Know Thyself
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalSearchRegisterLog in

Share
 

 Race

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 13 ... 18  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyThu Jun 28, 2018 5:54 pm



Guess who is behind the 'brown hoards'. Their alliance going back centuries.
Asians appearing to be European; pretending to be part of the same culture when their won undermines it and is the antithesis.
Only one tribe is allowed to be self-aware....and is not 'racist' when it declares itself more this, or more that.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyThu Jun 28, 2018 8:21 pm


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyThu Jun 28, 2018 8:47 pm


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
OnWithTheirHead
hero
OnWithTheirHead

Gender : Male Posts : 601
Join date : 2017-01-05
Location : .

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyThu Jun 28, 2018 9:49 pm

Satyr wrote:


Guess who is behind the 'brown hoards'. Their alliance going back centuries.
Asians appearing to be European; pretending to be part of the same culture when their won undermines it and is the antithesis.
Only one tribe is allowed to be self-aware....and is not 'racist' when it declares itself more this, or more that.

Don't know what that had to do with Asians.

In any case, this is exactly why I hate libs. Can't even say the word libs without getting hounded about it. Because libs aren't libs, libs are very much status-quo, they aren't rebels in most cases. The original word liberal was associated with the word rebel, but now it is not so much.

I feel betrayed by my fellow agnostics and atheists. We used to go on tirades making fun of god and ridiculing the religious and dreaming of a planet where religion was banned. Now, the people who used to be my friends, side with Muslims, this is part of the liberal psychosis or liberal delusion.

I think there is a rational side to liberals, the rational side of them pictures in their mind a few muslims entiring the country by boat, maybe 5 or 10. In their minds they say there is no harm. Then, while they are in heated posting, they make posts saying to open our borders, let the flood gates enter, mexicans, muslims, all are superior, mexicans harder workers, mexicans willing to travel great distances, so much, be respected. They would rather see a whole country of Mexicans than whites, a whole country of Muslims rather than Christians, because in their mind they blame whites for many injustices, yet the delusion is that they don't recognize that many of these outgroups are guilty of the same injustices but multiplied. I think there is a willful ignorance that fuels the psychosis of the lib.

The other thing that fuels it is that America is such a toxic place to be, litter everywhere, fast food on every corner, drug stores on all spaces. There is little kinship one has to other Americans, most americans are rude to each other and abuse each other daily. Thus there is a hatred that develops towards one's fellow americans, especially the politicians who they blame for the downfall and enslavement of the american country.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyFri Jun 29, 2018 6:47 am

Asian tribes are not European tribes.
Asia is a big continent.
It does not only contain China and the orient.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
OnWithTheirHead
hero
OnWithTheirHead

Gender : Male Posts : 601
Join date : 2017-01-05
Location : .

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyFri Jun 29, 2018 9:25 am

Satyr wrote:
Asian tribes are not European tribes.
Asia is a big continent.
It does not only contain China and the orient.

Your post, said stuff about Asians, and I was expecting the video to talk about it, but the vid did not.

I dont think Asian culture undermines European culture, I think it complements it, saves it from destruction. Black culture undermines and destroys the host culture. But in terms of music the only good songs are either European or Japanese songs. Japanese agnostic paganism creates its own spiritual music. Japanese shows and anime are the only remnant of high culture america has.

Now in terms of politics, not culture, yes Asian politics of certain countries, seek to undermine the west. But the west seeks to also dominate them, by using them as slave labor.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyFri Jun 29, 2018 9:28 am

Asia spans a geography from asia minor, middle east all the way to the far East.
It was always a source of threats for European, Indo-European man and cultures.
Tribes invaded Europe, mixing with Europeans, undermining European genes and memes.

If you get it, you get it, if not...not.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyFri Jun 29, 2018 3:26 pm


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyMon Jul 09, 2018 2:05 pm


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptySat Aug 18, 2018 5:52 am


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 2593
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 33
Location : A stone.

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptySat Aug 18, 2018 8:27 pm

There is something deeply wise but also deeply exploitable with the white, Western, mind. That is its openness to possibility and countenancing it. The white Liberal is open to naive and exploitative musings that there's no inequality genetically. The white Cuckservative Alex Jonesians have the same, to a lesser extent, but also can be lead into conspiracy theories (i.e. every Jew-wise non-Jew is secretly a controlled opposition Jew, etc.)

This is what makes a possibility of a perfect God (Abrahamic) feel rotten and dirty to deny or denounce, but also makes the possibility of no perfect God feel likewise to deny or denounce. Most 'agnostics' straddle this space. Only whites, Aryans, can understand and be 'agnostic' - Semites, Mestizos (non-Spanish derived) and Africans almost entirely lack the temperament and Asiatics only achieve the same in exceptional circumstance.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptySat Sep 29, 2018 11:13 am



What is, often, overlooked, in matters of intelligence is psychology....or anxiety/fear, expressed as self-interest, egotism, corrupting our intelligence.
We often find brilliant minds that come to wrong conclusions, because of this factor.

Nihilism is what it is called, and I've traced it back to the emergence of self-consciousness, self-awareness, producing a reaction that is often defensive, anxiety ridden....a self-protective measure to avoid damage.
The brain is an organ that evolved to preserve the organism it belongs to...not to attain higher awareness. Only a few gifted minds can break through this self-preservation function and attain higher levels of cognition.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 2593
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 33
Location : A stone.

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyMon Oct 22, 2018 7:00 am

Races are coincidences of power and the observation of their differences are spontaneous. It is not believed that just by observing, conceiving or noetically wrestling with a concept that it has then become totally within our power to declare "meaningless" or "inconsequential" (as if some omnipotent God, from what it knows, it being abled) - all that could be accomplished is the nihilistic treatment of it as such, but not the accomplishment or manifestation of it by sheer will or attitude adjustment. Such a eugenics program would take years, if not centuries or millennia. And, likewise, it is a demonstration of zealotry and not secularity that one should say what is clearly unequal is equal by appeal to religious doctrines or distinctions. To say whether it should be one way or another, is likewise, an appeal to ideology and not a drive for impartiality.


If one maintains there exists races with different effects, but retains ideological commitment that all that could be done should be done to minimize their effects, even at the expense of progress or merit, that is a different position entirely. A mad one, of course, so inevitably those that would have to resort to it, instead prefer to terrorize and intimidate those that believe their own eyes - and the data - into abandoning or remaining quiet about the subject altogether. Necessarily, every counter-argument becomes an ad hominem without substance or as a straw man. If a pedophile said the sky was blue, I'd still believe him and become offended at the suggestion I mustn't believe it, lest I be named a pedophile also.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyMon Oct 29, 2018 6:14 pm



Gould = member of the symbiont parasites.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyTue Nov 13, 2018 4:40 pm


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyFri Dec 21, 2018 11:14 am

Nyborg, Helmut wrote:
The Sociology of Psychometric and Bio-behavioral Sciences: A Case Study of Destructive Social Reductionism and Collective Fraud in 20th Century Academia

1. Demonization
The history of science abounds with examples of scientists killed, exiled or demonized for presenting the right message at the wrong time or to the wrong people. A direct line thus connects the poisoning of Socrates with the public burning of Giordano Bruno, the Catholic Church's condemnation of Galileo's view, and the Spanish Inquisition's devilish torture chambers with The Soviet Union's classical geneticists having to fight for life against Central Party-dictated Lysenkoism. The present chapter updates this tragic history by telling a 20th century sociological story about the demonization of the psychometric and bio-behavioral sciences in general, and of Professor Emeritus Arthur R. Jensen from University of California at Berkeley in particular.

