People have to start noticing that the media never actually goes as far as saying he's wrong when they dismiss the things Trump says.
"The president said my girlfriend was fat but everyone knows that I have a really nice car. My friend said he really liked the colour and admired the leather seats."
There is no way to spin the presidential debate or Trump's relationship with the truth or reality. It just shows that one hates or fears the Democrats enough to tolerate the insanity of Trumpworld.
The NYT called the pet-eating story false in a headline solely on the word of the city manager, who couldn't tell them in the article if they had 12,000 or 20,000 Haitians.
In the NYT's defense, you cannot prove a negative. I think what's most likely is a Haitian immigrant killed and ate duck or goose from a pond and the story grew from there, mixed in with knowledge of voodoo practices, which involve animal sacrifice, and you get the Haitians are eating our cats. The story actually made me laugh out loud, though the massive influx of 20,000 Haitians to Springfield is a destabilizing disaster. Imagine NYC got 2,500,000 million Guatemalans in 4 years? NYC cannot handle 200,000 migrants without blowing their budget and whining.
The best is when the NYT calls the Haitians "legal" immigrants, totally ignoring the fact they are on humanitarian parole, a temporary legal status that allows them to live and work in the US for 2 years only (we know this will be continually renewed, like the Temporary Protected Status program recipients) and they have no right to LPR or citizenship. Biden also shut down the program they entered under due to fraud.
How is that in NYT's defense, when they called his claim false, when the best (or worst) they could say was disputed or unconfirmed? Their presumption of authority is so irritating and obvious, yet their "intelligent" readers fall for it over and over.
From day one it was clear there was a massively coordinated effort to counter Kamala's negative poll numbers with a balls-to-the-wall PR blitz after they (whoever "they" are) selected her as Biden's replacement.
This PR blitz has been dazzling in its speed and thoroughness (in terms of getting all MSM players on the same page, seemingly instantaneously), and obviously designed for the dumbest of the left side of the bell curve.
I think it's easy for smarter people, who look to data and logic for guiding policy positions and candidates to support, to miss the fact that half the US population are of childlike mentalities and can be propagandized into accepting literally anything by the most ridiculous (and obvious) emotional manipulations.
Those in power clearly understand this. Absolutely nothing is below them. They don't care about making their case; they're concerned about consolidating their power and making it absolute, forever. Part of this entails manipulating idiots via blatant emotional manipulation to GOTV in November to help cover the margin of fraud they'll presumably need to commit to get their puppet into power.
We might be able to peel a few people away from the Kamala/Deep State train wreck by constantly pointing out the obvious, but I'm kind of defeatist in that I think that anyone who can't see the writing on the wall by now is a lost cause. So I just choose ridicule.
IQ differences ought to be obvious to any casual observer. Recently a friend teaching "poor" Brazilian immigrants in Cape Cod told me about a 12 year old relaying how he'd just realized that dogs have bones. His good heart assigned the malnutrition of his students to "parents working too much to feed them."
I have much experience teaching international students, most Chinese. I also lived in S. Korea for a while. While Southeast Asians do seem to learn effectively, they generally are not critical thinkers. They are memorizers. They can reproduce what they are guided to reproduce. But analytically, and creatively, they fall behind.
I had a Haitian student who could barely function, and all manner of excuses were made for her, which probably didn't help. This student consumed a huge amount of my time. For the most part, any African student I have worked with required a lot of extra help.
Venturing into the IQ zone actually explained things that I have observed for a long time. People get very upset about it -- my friend did, when I responded that getting to the age of 12 without realizing that dogs have bones -- especially when you live with one -- is an indicator of low intelligence. Since the friend commiserated often how hard it was to get these kids to learn anything, one might have assumed this would make him feel better. The point is, if we face the reality of IQ, we might actually be able to help people, or at least adjust our expectations. Why is it perfectly acceptable for me to recognize that I don't have the acumen for physics, but we can't say that about the average black American? It perfectly explains their absence from so many demanding fields that are hankering for "equal representation."
I recall an anecdote from an NGO employee in Haiti that patient medical records files were not alphabetized. Or organized in any way. Staff would just brute force search for a patient's name.
Reminds me of certain observations here in Brooklyn. Go into any post office. The inability to find a package, or the length of time it takes to find it, is unconscionable. After waiting in line for an hour, then waiting an additional twenty minutes at the window, they'll shuffle back with a great sigh and tell you to come back tomorrow -- AS IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO....
My local post office service has been pretty much uniformly excellent over the years. I've even been helped after hours at least once, to retrieve a package mix-up of mine (I'm an online seller) before it was loaded on to the truck.
