy and political, but what did it trigger in black teenagers? Probably not what they intended. That might have been my first clue about our rotten cognitive elite.
A woman who works as a middle school teacher told me her students can't even read an analog clock.
Only a “PhD” could respond to serious questions with such garbage. Her academic field is a joke and her crusade only hurts black kids.
One question for the “equity” crowd: If equity is such a laudable goal, why don’t we handicap the Olympic races so everyone finishes with the same time?