LI. The Past
Religious, romantic, political, moral or idealistic reasons motivated most of the persecutions. The medieval Church demanded, for example, that early cartographers put the Garden of Eden at the head of their maps to cover "six-sevenths" of the Earth in land, in accordance with the Bible. The data-oriented Gerardus Mercator thought that this representation was not only inaccurate but also dangerously misleading to those who wanted to find their way. What is more — he had the courage to say so in 1544.
He was accordingly imprisoned for heresy with the intent to bum him at the stake.
Somewhat surprisingly, considering the Zeitgeist of the time, he was subsequently released for "lack of evidence" (Jenkins 2000).
The leaders of the Amsterdam Jewish community forbade in 1656 any contact with the philosopher Baruch Spinoza with the following words: "Nobody shall have oral or written communication with him. Nobody shall help him. Nobody may come closer to him than four steps. And nobody may read anything published by him".
Voltaire pubhcly questioned the official wisdom of France, and subsequently faced personal persecution and exile. Not only was he found guilty in defending Descartes, Newton and Pascal in Lettres Philosophiques, but he also referred to France as frivolous, superstitious and reactionary, and contrasted it to England. He had to hide in Lorraine in 1734 as the Paris police set out to arrest him. Voltaire did not mince his words, and dryly concluded: "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong". If he knew that much, then why did Voltaire touch the matters at all? He provided that answer himself: "If I had not stirred up the subject (e'gaye' la matie're), nobody would have been scandalized; but then nobody would have read me".
There are some truths that are better known to everybody, but somebody has to tell them. Voltaire and Art Jensen are equals here. The ruthless hounding of classical Soviet geneticists, who dared questioning the
demonstrably false Lysenkoist view and thus challenging the wisdom of The Central Conmiittee of the Communist Party, extended the deadly line of destructive social idealism well into the 20th century. It is not known exactly how many fell prey to communistic ideology, but some recent estimates count the numbers to about 100
million people. The Third Reich also persecuted artists and scientists, preferably Jewish, and killed, relatively speaking, roughly as many individuals as fell victim to communist ideology (about 10 million, but then allow for the shorter time frame for committing these horrible crimes against Humanity). Even if not immediately apparent, these two ideologies, the a-biological Communist and the mistaken race-biology based Nazi, had
two very different but equally important roles to play in the demonization of psychometrics and the bio-behavioral sciences in the 20th century. The communist ideology impact was to make the blind leading the seeing, and the Nazi ideology impact was to make everybody blind, deaf and dumb to anything but Aryan supremacy. Both ideologies had a hostile attitude to counter-intuitive data.
While Eastern Europe has a long history of suppressing free speech and academic freedom, the West still sees itself as a prime example of individual and academic freedom, with the U.S. in the forefront. This chapter purports to document that this is a false and dangerous illusion, in need of revision.
The point will be illustrated in different ways, but the overall purpose is to expose the perpetrators, count the dreadful personal, academic and public consequences of this surprising and all-embracing example of a 20th century collective fraud, and to suggest a remedy. The chapter provides illustrations of what happened to western psychometricians, bio-behavioral scientists and behavior geneticists devoted to data that ran
counter to preconceived theories or idealistic, moral or political ideas, but who were not afraid to "e'gaye' la matie're". The examples are mostly taken from what happened to Arthur R. Jensen, who had a formidable sharpness and the audacity to openly challenge the official and sacrosanct notions that social equality presupposes biological identity, and that social and racial malleability is without end. The price he paid was high indeed, but he never shook his hands, and that is his greatness.

1.2, Contemporary Demonization
Many members of the London School of Differential Psychology, to which Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen also belong, has been demonized in the 20th century. The British psychologist Cyril Burt was, for example, accused of fiddling with his data on the similarity of twins. Because Burt was a leading proponent of the idea that
intelligence is largely heritable, this cause celebre was quickly exploited by social reductionist critics to throw a deadly blow to the entire notion of inheritance of intelligence. Yet, both the previous and the later methodologically better studies of the heritability of intelligence have come up with figures that, on average, compare favorably with Burt's original numbers. What remains of substance of the much hailed defamatory attacks is that an ageing Burt probably was inexcusably careless with the presentation of his own data. The really interesting question has now changed to the question of why so many critics still find the Burt case a good reason to reject the entire notion of the major inheritance of intelligence in face of the fact that, once you remove all Burt's data and use only the updated and technically much better evidence, it does
not change one iota of the conclusion that genes count for about 80% of the familial transmission of genes for intelligence in late adulthood (but seemingly much less in childhood!)
When the late Hans Eysenck succeeded Burt as a prominent member of the London School, he also got viciously attacked for a life-long promotion of the study of individual differences with a non-exclusive emphasis on the biological side of human nature (see Nyborg 1997). Ironically, his critics associated his biological interest with
underlying Nazi sympathy. It apparently made no impression on critiques that Hans had to fly his native Germany after being beaten up by schoolmates for refusing to join the Hitlerjugend. He even dared to openly challenge his Nazi schoolteacher in class when they were told that Jews were inferior people. Young Hans loved data, so he simply went to the local library to collect evidence that Jewish soldiers were, on average, more
highly decorated than other German soldiers fighting in the First World War. Eysenck was not a Jew himself — just an unusually intelligent and brave young man! This bravery found good use in his long-life defense of psychometrics and the biological basis of personality and intelligence. He had to endure physical attacks and personal harassment in countless ways, and to have his lectures blocked at home or abroad.
The late Raymond Cattell may be considered a special kind of member of the London School. He was shamefully denied reception at the last minute in 1997 of a medal for a lifetime achievement award in psychology, endorsed by The American Psychological Association. The initiative to withhold the medal came from Barry Mehler, who also proposed that the late Stanley Porteus should no longer give his name to Porteus Hall at the University of Hawaii (for a characterization of Mehler, see Weyher: xl-xliii, in Lynn 2001). Mehler seems to have devoted his entire career to attacks on psychometrics and bio-behavioral research, and he has repeatedly attacked the Pioneer Fund for racism (ibid.). This fund supported the research of some members of the London School, as well as scientists outside the circle. Chris Brand, a long-time tenured lecturer at Edinburgh University, was sacked, and had to endure that his 1996 book: The g factor: General Intelligence and its Implications, was "de-published" by Wiley. The publisher simply took the book off the shelf where it had been on for sale for 6 weeks. Philippe
Rushton of University of Western Ontario, Canada, was very close to being sacked and persecuted for "hate speech", and was actually subjected to a criminal investigation, that ended with nothing. A publisher withdrew and destroyed 45,000 copies of an abridged 2000 edition of his Race, evolution, and behavior, originally published by Transaction Publishers. With characteristic stamina Rushton successfully countered all the wild
accusations and kept on with his important work (see Chapter 9 in this volume). Thomas Bouchard from Minnesota University in the U.S., an internationally recognized specialist using twins to study the inheritance of intelligence and personality, has routinely been ferociously attacked over many years. So have sociologists Bob Gordon from Johns Hopkins University and Linda Gottfredson from the University of Delaware, and many others. Readers interested in the unworthy details of these rueful stories may like to consult Lynn (2001).