My DMV service has also been constantly beyond reproach for decades on end- first in California, and later in Virginia.
As long as we're playing the Anecdote Game. Did I spoil the party?
I think that the reason the Post Office and DMV are the target of so many complaints is that they're the only places most of us encounter employees of the Big Bad Government Bureaucracy in the course of a year's time, and some are predisposed to resent the imposition, to the extent of making government workers wrong to an extent not matched in their dealings with private sector employees. Not to gainsay anyone elses experience, but it's my evidence-based impression.
I got singled out by TSA at Dulles on my last airplane flight, and had to go through the body scanner twice. But after all, I had just switched back to using a double edged razor with all-metal blades, and had neglected the legitimate security concerns in that regard.
Anecdotes. We all have some. I have at least a few for every occasion, and that doesn't even count stories I've heard from friends.
I even have anecdotes about the level of perspicacity I've found in some Internet story comments sections. Some are sharp, others are not.
Your argument is silly, the telos of your anecdotes vague.
Observations across many post offices, in many parts of the world, can lead to pattern recognition.
Why was the P.O. so efficient in S. California? Was it the "government"? Why is the service so poor in downtown Brooklyn, but not in Williamsburg, Brooklyn? It's all government.
"Your argument is silly, the telos of your anecdotes vague.
Observations across many post offices, in many parts of the world, can lead to pattern recognition.
Why was the P.O. so efficient in S. California? Was it the "government"? Why is the service so poor in downtown Brooklyn, but not in Williamsburg, Brooklyn? It's all government."
My comments weren't offered as probative. They were offered as evidence from my personal experience. And also to show that anecdotes have little evidentiary value, other than as far as informing personal experience- in which case they're still merely evidence, and not proof.
On most any popular political controversy, a (hypothetical) reddit thread with a rule that "all evidence must be anecdotal" and that every example be followed by a counter-example would almost certainly run out of interest long before it ran out of the supply of available anecdotes. Although in order for the thread to have any value at all, ALL of the stories would have to be real. Authentic, sincere accounts, not faked for the purpose of propaganda.
I suppose we're granting each other enough default credibility here to assume that we're both being sincere and truthful, but I for one would not bet the farm on that just yet. I know me. I don't know you.
"Why was the P.O. so efficient in S. California?"
I can't say. It isn't a part of California where I've ever used a post office, even once.
"Why is the service so poor in downtown Brooklyn, but not in Williamsburg, Brooklyn?"
You've added a brand new assertion with that comment.
To answer that question--without jumping to a snap conclusion, anyway--I suppose I'd have to evaluate the situation by assessing the most relevant factors. I'd probably begin that task by making note of the routine amount of customer traffic, and the ratio of customers to employees. And also bearing in mind the distinct likelihood that especially high traffic at the counter increases the probability of occasionally running into a customer who has a problem, or who is a problem.
But first, I'd have to find out which "downtown Brooklyn" post office you're referring to, because there are so many of them. This site gives a total of 60 for "Brooklyn, NY"--almost every one on the list with a regular weekly schedule, most of them including passport service. https://www.postallocations.com/ny/city/brooklyn
Presumably, "downtown Brooklyn" is served by more than one location.
That list also includes the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, of course.
I have had similar experiences running various medical clinics, including one in Port au Prince. It seems to me that part of the resistance to this is due to the fact that people automatically assume you are saying they aren't “good” people or do not have value as human beings. While I am sure some people push the IQ angle because they are racist.. it isnt necessarily true at all. This is because there are demonstrable differences especially noticeable for people who have worked in such an environment.
They're not eating the cats, see. Just the ducks and geese. And there's some casual reckless driving--nothing crazy, just a few homicides here and there. Nothing approaching the danger of MISINFORMATION.
Levien's article's lede: "Amid fallout from Donald J. Trump’s debunked claim about immigrants from Haiti stealing and eating people’s pets in a small Ohio city, the former president’s oldest son weighed in with his own aspersions on Haitians."
Trump being Trump enables the NYT to practice its misdirection, to the delight of their subscriber base. Mr. Levien carefully didn't challenge the notion that Springfield's new Haitians had stolen people's pets, to do whatever. Normies would have weighed that debunking against the tearful interviews of dozens (?) of "Reward! For the return of ____" pet owners, and wondered.
As to Trump's graphic two-part claim, who knows. Wouldn't the "sudden disappearance of cats and dogs" meme have been disturbing enough, to however-many Undecided voters still remain?