The Scientific Study of General Intelligence - Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen



Nyborg, Helmut wrote:

6.3, Summing Up the Critique
When carefully analyzed the critique boils down to a number of sociopolitical and moral attitudes that for the most part can be condensed to the following statements (of unknown source), that defenders have to take into account:
(1) All individuals and human groups are the same with respect to intelligence, personality and behavior.
(2) Academics must speak with one voice thereabout.
(3) It is the duty of scholarly and other organizations to enforce politically correct ways of talking about the origin of individual and group differences.
(4) However, should any difference be found, it must be ascribed to environmental factors.
(5) The prime task of the social scientists is then to change these environmental factors in such a way that the difference disappears.
(6) Should any difference resist environmental intervention, it should be ascribed to the need for further research, lack of funding, or too little time to correct.
(7) Never should the differences be explained by genetic factors or gene-environment correlation or interaction.
(8 ) Should the differences nevertheless suggest a genetic component, environmental
factors must immediately be invoked to annul them.
(9) Should the differences nevertheless remain, stricter than normal scientific criteria must be estabhshed before any genetic influence is accepted by, say, requesting identical environment for all individual or groups.
(10) Any behavioral scientists claiming even a moderately genetic effect must inrmiediately be sanctioned against.
(11) Non-environmentalist outcomes should be misrepresented, strawmen invented and torn apart, or possible but implausible alternative solutions should be put into effect.
(12) It should be emphasized that there are certain subjects that should not be investigated at this time in history.
(13) Should any scholar be unable to understand or accept the much stricter criteria for differential psychological research, he should be punished.
(14) Should any journalists be unable to understand the rules for politically correct presentation, higher editorial levels must intervene and correct.

The Scientific Study of General Intelligence - Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyFri Dec 21, 2018 11:38 am

Nyborg, Helmut wrote:
7. Destructive Social Reductionism and Collective Fraud
7.1. Introduction
The critique of Jensen is a perfect example of how 20th century academic freedom has come under siege in the West, as it was previously in the East. It suggests that the hostility of the academic left towards individualism and biological explanations plays a major role in ruining the research climate in modem academia, despite superficial declarations of adherence to open-minded research and obligatory cocktail-party proclamations of freedom for all.
The more we look into the literature on this depressing scenario, the more destructive the social reductionist point of view appears, and the more serious becomes the threat to academic freedom, even to a former left-oriented person like myself.
Segerstrale raised a pertinent question, also pondered by Gross and Levitt: How on earth could the environmentalist/culturalist position become so forceful in academia,
and why was it automatically linked to progressive politics. Segerstrale traces the answer to " . . . the post-Second World War situation and particularly . . . the famous
UNESCO agreement in 1952, which effectively put a ban on biological research in human behavior. It was precisely this taboo that sociobiologist Wilson, and before him,
IQ researcher Arthur Jensen and the behavioral geneticists, were breaking" (2000: 30).
There is more to the story than that, however. As we saw, the demonization of Jensen could be dealt with analytically at a surface level in terms of the previous simple model, according to which Jensen switched from neutral decision mode 1 to biological mode 2 in Zeitgeist mode 2, a change towards biological thinking at a time where all such manifestations were banned, punished on a personal basis, and where confirmatory data were seen as politically motivated. Clearly, the broad sweep, the generality, and the noticeable hostility towards Jensen across many layers of academic and public life cannot be fully appreciated within such a narrow analytic frame.
We need to eyeball the full social-academic-organizational-political-public horizon in order to understand in details why so many scientists, professional and international
organizations, and the press at large, could so easily unite in such a surprisingly effective self-reinforcing synchrony, and act almost like a well-disciplined team to muster the brutal and direct force against apostates. We have to combine all the destructive elements of social reductionism — such as the role of religion, the egalitarian fiction, the self-perceived moral superiority of the critics, the open suppression of empirical alternatives, the corruption of professional organizations, the urge toward political correctness, the threats to biological projects and funding — in order to fully understand the explosive sequence of events and how they finally amount to nothing less than a large scale collective academic fraud, and even "inverse" fraud. The following section introduces some semi-dependent variables needed for the second part of the analysis.

7.2. Semi-dependent Variables
7.2.1. Equality Garrett (1961) described a journalistic credo called "egalitarian orthodoxy" involving flat denial or a softening of the likelihood that genes may partly explain race, sex or individual differences in intelligence, personality or interests etc.
Linda Gottfredson is even more explicit here. In an article — Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud (1994) she said: "Social science today condones and perpetuates a great falsehood . . . or 'egalitarian fiction' . . . that racial-ethnic groups never differ in average . . . g . . . general . . . ability . . ." While individual scientists' intellectual dishonesty is well-known, little attention has been given to the ways in which collectives of scientists " . . . have perpetuated frauds on the scientific community and the public at large".
She further noted that no scientist in the collective can probably be accused of fraud in the usual sense, but " . . . their seemingly minor distortions, untruths, evasions, and biases collectively produce and maintain a witting falsehood" (ibid.: 53).
Which social processes could be responsible for this? asks Gottfredson. After having established the general agreement among experts about the existence of a real average difference, she points to the results of an important study by Snyderman & Rothman (1988) — The IQ controversy: The media and public policy — providing strong evidence that the general public receives a highly distorted view of opinion among IQ experts' (ibid.: 54). The public press has left the opinion that many experts agree that intelligence cannot be defined well, that IQ tests cannot be used outside the school, and that they are biased against minorities, even if most experts are of the opposite opinion.
This is interesting because the study also showed that most experts privately agree with Arthur Jensen, who is constantly exposed in the media for holding just such views.
Despite the change in expert view toward Jensen, obviously guided by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the public impression has not moved correspondingly. Gottfredson takes Snyderman & Rothman's findings to suggest that many " . . . experts misrepresent their belief or are keeping silent in the face of a public falsehood. It is no wonder that the public remains misinformed on this issue" (p. 55).
Linda Gottfredson was close to being sacked from Delaware University in the U.S. for accepting a research grant from the previously mentioned Pioneer Fund for
investigating IQ-occupation relationships. Her characterization of the rather bleak situation in 20th century academia is illustrative:

"Perhaps the most aggressively perpetrated collective fraud in the social sciences today is that which sustains the egalitarian fiction. This is the
frequent but false assertion that intelligence is clustered equally across all human populations, that is, that there are, on average, no racial-ethnic disparities in developed mental competence" (Gotfredson 2000).

Gottfredson's notion of collective fraud will be used in the present analysis, but the scope will not be restricted to race differences in intelligence, but will include the entire social reductionistic conspiracy against any researcher, who dares investigate individual or group differences in physique, intelligence, personahty, achievement, or behavior in general, and the evolutionary, genetic, physiological or brain bases of these differences.
I will term this the "Grand academic leftist collective fraud" hypothesis.

7.2.2. The role of religion and philosophy Jensen notes that definitions always arise in a particular context of understanding, and that contexts differ from one period to another (termed Zeitgeists in this chapter), and from one scientist to another. The early context for intelligence was Platonic philosophy and Christian theology. Jensen (1998:1) observed: "This vastly delayed the study of . . . intelligence . . . as manifesting individual differences . . . [intelligence] was identified with the soul and seen as a perfect, immaterial, universal attribute of humans, and both definitions were counterproductive. It took a Darwin (1859/1872) to counter blatant environmentalism (e.g. Locke 1690) and to realize that the evolution of intelligence is basically a biological phenomenon common to man and other animals, a Spencer (1820-1903) to defend Darwin, counter dualism, and hammer out that, intelligence is a physiological mean for individually adjusting internal to external conditions, a Galton (1822-1911,1869) to establish differential psychology which sets the study of individual and group differences on a solid scientific track, and a Spearman (1904) to define and measure intelligence objectively".

7.2.3. The egalitarian fiction Gottfredson (1994) saw no need to mingle her words when she wrote that egalitarians often assert that the egalitarian promise is absolute truth beyond scientific scrutiny whereas the opposite view may be discredited through misrepresentation, by contradicting arguments never made while ignoring what was actually said, by attributing political preferences to an author that he never has had, or by simply alleging fraud or gross incompetence with no substantiation. "The study of race and intelligence is something they tell us, that no decent person — let alone a serious scientist — would ever do and that every decent person and serious researcher would oppose. Thus, in a kind of Orwellian inversion, marked by what Gordon (1993) calls 'high talk and low blows,' the suppression of science presents itself as science itself. Intellectual dishonesty becomes the handmaiden of social conscience, and ideology is declared knowledge while knowledge is dismissed as mere ideology". This is all the more tragic because enforcement of the egalitarian fiction " . . . tries to defy a reality and produces what it was meant to avoid, that is, producing pejorative racial stereotypes, fostering racial tensions, stripping members of lower-scoring groups of their dignity and incentives to achieve, and creating permanent social inequalities between the races".

7.2.4. The role of funding organizations Most scientists need funding in order to do research, and most funding agents make an attempt to define what they find worth funding. As demand is usually much larger than supply, the individual scientist has to conform to — or at least better pay close attention to — which projects the funding agents think are worth supporting. This is all well known, but what is perhaps less acknowledged is, that the basic motivation of most major philanthropic funds in the U.S., and probably also in Europe, changed markedly in recent times.
Heather MacDonald (2000) took the trouble to describe the change in a series of essays, now collected and published as a book — The burden of bad ideas. According
to MacDonald, quite radical changes took place in, what in the present context corresponds to the middle of Zeitgeist mode 2, i.e. around 1960-1970, where large
funding agents got increasingly inspired by left oriented ideas emanating from within the American academy, from political think tanks, and from organizations for the arts and sciences.
Before the change, such foundations as Carnegie, Ford, Mellon, Mott and Rockefeller gave most of their money to establish concert halls, hospitals, libraries, museums or universities, with the goal of extending the opportunities of the less fortunate. After the change, the foundations began to support projects that, instead of seeking mobility and success for the less privileged, rather promoted "advocacy" and "empowerment" by way of "community action" and "collaboratives" to overthrow the "racist, sexist, and classist edifice" upon which America had been founded. This change of mind, from traditional values, to prevailing left oriented political-economic-cultural themes had, according to MacDonald, a profound effect on research at The Ivy League Universities, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, but also the New York State Regents, the New York Times, and the Smithsonian Institute were affected by the change
of mind.
Obviously, the changes also affected the nature of educational policy, and research on "critical-thinking skills", "community-building", "brainstorming", "student-centered
learning" substituted to some extent the older "content-based" curricula and ability guided teaching.
MacDonald is, according to Peter Savodnik (2000: 38), almost alone in describing this major change in funding in the U.S. in the 1960s, and he ends by concluding: "The
hugely wasteful social-engineering experiments have . . . wrought... widespread havoc on the people least able to defend themselves against the well-funded programs of America's radical establishment".
Project Head Start comes to mind here. It was the conspicuous lack of documentation for a clear benefit for the culturally deprived children involved in this multi-million
dollar program that alerted Arthur Jensen, and the negative outcome of his (and other's) analysis got him into trouble. While we are still waiting for a documentation of the lasting positive effects of such programs, we can speculate on how easily the academic left was able to redirect major funding their particular way.
Whatever the answer is to that question, the massive redirection of research funding no doubt socialized many researchers away from what they originally planned, and
towards projects that conform to the new goals. This most certainly would drain the funding for psychometrics and behavioral genetics.

7.2.5. Individual suppression of academic freedom Gottfredson (1994) wondered why the experts keep their mouth shut about the obvious, and provided the answer herself: Because IQ experts have learned to "live within a lie", quite like the people living under communist rule in Eastern Europe, as so aptly noted by Vaclav Havel. Here ordinary citizens were complicit in their own tyranny because they silently had to play the game of the rulers and thus unwillingly became supporters of the tyranny they detested.
Coleman, who is perhaps best known for his monumental report on Equality of educational opportunity (Coleman et al. 1966) knew precisely how it is to live within
a He. He, thus, later (1990-1991) reflected with regret on why he deliberately neglected certain unpopular aspects of his otherwise eminent social science analysis. The excuse he gave was, that academics establish norms for themselves for which kinds of questions to raise and which to avoid. One of the most influential norms is: never ever raise questions about possible biological roots to intellectual race- and sex-related differences. All academics "know" by heart that such questions rapidly and inevitably raise incredible tensions forcing their faculty to harsh repercussions, so they have to be avoided at all costs, even if truth is one of them. Unfortunately, not only truth suffer here. Coleman admitted that our possibilities of ever coming to grip with important aspects of the causal basis for the social phenomena studied may be permanently stultified.

7.2.6. Collective suppression of academic freedom While the reasons for individuals to keep their mouth shut in dangerous matters like IQ are fairly obvious, it is more complicated to answer the question why groups of experts keep their mouth shut about the obvious? Could it be that there is now a collectively structured silence, where groups of social scientists deliberately subordinate scientific norms to political preferences and create a kind of pseudo-reality?
Wolf (1972) noted that many contemporary social scientists keep ".. . presenting inconclusive data as if it were decisive; lacking candor about 'touchy' subjects . ..;
blurring or shaping definitions (segregation, discrimination, racism) to suit 'propagandistic' purposes; making exaggerated claims about the success of favored policies
(compensatory education and school integration) while minimizing or ignoring contrary evidence". They are under great professional and institutional pressure, because peer recognition is the currency of academic and scientific life and decisive for promotion, status, and funding. Even the smallest digression from politically correct ambitions could irreparably damage an otherwise successful professional career. Even just expressing respect for the "right" people counts on the positive side, whereas " . ..honoring, defending, or even failing to condemn the 'wrong' sort of individual or idea . . " might stain one's reputation (p. 56).
According to Gottfredson (1994), such a system breeds intellectual corruption. This is precisely what appears to be happening today in the social sciences on matters of race and intelligence. While certainly being a personal annoyance, all these threatening activities had the unfortunate effect of silencing colleagues who otherwise might have joined in the defense of Jensen's cause. Jensen received a large number of supportive letters, but many of the writers explicitly stated that they preferred to remain anonymous, so as not to be subjected to a similar treatment. Jensen (1972) gave an example of a colleague who got his paper returned with proper payment and a letter from the editor explaining " . . . we have finally decided against entering the controversy altogether". When Jensen urged the author to try and publish his paper elsewhere, he said: ". . . because of the abuse which you have received, I have no intention of
submitting my paper for publication elsewhere" (p. 47)
Gordon (1993) argues that many social scientists demonstrate their party loyalty to the egalitarian fiction by enforcing it in myriads of small ways in their academic routine by off-handedly dismissing race differences in intelligence as racist claims, blaming the victim, or discouraging students and colleagues from doing "sensitive" research. Overt censorship is common to those "not knowing where to step".
Gottfredson (1994) finds that " . . . the He is gradually distorting and degrading all institutions and processes where intelligence is at least somewhat important. . . public schools, higher education, the professions, and high-level executive work" (p. 58). She concluded that ".. . society is being shaped to meet the dictates of a collective fraud.
The fiction is aiding and abetting bigots to a far greater degree than any truth ever could, because its specific side-effects — racial preferences, official mendacity, free-wielding accusations of racism, and falling standards — are creating deep cynicism and broad resentment against minorities, blacks in particular, among the citizenry".