A prime political goal of the left for decades is to get as many people as possible dependent at some level on assistance from the federal government, since once people are conditioned to the idea that they need it as a means of survival their political interest lie with the party that promises to protect or enhance those benefits. Therefore, the party has a strategic interest in importing as many below average IQ immigrants as possible to generate more clients of the welfare state.
Obviously they cannot openly say that they love low IQ ringers as their voting base, so they have to rely on the American mythology that immigrants enhance American human capital no matter the source.
"Amid fallout from Donald J. Trump’s debunked claim about immigrants from Haiti stealing and eating people’s pets.."
You keep saying this word "debunked"; I do not think you know what it means.
It does not, for instance, mean it is untrue because you say it is not true.
Hmong immigrants in Minnesota cleaned out urban lakes by taking and eating *everything* they caught. To them, a fish is a fish whether it is 2" or 10".
Vietnamese immigrants in California wiped forests clean of squirrels and non-game birds like Jays and Robins.
As I've said earlier, I have personally witnessed Filipino immigrants preparing dogs for the table.
If reports from Port Au Prince can be believed, the citizens of Springfield OH should be grateful they are not being consumed themselves.
It was shocking the way journalists switched from using facts and logic to make measured counterarguments, to merely inserting the words "false" and "debunked" in their articles. Trust us, it's been (passive voice) debunked. You want to know how? It's so friggin' obvious you must be some kind of idiot for asking. Do your own research!
Another technique they use is a hyperlink with text contradicting the right wing point that leads to another article that does not contradict the right wing point (and often just also asserts that the right wing point is wrong).
I suppose the idea is that 99% of readers will see that the statement is a hyperlink and treat it like a reference in a bibliography and just trust it...usually because they want to trust it.
Speaking of Audubon and his eponymous Society, I have a question.
The Audubon Society’s ostensible primary concern is the welfare of birds. On their website they acknowledge the horrible slaughter of birds by wind turbines, but nevertheless come out in favor of these devices.
Has the Audubon Society been captured by its donors in the same manner as has the Sierra Club vis-a-vis immigration or did that policy arise organically?
If the Climate crazies thought about it, they would be strongly opposed to Turd World migration to the higher-energy-usage First instead of all for it. But CO2 control has always been more about power, money, and virtue.
The Sierra Club used to be opposed to unlimited immigration for just that reason, but then someone made a huge donation conditioned on their dropping their opposition; which they did.
Fundamentally, the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the open borders people are about supporting the far out group against the near group, be it animals against fellow humans, or foreigners against fellow Americans. Thus, it's not surprising that the same type of people would gravitate towards both.
Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.
Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy....
The notion that IQ tests measure some common substrate set of mental abilities that somehow denote General Intelligence, or "Spearman's g", has increasingly come under question:
from 2015: "In the current study, verbal children with ASD performed moderately better on the RPM than on the Wechsler scales; children without ASD received higher percentile scores on the Wechsler than on the RPM. Adults with and without ASD received higher percentile scores on the Wechsler than the RPM. Results suggest that the RPM and Wechsler scales measure different aspects of cognitive abilities in verbal individuals with ASD..." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4148695/
Note that the linked site is apparently a coaching site, indicating that training for the test is capable of producing a marked improvement in the score. The RPM is comparatively different from tests like the Stanford Binet or Wechsler, which include a large component of "verbal" criteria (such as analogies, vocabulary, reading comprehension) and differ from subject knowledge tests (such as "educational achievement tests") in being very difficult to crib for; there's little to be done as far as "teaching the IQ test." Effective preparation consists of the long-term discipline of having done a lot of outside reading, as it were. "Cultural bias" on verbal IQ tests ca be perhaps better viewed as a euphemism for "lack of scholastic skills", which often shows up in conjunction with "lack of practice with scholastic skills." There's no real way to weight that factor, or to precisely identify its influence on Wechsler test performance. But if someone has a low set of scholastic skills- i.e., if they read, write and do basic math poorly, if at all- they're at a substantial disadvantage.
That's what Raven's Progressive Matrices "general intelligence test" was designed to remedy: the RPM is said to be "culture neutral", which is to say that the test is presented in the form of abstract shapes, with the Correct answer chosen on the basis of assenting to and following the rules ordained to provide a Uniform Correct result. The skill set being measured is what the researchers refer to as "fluid intelligence".
"Raven's Progressive Matrices (often referred to simply as Raven's Matrices) or RPM is a non-verbal test typically used to measure general human intelligence and abstract reasoning and is regarded as a non-verbal estimate of fluid intelligence.[1] It is one of the most common tests administered to both groups and individuals ranging from 5-year-olds to the elderly.[2] It comprises 60 multiple choice questions, listed in order of increasing difficulty.[2] This format is designed to measure the test taker's reasoning ability, the eductive ("meaning-making") component of Spearman's g (g is often referred to as general intelligence)..."