7.2.7. Collective bias in academia All this had the chilHng effect of silencing large parts of academia, and began more and more to look like a sweeping collective fraud, extending downwards to university administrators and funding agents, and upwards to huge professional organizations, and to public policy where individual politicians could harvest easy votes, and where the political left and right parties, creationists, and others with heavily vested interests in evading the role of biology and individual differences in intelligence for human behavior, and keep a kind of socially based pseudo-solidarity with the disadvantages.
There are many further ways to censor than the overt forms, according to Gordon (1993). One is to establish speech-codes on campus, another to subject National
Institute of Health research application to an extra layer of review for politically "sensitive" grant proposals, still another to ban particular funding sources. The latter
became the policy of the University of Delaware because, as the University said, funding of research on race ".. . conflicts with the university's mission to promote racial and cultural diversity" (Gottfredson 1994: 56).

7.2.8. Collective bias in professional organizations It is not just individuals who can be harmed by opposing the current dogma of the social sciences that all differences in intelligence — individual, sex, or race differences — are caused by some form of discrimination or omission. So can scientific organizations, and they are noticeably sensitive to this potential danger. Gottfredson (1994) explains: "It raises the public and scientific respect for the organization whenever it honors an individual that lives well up to the dogma, and degrades it in the eyes of others should a non-dogmatic person be awarded. It provides respect to issue statements conforming to the dogma even, or perhaps in particular, if it pours scorn on non-conformers, like Jensen".

7.2.9. Bias in national and cross-national organizations Even such high-profiled organizations like UNESCO and the UN take part in the collective fraud. I previously
referred to factually incorrect statements by such organizations. Recently, United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan declared that intelligence: " . . . is one commodity equally distributed among the world's people" (Hoyos & Littlejohn 2000).
It takes only a brief inspection of the massive cumulative long-term documentation for marked national differences in IQ by Lynn & Vanhanen (2002) to see, that such counterfactual statements neither serves the credibility of the organization as such nor its top representatives. It may very well be that the purpose of the statement was meant politically or strategically, but cross-national policy based on lies — great or small — might easily bounce back in non-productive ways.

7.2.10. Devastating political correctness (PC) Webster's New World Dictionary of American English (1994) describes political correctness as " . . . orthodox liberal opinion on matters of sexuality, race .. . usually used disparagingly to connote dogmatism, excessive sensitivity to minority causes .. ." Weyher (1998) refers in a
discussion of PC to a cover story in Newsweek (24 December 1990) where it is said that: "RC. is Marxist in origin, in the broad sense of attempting to redistribute power
from the privileged class (white males) to the oppressed masses. It represents the values of social equality and social justice over that of free speech".
"For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic". These words are from a lecture by Bill Lind at a conference at George Washington University in 1998. We have seen PC in other countries, now we have it here, and primarily on campuses, but it is spreading throughout society. Historically, PC is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms, and the parallels to classical Marxism are very obvious, according to Lind. It is the child of a totalitarian ideology and it is deadly serious: ".. . the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges . . . and punishment".
The formally installed "speech codes" at some campuses reflect PC, and the strong statements from minority students organizations against Jensen, as well as the violent reaction towards anybody transgressing the not so fine line, all tell a story of repression of academic freedom, that surely will inform researchers of any stripes of what is best to do here and now, and it may explain in part why individuals as well as large professional groups bow to PC. Whatever the PC term precisely refers to, transgression of it can issue a deadly blow to one's scientific reputation.

The Scientific Study of General Intelligence - Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyFri Dec 21, 2018 11:59 am

Nyborg, Helmut wrote:

7.3. Summing It All Up
Gross & Levitt (1998) took the trouble to sum it all up. They stressed that the critics rode on a too high moral horse. Perhaps they were too good to be true. They were willing to sacrifice Jensen at the price of their own scientific integrity and honesty. They practiced selective reading, omitted major points, denied well-established research, and were carried to fame on morally well-sounding statements that sat well with the public. Educators, eager to find some consolation for the slow progress in raising the learning curves for the disadvantaged, welcomed the promises of easy progress and participated all too willingly in the attacks on messengers of bad news. Colleagues noticed the unmerciful treatment of Jensen and bent their heads in silence. Young scientists soon realized that their future could not safely be built on pursuing a career in psychometrics or behavioral genetics. Granting committees, such as the Pioneer Fund soon realized that funding people like Jensen rapidly raised critical questions about their own sinister motives — didn't they have hidden racist leanings, didn't they have neo-nazi connections, etc. The smears would take no end, even if they showed the critics to the door by exposing their errors (Lynn 2001).