Now there's an interesting finding: "This format is designed to measure the test taker's reasoning ability, the eductive ("meaning-making") component of Spearman's g (g is often referred to as general intelligence)..."
But I thought that Spearman's "g" was a monolithic substrate, yes? So how is the ability measured said to be a "component", and also considered to serve as a valid proxy measurement for the whole, "Spearman's g"?
Which it plainly doesn't, according to studies like this one:
"... We...assessed a broad sample of 38 autistic children on the preeminent test of fluid intelligence, Raven's Progressive Matrices. Their scores were, on average, 30 percentile points, and in some cases more than 70 percentile points, higher than their scores on the Wechsler scales of intelligence..." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17680932/
The Wechsler and the RPM have been found to yield two dramatically different results, depending on a more general intellectual profile of the person taking the test. Both tests are claimed to measure the same foundation of intellectual capacity, but that isn't the case. I'm inclined to say that both provide a reasonably accurate measure of...whatever they test for. They look like they measures specific skills aptitudes to me. Not anything more profound, in regard to assessing general intelligence potential.
Spearman's g hypothesis implies that those who measure highest on intelligence tests are able to demonstrate the common foundation for their their abilities as applied to a wide array of skill sets. (Although Spearman also fudged his claims about that in some of his recorded statements; I've noticed in my readings that expressed reservations and climb-downs by the researchers are quite common in the field of educational testing and clinical psychology research.) I haven't found that claim to be borne out in my readings, or in personal acquaintance, or in my social interactions. Authentic polymaths are actually quite rare. I'd venture that high-functioning verbal autistics are a much more numerous population.
Sailer's reliance on Emil Kirkegaard as his prime source of reference support for his claims is outright laughable. The extent of Kirkegaard's formal education consists of a BA with a concentration in linguistics. This lack of professional training wouldn't necessarily be very important if he adhered to the scholarly discipline required to supply detailed data sets and rigorous interpretation. But Kirkegaard is an axe-grinding quack, fronting on a listicle compilation. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard
The Kirkegaard link mentions "six different studies", but provides incomplete reference links to the actual research, lacking even abstract summaries that might provide specific information about the particular "IQ test" used, or what methodology might have been used in order to provide a useful sample cohort. (Surely nobody with ordinary good sense believes that every schoolchild in, say, Bangla Desh, Haiti, or some similarly poverty-stricken country was subjected to an "intelligence test.") But where references are cited, the test appears to be a version of RPM.
The reality of the RPM doesn't live up to the pretense. So why do the results of the RPM--a test that relies on only a very narrow concept of intellectual skill- get to stand in as a proxy for human "general intelligence"? Yet some version of the RPM or another seems to be commonly used in these "national intelligence surveys"- including examinations that purport to accurately survey entire populations in nations who lack the exam settings, infrastructure, and support structures to evaluate much of anything in many regions of their country. There isn't even a way to obtain detailed metrics on the amount of drinking water available per capita in many undeveloped or otherwise beleaguered regions of the worlds most impoverished nations, much less attempting the absurdity of setting everyone down for a round of abstract spatial pattern detection and analysis. It's an insult to the intelligence of the reader to assert that there's such a thing as a comprehensive and authoritative "national IQ ranking" for every country in the world. It's reductive nonsense.
But, but, but think of the GNP boost!
And the FOOD!!!!!
Like fricasseed cat.
Some countries are so bad, anyone with a lick of sense leaves.
How many countries hate America and the West for draining their brains?
Hi Steve, the US really shouldn't be listed as White anymore. There is a downward pull on our average by all of these wonderful "immigrants"
People have to start noticing that the media never actually goes as far as saying he's wrong when they dismiss the things Trump says.
"The president said my girlfriend was fat but everyone knows that I have a really nice car. My friend said he really liked the colour and admired the leather seats."
There is no way to spin the presidential debate or Trump's relationship with the truth or reality. It just shows that one hates or fears the Democrats enough to tolerate the insanity of Trumpworld.
The NYT called the pet-eating story false in a headline solely on the word of the city manager, who couldn't tell them in the article if they had 12,000 or 20,000 Haitians.
In the NYT's defense, you cannot prove a negative. I think what's most likely is a Haitian immigrant killed and ate duck or goose from a pond and the story grew from there, mixed in with knowledge of voodoo practices, which involve animal sacrifice, and you get the Haitians are eating our cats. The story actually made me laugh out loud, though the massive influx of 20,000 Haitians to Springfield is a destabilizing disaster. Imagine NYC got 2,500,000 million Guatemalans in 4 years? NYC cannot handle 200,000 migrants without blowing their budget and whining.