7.4. The '^Inverse^^ Fraud of Gould and Lewontin
Fraud is defined in the present context as the critic's deliberate distortion of soUd evidence on individual and group differences in physique, intelligence, personality and behavior, and as the misrepresentation of scientists that collect such data. However, the critics also use the term fraud but in an inverse form. To the critics, fraud could be spotted through moral reading and massaging of texts to reveal the truly evil motives behind apparently innocent data.
Gould was a tireless master of inverse fraud. He thus warned us " . . . how theory and unconscious presupposition always influence our analysis and organization of presumably objective data" (1996: 49). Previously, in his original (1981) version of The Mismeasure of Man, he had said: "If the cultural influences upon science can be detected in the humdrum minutiae of a supposedly objective, almost automatic quantification, then the status of biological determinism as a social prejudice reflected by scientists in their own particular medium seems secure" (p. 58). Moreover: "In reanalyzing . . . classical data sets, I have continually located a priori prejudice, leading scientists to invalid conclusions from adequate data, or distorting the gathering of data
itself. In a few cases . . . we can specify conscious fraud as the cause of inserted social prejudice. But fraud is not historically interesting except as gossip because the perpetrators know what they are doing and the unconscious biases that record subtle and inescapable constraints of culture are not illustrated. In most cases discussed in this book, we can be fairly certain that biases — though often expressed as egregiously as in the cases of conscious fraud — were unknowingly influential and that scientists
believed they were pursuing unsullied truth" (Gould 1996: 59, original emphasis).
Many other examples of inverse fraud can be found in the 1986 book by Schiff and Lewontin — Education and class: The irrelevance of IQ genetic studies. In the foreword, Halsey accurately reflects the particular direction and aggressive intent of the book by stating: ". . . the authors steadfastly and indeed belligerently declare their
ideological bias to environmentalism . . . " (in Schiff & Lewontin 1986: v), and on the next page he characterizes Sir Cyril Burt " . . . as a dominating figure who slid from obsession through pseudo-science into outright fraud" (p. vi).
The Schiff and Lewontin book refers to Franz Boas (1912), who in 1909-1910 measured the heads of 13,000 immigrants bom in Europe and of their children bom in America. Boas found striking effects on the cranial form as a function of the length of exposure to an American upbringing. Boas, who often targeted "scientific racism" or
false thinking about races, took this result as proof that racial head characteristics depend on environmental rather than genetic factors, and concluded that those who think otherwise are racists. In particular the disciples of Boas, such as anthropologists Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Ashley Montagu were instmmental in promoting this kind of social reductionist view of human nature.
However, Sparks & Jantz (2002) have 90 years later re-examined Boas' published data and found, that the effects of the new environment on head form were "insignificant". They found "negligible" differences between parents' and childrens' head form, in comparison to the differentiation among ethnic groups. It is food for thought that Gould, Lewontin and many other critics have used this study to bolster a social-reductionistic view on race. They are the people who call for the uttermost caution in interpretation of data, while at the same time accuse Jensen of dishonesty.
Schiff informs us on page xi: ".. . that questions concerning genetic effects are essentially irrelevant to . . . access to education. Later (in Schiff & Lewontin 1986: xiii) he declares that ". . . theories of innate differences arise from political issues ...", and in their introduction to the book Schiff & Lewontin state that ". . . we try to show that, as far as education is concerned, most genetic studies are not only unsound but are also
irrelevant" (p. xiii).
Discussing phrenology Schiff & Lewontin (1986) state, "As it turns out, there is no correlation at all between the size of an adult's brain and his or her ability to perform intellectually" (p. 7). They therefore see their book as a direct attempt".. . to oppose the errors of biological theory of social class, and to present competing evidence that class is a social phenomenon, created by the structure of social relations, and not dictated by our genes" (p. 14, original emphasis), and they further claim that"... the nature-nurture debate is actually a smokescreen for a debate over the interaction between individual differences and social structure" (p. 17).
Many IQ experts try to cover this by using double-talk, and "The most sophisticated type of double-talk concerning the word "intelligence" is that of Jensen (1980), whose technical analysis boils down to the definition attributed to Binet ("intelligence is what my test measures")".
Schiff & Lewontin (1986) conclude the first part of their book by stating that " . .. procedures used to validate "intelligence" tests are as socially determined as the tests themselves. The high degree of sophistication of some of their procedures only serves to mask an unwillingness to face the social, psychological, and ethical questions posed by the construction and use of IQ tests" (pp. 32-33), that ".. . discussions about IQ
usually fail to distinguish clearly between questions of fact and questions of values. In addition, they are often obscured by technical confusion". There is a ". . . refusal to consider social class as a basic component of present reality. Finally, the circular nature of attempts to validate IQ scores stems from this same inability to question current social values".
The authors then react strongly against the idea that social inequality may be attributed ".. . to differences in innate ability between the children of the different social classes, as revealed by differences in the distributions of IQ scores" because " . . . white middle-class people decide who is intelligent and who is not", and as long as " . .. teachers, filled with goodwill and with ethnocentric naiVity, view human intelligence through their own school training, the academic failure of working-class children will be built into the school and social system" (p. 125).
In counting the many errors about genetics and their social consequences Schiff & Lewontin (1986) draw attention to a "striking feature": " . . . the degree to which a supposedly "Scientific" field is permeated with basic conceptual and experimental errors . . . much of the discussion of the biology of intelligence would simply evaporate if fundamental biological and statistical notions were applied to the genetics of human behaviour with the same degree of rigour and logic that is standard in, say, the study of milk yield in cattle or body weight in mice" (p. 169).
Discussing the why of intelUgence testing, Schiff & Lewontin (1986) state that "The purpose of the IQ test is to identify the potential winners presumably so that society will not waste its precious resources on those whose abilities are insufficient" and behind lies".. . the claim that this social organization is an inevitable manifestation of human biology, that the war of all against all is a natural law" (pp. 184-185).
In a section called Error 12: If it is new and complicated it must be true, Schiff & Lewontin (1986) say: "Partly through self-delusion, and partly through a deliberate attempt to mystify the innocent, some of those who have written about the genetics of IQ have tried to make the story more believable by making it more complicated" by" . . . introducing a complex mathematical model involving many variables and parameters and finding the set of parameters that best fits the data" and so ".. . for that reason alone seem deeper and more 'scientific'" (e.g. Eysenck 1979: 3) and "It is absurd to think that the numbers that come from such models have any meaning" (pp. 185-187).
This is an excellent example of an inverse fraud win-win strategy running along the line: If heads I win, if tails you loose. If Jensen used the same old simple outworn methods, the field has stagnated; if Jensen developed new and more complicated methods a false sense of depth is pretended. Never mind if the new methods provide
more reliable results with broader applicability in other areas. Jensen has to be framed in a catch 22-situation.
But the story of inverse fraud does not end here. The social implications of the many conceptual errors that have been propagated in the field of IQ studies come together, according to Schiff & Lewontin (1986), to press home a single major theme where the bottom line is: "Differences between social class and races are heritable and unchangeable ...". Therefore " . . . social policy that attempts to change either the structure or the assignment of groups to it is misdirected, as waste of time, and even harmful because it raises hopes that are bound to be dashed. It is essentially an argument for the inevitability and justice of the status quo. It is fairly obvious who the argument serves" (p. 187).
Bouchard & McGue are also treated unkindly by Schiff & Lewontin (1986). They reported in 1981 on resemblance correlations for 43 parent-offspring and 69 sibHngs.
The comment from Schiff & Lewontin (ibid.) was: "Since these studies provide
essentially no genetic information, one can wonder why society has paid scientists to
repeat essentially the same observation for so long". Apparently, when scientists strive
to reproduce potentially controversial observations they are at fault, and this principle
can be used as a weapon against the enemy. Again, either way, you lose. Presumably,
the many later confirmative studies raise even more serious questions about the sinister
motives of those who did them and those who financed them.
Schiff & Lewontin (ibid.) motivate the writing of their book with the goal of
providing the reader with a key to the literature on nature-nurture and IQ, so that by
following their prescriptions the reader will be able to focus on the general principles
rather than on any particular study, and ".. . concentrate on the questions rather than on
the answers" (p. 192).
Key reading seems here to be just another word for moral reading or coupled
reasoning: disregard the data and concentrate instead on why the researcher took the trouble to investigate the biological basis of race or intelligence. This kind of reading is,
in fact, essential for understanding the true nature of social reductionist critique and its
destructive nature. However, what is at stake here is more than a particular moral
standing or reading of texts in the nature-nurture and IQ debates; rather it is an example
of an immoral and destructive instruction how to dismiss data, however solid, in order
to promote what Gottfredson defines as collective fraud.
It is therefore not surprising to see that Schiff & Lewontin (1986) concluded: "In our
opinion, the most striking fact of the whole IQ story is the contrast between the use of
IQ to account for social heredity and the deliberate or unaware avoidance of a direct
analysis of that heredity", and that " . . . a significant fraction of the scientific
establishment has handled this issue in what appeared to be an inappropriate way"
(pp. 223-225). The psychometric approach to human intelligence misses " . . . the
capacity to ask questions, to oneself and to others". "The biological deterministic
approach .. . misses another specific feature of homo sapiens. It is homo sapiens who
decide . . . how his society is organized . . .".

7.5. Inverse Illusions
Schiff and Lewontin have, quite like Gottfredson and others, a rather pessimistic view
of the calamities in academia, but the signs differ radically.
To Schiff & Lewontin (1986), most workers in academia seem to suffer from two
contradictory illusions: "The illusion of complete academic freedom . . . a denial or lack
of awareness of social and economic pressures influencing scientific workers . .." and
the opposite illusion of " . . . complete helplessness . . . Most scientists fail to recognize
that the type of question they ask and the type they choose to ignore derive both from
social pressure and from a personal choice" (pp. 226-227).
To Gottfredson and others, Schiff, Lewontin and Gould tried their uttermost to limit
the academic freedom; moreover Jensen et al. were painfully aware of the many pitfalls
associated with the long haul of collecting solid data that could stand the test of critical
control in a climate so hostile to their research.
While Jensen found himself mostly engaged in hard empirical work, Schiff &
Lewontin (1986) felt free to speculate — without a self-perceived obUgation to collect
the relevant data — what the problem really was. They saw fit to conclude: " . . . the
amount of knowledge about child behavior accumulated among schoolteachers is
greater and of a different sort than that accumulated by academic psychologists. Even
more instructive . . . is the fact of trying to change [educational processes] . . . scientists
may not possess the most important part of the existing knowledge about human
behavior, specifically about human intelligence . . . those who believe that they have a
monopoly on something may not be the best judges of the legitimacy of that
monopoly".
These hypotheses definitely deserve interest to the extent Schiff & Lewontin want to
make comparisons among the predictive validity of teacher knowledge and the predictive validity of g. They did not do any of the hard work needed. However, the data
are already out there. Why didn't they call upon it?
Lewontin & Schiff instead offer the following truly breathtaking scenario: " . . . the
direct observation of human mental processes is potentially available to four bilHon
observers. The scientific authority granted to a few concerning the functioning of the
human mind may then be largely usurped". They seem to suggest: skip science, and thy
will see the light! This is an inverse illusion.