The best is when the NYT calls the Haitians "legal" immigrants, totally ignoring the fact they are on humanitarian parole, a temporary legal status that allows them to live and work in the US for 2 years only (we know this will be continually renewed, like the Temporary Protected Status program recipients) and they have no right to LPR or citizenship. Biden also shut down the program they entered under due to fraud.
How is that in NYT's defense, when they called his claim false, when the best (or worst) they could say was disputed or unconfirmed? Their presumption of authority is so irritating and obvious, yet their "intelligent" readers fall for it over and over.
Only on the "eating" too. I think it's witchcraft. And they're eating the city's ducks, but the fact checks ignore that one.
From day one it was clear there was a massively coordinated effort to counter Kamala's negative poll numbers with a balls-to-the-wall PR blitz after they (whoever "they" are) selected her as Biden's replacement.
This PR blitz has been dazzling in its speed and thoroughness (in terms of getting all MSM players on the same page, seemingly instantaneously), and obviously designed for the dumbest of the left side of the bell curve.
I think it's easy for smarter people, who look to data and logic for guiding policy positions and candidates to support, to miss the fact that half the US population are of childlike mentalities and can be propagandized into accepting literally anything by the most ridiculous (and obvious) emotional manipulations.
Those in power clearly understand this. Absolutely nothing is below them. They don't care about making their case; they're concerned about consolidating their power and making it absolute, forever. Part of this entails manipulating idiots via blatant emotional manipulation to GOTV in November to help cover the margin of fraud they'll presumably need to commit to get their puppet into power.
We might be able to peel a few people away from the Kamala/Deep State train wreck by constantly pointing out the obvious, but I'm kind of defeatist in that I think that anyone who can't see the writing on the wall by now is a lost cause. So I just choose ridicule.
Excellent analysis on the stage-managed Kamala PR-blitz of late July to (at least) early September 2024.
IQ differences ought to be obvious to any casual observer. Recently a friend teaching "poor" Brazilian immigrants in Cape Cod told me about a 12 year old relaying how he'd just realized that dogs have bones. His good heart assigned the malnutrition of his students to "parents working too much to feed them."
I have much experience teaching international students, most Chinese. I also lived in S. Korea for a while. While Southeast Asians do seem to learn effectively, they generally are not critical thinkers. They are memorizers. They can reproduce what they are guided to reproduce. But analytically, and creatively, they fall behind.
I had a Haitian student who could barely function, and all manner of excuses were made for her, which probably didn't help. This student consumed a huge amount of my time. For the most part, any African student I have worked with required a lot of extra help.
Venturing into the IQ zone actually explained things that I have observed for a long time. People get very upset about it -- my friend did, when I responded that getting to the age of 12 without realizing that dogs have bones -- especially when you live with one -- is an indicator of low intelligence. Since the friend commiserated often how hard it was to get these kids to learn anything, one might have assumed this would make him feel better. The point is, if we face the reality of IQ, we might actually be able to help people, or at least adjust our expectations. Why is it perfectly acceptable for me to recognize that I don't have the acumen for physics, but we can't say that about the average black American? It perfectly explains their absence from so many demanding fields that are hankering for "equal representation."
A dog even has a bone in his penis.
Wait a minute. Maybe this cheeky kid was telling his teacher that even dogs get boners....
I recall an anecdote from an NGO employee in Haiti that patient medical records files were not alphabetized. Or organized in any way. Staff would just brute force search for a patient's name.
Reminds me of certain observations here in Brooklyn. Go into any post office. The inability to find a package, or the length of time it takes to find it, is unconscionable. After waiting in line for an hour, then waiting an additional twenty minutes at the window, they'll shuffle back with a great sigh and tell you to come back tomorrow -- AS IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO....
Aw, man. Woe is you.
My local post office service has been pretty much uniformly excellent over the years. I've even been helped after hours at least once, to retrieve a package mix-up of mine (I'm an online seller) before it was loaded on to the truck.
My DMV service has also been constantly beyond reproach for decades on end- first in California, and later in Virginia.
As long as we're playing the Anecdote Game. Did I spoil the party?
I think that the reason the Post Office and DMV are the target of so many complaints is that they're the only places most of us encounter employees of the Big Bad Government Bureaucracy in the course of a year's time, and some are predisposed to resent the imposition, to the extent of making government workers wrong to an extent not matched in their dealings with private sector employees. Not to gainsay anyone elses experience, but it's my evidence-based impression.
I got singled out by TSA at Dulles on my last airplane flight, and had to go through the body scanner twice. But after all, I had just switched back to using a double edged razor with all-metal blades, and had neglected the legitimate security concerns in that regard.
Anecdotes. We all have some. I have at least a few for every occasion, and that doesn't even count stories I've heard from friends.
I even have anecdotes about the level of perspicacity I've found in some Internet story comments sections. Some are sharp, others are not.
Your argument is silly, the telos of your anecdotes vague.
Observations across many post offices, in many parts of the world, can lead to pattern recognition.
Why was the P.O. so efficient in S. California? Was it the "government"? Why is the service so poor in downtown Brooklyn, but not in Williamsburg, Brooklyn? It's all government.
"Your argument is silly, the telos of your anecdotes vague.
Observations across many post offices, in many parts of the world, can lead to pattern recognition.
Why was the P.O. so efficient in S. California? Was it the "government"? Why is the service so poor in downtown Brooklyn, but not in Williamsburg, Brooklyn? It's all government."
My comments weren't offered as probative. They were offered as evidence from my personal experience. And also to show that anecdotes have little evidentiary value, other than as far as informing personal experience- in which case they're still merely evidence, and not proof.
On most any popular political controversy, a (hypothetical) reddit thread with a rule that "all evidence must be anecdotal" and that every example be followed by a counter-example would almost certainly run out of interest long before it ran out of the supply of available anecdotes. Although in order for the thread to have any value at all, ALL of the stories would have to be real. Authentic, sincere accounts, not faked for the purpose of propaganda.
I suppose we're granting each other enough default credibility here to assume that we're both being sincere and truthful, but I for one would not bet the farm on that just yet. I know me. I don't know you.
"Why was the P.O. so efficient in S. California?"
I can't say. It isn't a part of California where I've ever used a post office, even once.
"Why is the service so poor in downtown Brooklyn, but not in Williamsburg, Brooklyn?"
You've added a brand new assertion with that comment.
To answer that question--without jumping to a snap conclusion, anyway--I suppose I'd have to evaluate the situation by assessing the most relevant factors. I'd probably begin that task by making note of the routine amount of customer traffic, and the ratio of customers to employees. And also bearing in mind the distinct likelihood that especially high traffic at the counter increases the probability of occasionally running into a customer who has a problem, or who is a problem.
But first, I'd have to find out which "downtown Brooklyn" post office you're referring to, because there are so many of them. This site gives a total of 60 for "Brooklyn, NY"--almost every one on the list with a regular weekly schedule, most of them including passport service. https://www.postallocations.com/ny/city/brooklyn
Presumably, "downtown Brooklyn" is served by more than one location.
That list also includes the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, of course.
It also explains high IQ jews being over-represented, reducing conspiracy theories. Jew in finance, because they're good at math.
I have had similar experiences running various medical clinics, including one in Port au Prince. It seems to me that part of the resistance to this is due to the fact that people automatically assume you are saying they aren't “good” people or do not have value as human beings. While I am sure some people push the IQ angle because they are racist.. it isnt necessarily true at all. This is because there are demonstrable differences especially noticeable for people who have worked in such an environment.
They're not eating the cats, see. Just the ducks and geese. And there's some casual reckless driving--nothing crazy, just a few homicides here and there. Nothing approaching the danger of MISINFORMATION.
Levien's article's lede: "Amid fallout from Donald J. Trump’s debunked claim about immigrants from Haiti stealing and eating people’s pets in a small Ohio city, the former president’s oldest son weighed in with his own aspersions on Haitians."
Trump being Trump enables the NYT to practice its misdirection, to the delight of their subscriber base. Mr. Levien carefully didn't challenge the notion that Springfield's new Haitians had stolen people's pets, to do whatever. Normies would have weighed that debunking against the tearful interviews of dozens (?) of "Reward! For the return of ____" pet owners, and wondered.
As to Trump's graphic two-part claim, who knows. Wouldn't the "sudden disappearance of cats and dogs" meme have been disturbing enough, to however-many Undecided voters still remain?
Mr. Sailer writes a short post ("Cats and Haitians"), explaining that I would flop as a politician.
But the last laugh is on him -- I already knew that!
A prime political goal of the left for decades is to get as many people as possible dependent at some level on assistance from the federal government, since once people are conditioned to the idea that they need it as a means of survival their political interest lie with the party that promises to protect or enhance those benefits. Therefore, the party has a strategic interest in importing as many below average IQ immigrants as possible to generate more clients of the welfare state.