The Scientific Study of General Intelligence - Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptySun Dec 23, 2018 9:01 am


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyThu Dec 27, 2018 11:43 am

Christopher R. Brand, Denis Constates and Harrison Kane wrote:
In view of the feebleness of even their best arguments against a real, measurable and powerful g factor, it is perhaps unsurprising that the critics of the London School largely settle for what Raymond Cattell called ignoracism. They try to ignore the writings of
Eysenck & Jensen — bestirring themselves only to advise the 'publishing' trade of the trouble that they will make for any pro-IQ works appearing in bookshops. Nevertheless, it is surprising that critics have not used a line of criticism that should have a big appeal for idealistic anti-empiricists: to cite the authority of philosophers against the Jensenist heresy.
PeeCee is a religion that is currently at the stage where Christianity was before Emperor Constantine took it by the scruff of the neck in 314 A.D. and put it to imperial
work. Because of this immaturity, no modem authorities of much general stature in psychology itself can be found to challenge London School ideas. ReHance has had to be placed instead on a biologist (Gould), a neuroscientist (Rose) and behaviourists like Howe & Kamin who have spent their working lives committed to a mentality-denying exercise that has itself been officially rejected by modem cognitive science and the rest of psychology. However, a more promising scene opens up for the critic who looks to the past. Psychology's founding fathers — who were what would be called philosophers or (especially in the case of the rationalist philosophers) scientists — showed a clear propensity to do without the g factor.
It was famously observed by the mathematician-philosopher, Alfred Whitehead, that Westem philosophy can be characterized as a series of footnotes to Plato. Certainly the quest for truth and goodness on which Plato embarked (drawing on Socrates, and followed pretty faithfully by Aristotle) has arrived after 2,400 years at a miserable state of affairs where no modem philosopher is known to the general public apart from the self-contradictory and depressive Ludwig Wittgenstein. Unlike his mentor, the realism seeking Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein had no interest in science and was happy to leave psychology to the arid evasions of behaviourism while he dismissed as 'language games' the West's classic concens with metaphysics — with how to describe objectively the world that lies beyond the efforts of the physicist. Thus it is that, in today's public debates (e.g. Sturrock 1998) over the concems of Parisian Professor Luce Irigay to modify or qualify Einstein's equation E = MC^ because it is sexist (entirely concerned with things going very fast in straight lines), no big-name philosopher can be found to speak for science against PeeCee.
Needless to say, Lyotard's proposal that 'people do not exist' goes equally unchallenged by any philosopher feeling able to draw on 100 years of empirical psychology and its findings. Although differential psychologists find impressive personal continuities over time (not least in IQ which correlates 0.78 with itself across
forty years of adulthood — Schwartzman et al. 1987), philosophy in the English speaking world still shares David Hume's sceptical worry that a person cannot be proved to be anything more than a changeful "bundle of sensations".
Often it is Plato who is blamed for the West's follies, as befits his philosophical pre-eminenc.
Certainly it was Plato who provided the most enduring answer to the materialism of thinkers such as Democritus and the relativism of the Sophists. Building on the mathematical discoveries of Pythagoras, Plato argued that there was a world of tmth beyond the senses and urged men to seek such tmth, claiming that in it they would also find freedom, beauty, goodness and justice. Plato envisaged three types of being: the timeless, unchanging Ideas of a realm of intelligible and time Being; the objects of sense-perception in a realm of Becoming; and the human soul whose business was to mediate between the first two realms. Plato's improvement on materialism and relativism markedly resembles that of the greatest modem philosopher of science, the late Sir Karl Popper, who finally came to a 'three world' metaphysical theory (of products of mind, mental experiences and dispositions and physical objects). Plato's school, the Academy, lasted almost a thousand years and remained — thanks also to Aristotle — an abiding influence on the Christian world.
However, there were three enduring problems for three-worldism.

The first was that there were not enough truths to stock the 'higher'
realm, for the truths of geometry and the laws of logic and the 'clear and
distinct' intuition of Descartes that must exist can take one only so far.
The second problem was causal to the first. It proved hard to agree
criteria by which to decide what was and what was not a higher truth. In
particular, it proved hard to provide a resounding endorsement of
empirical science — at least until Popper provided his rationale that
scientific truth required not positive demonstration but the failure of
attempts to falsify a theory's predictions.
Thirdly, it proved hard to establish any interesting number of moral
truths. Though Kant worked hard to argue that one should behave as if
one's behaviour might become a universal maxim, this was not very
suitable to coping with individual differences and Kant's authority was
eventually dented by Einstein's proving that space-time was not in fact
neatly four-dimensional as Kant had stoutly maintained it must be. Nor
was utilitarianism much help, again because of individual differences:
partly, individual happiness is substantially under genetic control; partly
happiness is caused idiosyncratically in different people, defying the
grander utilitarian ideas of improving the human condition. Lastly,
Plato's own insistence that the good life should essentially involve a quest
for higher truth understandably came to be taken by others as a
puritanical abjuration of the world of the senses and of sex. Plato's model
of the human soul resembles the one that would be adopted by Freud, of
a charioteer (the voice of reason, Freud's ego, allowing reality-contact
and wisdom) battling to get the best from two very different horses, one
passionate and impulsive (the appetitive id) and the other more organized
and focussed (the purposeful superego). People who adopt such a model
can understandably slip towards thinking that the charioteer might be
better off working with just iht one, relatively controlled horse and doing
without the passionate hors<5 altogether. The later formulations of
mystical neoplatonism encouraged such slippage, as did the Church.