Obviously they cannot openly say that they love low IQ ringers as their voting base, so they have to rely on the American mythology that immigrants enhance American human capital no matter the source.
"Amid fallout from Donald J. Trump’s debunked claim about immigrants from Haiti stealing and eating people’s pets.."
You keep saying this word "debunked"; I do not think you know what it means.
It does not, for instance, mean it is untrue because you say it is not true.
Hmong immigrants in Minnesota cleaned out urban lakes by taking and eating *everything* they caught. To them, a fish is a fish whether it is 2" or 10".
Vietnamese immigrants in California wiped forests clean of squirrels and non-game birds like Jays and Robins.
As I've said earlier, I have personally witnessed Filipino immigrants preparing dogs for the table.
If reports from Port Au Prince can be believed, the citizens of Springfield OH should be grateful they are not being consumed themselves.
It was shocking the way journalists switched from using facts and logic to make measured counterarguments, to merely inserting the words "false" and "debunked" in their articles. Trust us, it's been (passive voice) debunked. You want to know how? It's so friggin' obvious you must be some kind of idiot for asking. Do your own research!
Another technique they use is a hyperlink with text contradicting the right wing point that leads to another article that does not contradict the right wing point (and often just also asserts that the right wing point is wrong).
I suppose the idea is that 99% of readers will see that the statement is a hyperlink and treat it like a reference in a bibliography and just trust it...usually because they want to trust it.
We should deport Haitians to Somalia, where they would become the intellectual elite.
Haiti is African, like it broke off.
Speaking of Audubon and his eponymous Society, I have a question.
The Audubon Society’s ostensible primary concern is the welfare of birds. On their website they acknowledge the horrible slaughter of birds by wind turbines, but nevertheless come out in favor of these devices.
Has the Audubon Society been captured by its donors in the same manner as has the Sierra Club vis-a-vis immigration or did that policy arise organically?
Probably captured.
If the Climate crazies thought about it, they would be strongly opposed to Turd World migration to the higher-energy-usage First instead of all for it. But CO2 control has always been more about power, money, and virtue.
> If the Climate crazies thought about it,
If they thought about things, they wouldn't be climate crazies.
The Sierra Club used to be opposed to unlimited immigration for just that reason, but then someone made a huge donation conditioned on their dropping their opposition; which they did.
Fundamentally, the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the open borders people are about supporting the far out group against the near group, be it animals against fellow humans, or foreigners against fellow Americans. Thus, it's not surprising that the same type of people would gravitate towards both.
I know I know -- stating facts is anti-Semitic.
Surprise surprise -- the once-honorable Sierra Club was bought off by... yet another open-borders billionaire Jew.
-- [ https://www.susps.org/ ]:
For the love of money:
Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.
Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy....
Ah the logic of, a group adopted a position that's a logical extension of their general philosophy, they must only have done that due to bribes.
> [The Sierra Club] adopted a position that's a logical extension of their general philosophy
Care to elaborate?
I already did in the grandparent.
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/whats-the-average-iq-of-haitians/comment/69128548
That’s an interesting insight. Thank you.
Why are Armenia, Bulgaria, Romania and Georgia so low IQ?
Centuries of oppression by the Ottomans and Russians?
They are Balkan and West Asian.
just so.
Keep in mind that the U.S. military considers an IQ below 85 as basically indicative of being untrainable for a useful role in the service.
But think of the restaurants. These folks could cook anything.
How in the fuck did we (Canada) score that high? My 99.9th percentile scores responsible for this atrocity?
I dunno. Give it time. Maybe a few generations of solid nutrition and absence of chaos (here in America) might move the needle quite profoundly.
The notion that IQ tests measure some common substrate set of mental abilities that somehow denote General Intelligence, or "Spearman's g", has increasingly come under question:
from 2015: "In the current study, verbal children with ASD performed moderately better on the RPM than on the Wechsler scales; children without ASD received higher percentile scores on the Wechsler than on the RPM. Adults with and without ASD received higher percentile scores on the Wechsler than the RPM. Results suggest that the RPM and Wechsler scales measure different aspects of cognitive abilities in verbal individuals with ASD..." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4148695/
For the curious, here's a sample Raven's Progressive Matrices test https://www.jobtestprep.co.uk/ravens-progressive-matrices
Note that the linked site is apparently a coaching site, indicating that training for the test is capable of producing a marked improvement in the score. The RPM is comparatively different from tests like the Stanford Binet or Wechsler, which include a large component of "verbal" criteria (such as analogies, vocabulary, reading comprehension) and differ from subject knowledge tests (such as "educational achievement tests") in being very difficult to crib for; there's little to be done as far as "teaching the IQ test." Effective preparation consists of the long-term discipline of having done a lot of outside reading, as it were. "Cultural bias" on verbal IQ tests ca be perhaps better viewed as a euphemism for "lack of scholastic skills", which often shows up in conjunction with "lack of practice with scholastic skills." There's no real way to weight that factor, or to precisely identify its influence on Wechsler test performance. But if someone has a low set of scholastic skills- i.e., if they read, write and do basic math poorly, if at all- they're at a substantial disadvantage.
That's what Raven's Progressive Matrices "general intelligence test" was designed to remedy: the RPM is said to be "culture neutral", which is to say that the test is presented in the form of abstract shapes, with the Correct answer chosen on the basis of assenting to and following the rules ordained to provide a Uniform Correct result. The skill set being measured is what the researchers refer to as "fluid intelligence".
"Raven's Progressive Matrices (often referred to simply as Raven's Matrices) or RPM is a non-verbal test typically used to measure general human intelligence and abstract reasoning and is regarded as a non-verbal estimate of fluid intelligence.[1] It is one of the most common tests administered to both groups and individuals ranging from 5-year-olds to the elderly.[2] It comprises 60 multiple choice questions, listed in order of increasing difficulty.[2] This format is designed to measure the test taker's reasoning ability, the eductive ("meaning-making") component of Spearman's g (g is often referred to as general intelligence)..."
Now there's an interesting finding: "This format is designed to measure the test taker's reasoning ability, the eductive ("meaning-making") component of Spearman's g (g is often referred to as general intelligence)..."
But I thought that Spearman's "g" was a monolithic substrate, yes? So how is the ability measured said to be a "component", and also considered to serve as a valid proxy measurement for the whole, "Spearman's g"?
Which it plainly doesn't, according to studies like this one:
"... We...assessed a broad sample of 38 autistic children on the preeminent test of fluid intelligence, Raven's Progressive Matrices. Their scores were, on average, 30 percentile points, and in some cases more than 70 percentile points, higher than their scores on the Wechsler scales of intelligence..." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17680932/
The Wechsler and the RPM have been found to yield two dramatically different results, depending on a more general intellectual profile of the person taking the test. Both tests are claimed to measure the same foundation of intellectual capacity, but that isn't the case. I'm inclined to say that both provide a reasonably accurate measure of...whatever they test for. They look like they measures specific skills aptitudes to me. Not anything more profound, in regard to assessing general intelligence potential.
Spearman's g hypothesis implies that those who measure highest on intelligence tests are able to demonstrate the common foundation for their their abilities as applied to a wide array of skill sets. (Although Spearman also fudged his claims about that in some of his recorded statements; I've noticed in my readings that expressed reservations and climb-downs by the researchers are quite common in the field of educational testing and clinical psychology research.) I haven't found that claim to be borne out in my readings, or in personal acquaintance, or in my social interactions. Authentic polymaths are actually quite rare. I'd venture that high-functioning verbal autistics are a much more numerous population.
Sailer's reliance on Emil Kirkegaard as his prime source of reference support for his claims is outright laughable. The extent of Kirkegaard's formal education consists of a BA with a concentration in linguistics. This lack of professional training wouldn't necessarily be very important if he adhered to the scholarly discipline required to supply detailed data sets and rigorous interpretation. But Kirkegaard is an axe-grinding quack, fronting on a listicle compilation. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard
The Kirkegaard link mentions "six different studies", but provides incomplete reference links to the actual research, lacking even abstract summaries that might provide specific information about the particular "IQ test" used, or what methodology might have been used in order to provide a useful sample cohort. (Surely nobody with ordinary good sense believes that every schoolchild in, say, Bangla Desh, Haiti, or some similarly poverty-stricken country was subjected to an "intelligence test.") But where references are cited, the test appears to be a version of RPM.
The reality of the RPM doesn't live up to the pretense. So why do the results of the RPM--a test that relies on only a very narrow concept of intellectual skill- get to stand in as a proxy for human "general intelligence"? Yet some version of the RPM or another seems to be commonly used in these "national intelligence surveys"- including examinations that purport to accurately survey entire populations in nations who lack the exam settings, infrastructure, and support structures to evaluate much of anything in many regions of their country. There isn't even a way to obtain detailed metrics on the amount of drinking water available per capita in many undeveloped or otherwise beleaguered regions of the worlds most impoverished nations, much less attempting the absurdity of setting everyone down for a round of abstract spatial pattern detection and analysis. It's an insult to the intelligence of the reader to assert that there's such a thing as a comprehensive and authoritative "national IQ ranking" for every country in the world. It's reductive nonsense.