Of course, Christianity did not altogether forget the body. Indeed, it insisted on a bodily resurrection as a key part of the after-life of the believer. In particular, Aristotle's less mystical version of Platonic realism eventually became central to Christianity as articulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas. The mediaeval church was happy to accept that the existence of God could be proved by reason as well as by faith and it happily added to its repertoire Aristotle's never very forcefully expressed belief that the earth was the centre of the universe, as well as his more considered beliefs in the inferiority of women and in the naturalness of slavery. (Aristotle was a romantic who had loved his wife dearly till her early death — when he proceeded to have children by her slave; but he had departed from Plato's views that women were the equals of men and that Greek should not enslave Greek.) More importantly, Aristotle's two categories of cognitive and affective functions departed from Plato's three-world view that allowed a distinction between the realms of intellect (products) and intelligence (operations). Indeed, the Church would pay a high price for linking itself to Aristotle, for the latter's insistence on teleological causation would prove unacceptable to John Locke, Voltaire and the many other Enlightenment thinkers who took Galileo and Isaac Newton as their heroes.
Having embarked on making truth claims about the natural world, the Church was unable to resist the temptation to have fights with Darwin and Freud, following which
it lost most of its following in the West even though maintaining an active dysgenic influence in Africa. Psychology, too, paid a price: wrapped up in Aristotle's articulation of logic, concern with intelligence (as distinct from the intellectual work of reason) was lost until it was revived by Herbert Spencer (1855); and it was yet another eighty years before Raymond Cattell (e.g. 1936) began to make the vital distinction between ^ZM/J and crystallized intelligence gf and g^ (however, see Chapter 1 in this volume.)
Even Aristotle — the Christian King Solomon, adept in science as much as philosophy — had not proved able to sustain his self-selected supporters. So Western
philosophy collapsed into a set of unedifying arguments about whether there were any native faculties that gave secure access to bits and pieces of truth — or whether a sufficient basis for human knowledge could be found empirically in individually learned associations from the world of the senses. Even at their high points, neither rationalists nor empiricists came up with very much. Instead, their writing involves a constant struggle to keep the wolves of scepticism, relativism and nihilism from the door.
Eventually, following Kant's 'transcendental idealism' — admitting it might be hard to have true knowledge of reality but claiming some of our ideas just had to be right —
the high road to all-round idealism was wide open.
First, Hegel gloried in what had to be the work of the insuperable social collective; then Nietzsche held out the unreasoned hope of a Superman. Martin Heidegger, the philosopher most revered by constructivists today, played an active part in encouraging Nazism while at the same time inspiring Jean Paul Sartre who would pass on to the post-1945 world an 'existential' denial of essence and truth together with a sympathy for communism. Today, though science and mathematics remain the practical bulwark of everyday truth claims in the West, few would care to provide a defence of why this is so; and many in faculties of arts and social science now challenge even the best established truths of psychology — about IQ and race — in their pursuit of an ideological egalitarianism no less fanatical than the Christian gene-denying belief in the 'brotherhood' of man.
Any simple return to Platonism has seemed ruled out at once by Plato's sympathy for eugenics and by his seeing no need for private property. Plato even felt able to propose a considerable scheme of censorship, especially of the poetry and pictures which he thought could so easily mislead people into untruth. Indeed, it is Plato's determinist and authoritarian tendencies that repelled his natural supporter. Popper, from endorsing Platonism. Long unhappy with evolution theory and with the genetic and biological realm that could usefully have made a Fourth World in his own metaphysics. Popper (1945) was unhappy with Plato's question of 'Who should rule?' Sadly, Popper saw Plato's concern with human nature as no more worthy than the "gibberish" of Hegel's "renaissance of tribalism" which began "the tragi-comedy of German idealism"; and, when he finally arrived at his own three-world metaphysics late in life. Popper (e.g.1994) had no inclination to examine its political implications or to revise his youthful condemnation of Plato.
In fact, it is far from obvious that Plato should be blamed for the collapse of his system. Plato's faith in the work of human reason extended far beyond discovering the
truths of mathematics. The high-born and personally courageous Plato was able to derive from his principles a system of governance which he believed would improve
both on aristocracy and on the democracy that had demanded the death of his hero, Socrates. It would also furnish a model of mind. Plato is the only philosopher to have made axiomatic to his thought the 'principle of specialization' — that each person is himself and not another thing, and that behaviour should be expected to reflect individual differences and thus achieve the highest co-operation and happiness. In Plato's Utopian Republic, people would occupy positions according to their own individual natures (metaphorically: gold, silver, brass or iron). Yet open and reasoned discussion among the 'guardian' leaders would be essential to government and intergenerational social mobility was expected, rather than any static caste system. Plato saw the qualities of his selected philosopher-kings, following from their intelligence and knowledge, as likely to include at once courage, self-discipline, a broad vision, a good memory and quickness in learning. Plato's thought clearly allows the presentation of a rich morality and complete politics even if ardent democrats will be a little shocked.
By insisting on the importance of reason in public affairs, Plato was arguably just spelling out what actually tends to happen in all decent Western democracies where, by one route or another, intelligence, education and money all help secure more access to political power. And Plato gratifies any differential psychologist by his frank
endorsement of inherited personality differences and the need for society to be adapted sensibly to them. Platonic authoritarianism is no greater than could be expected in a democratic Athens recently defeated by Sparta. The reasons for the West's rejection of Platonism must be found elsewhere.
Doubtless Plato's elitism proved less than ideal to the running of the Alexandrian empire that was soon to emerge. Empires need to sweet-talk their different tribes, nations and races into a passable co-operation, so the topic of innate human differences is best avoided. Certainly, Christianity sensed a tension with its own stress on the 'brotherhood of man' which required equal respect all round or even a positive veneration of the poor, meek and needy. By the time of Saint Augustine, official Christian philosophy became quite strictly egalitarian — abandoning through the Dark Ages any attempt to rely on human reason and instead adopting the criterion of blind faith.
Yet, to a psychologist, the most obvious problem with the Platonic scheme is just that Plato relied on reason rather than on general intelligence to provide the key method in the search for truth. As is appreciated today, there are many trivial reasoning tasks that are quite often failed by people of good general intelligence — though doubtless even more frequently failed by low-IQ people. Plato's biggest problem was to have adopted a criterion that is not easily defensible as a way of selecting his 'guardians'; and he was optimistic enough to believe that many would be able to master reasoning and pursue truth directly if they had a proper education. IQ testing could have solved Plato's problem. Recognizing g would have provided at once a guiding method for selecting officials, a social goal to be pursued, and the likelihood of persisting individual differences in achievement that would validate his Republic.
Unsurprisingly, subsequent enthusiasts for equality, democracy and utilitarianism did little to rectify Plato's omission. And rationalist philosophers persisted with the original Platonic task of detecting by reason what had to be true about the world — and what they thought would appear readily to any who accepted philosophical discipline. Yet there is a peculiarity that critics of IQ should have noted. How is it that, in the epistemological and metaphysical struggles of the West, no one till Spencer (1855) and Galton (1869) said plainly that the high road to truth (and also to a just and contented society) might be via not reasoning, let alone any 'pursuit of happiness', but via general intelligence?
The matter can be put more simply: How could a great philosopher like Thomas Hobbes have said "As to the faculties of the mind . . . . I find a greater equality amongst
men than [in] physical strength"? Having once formulated questions about human equality and about whether human knowledge is innate or learned, how could philosophers have avoided the observation that some people are more generally intelligent than others? Doubtless, thinking men would have occasionally made, like
Doctor Johnson, the observation that "[True genius] is a mind of large general powers accidentally determined to some particular directions". But what prevented them
exploring and testing the idea? By the eighteenth century, the faculty philosophy of Scotland's Thomas Reid tried to preserve liberalism from Hume's scepticism by
replacing the fruitless search for innate ideas with a recognition of the faculty of 'common sense.' Following England's Francis Bacon and running alongside Joseph
Gall's phrenology, Reid's belief in constitutional determinants of thought was the antecedent of the views of Galton, WiUiam McDougall, Charles Spearman and Burt. Is
such theorizing, though backed by twentieth century research, doomed to be but a flash in the philosophers' pan?

The Scientific Study of General Intelligence -  Tribute to Arthur Jensen

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Jensen, Aurthur Race - Page 8 EmptyMon Dec 31, 2018 9:33 am


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyMon Dec 31, 2018 9:37 am


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyWed Jan 16, 2019 1:31 pm


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
AutSider

AutSider

Gender : Other / Decline to state Posts : 1684
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : none

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyWed Jan 23, 2019 8:32 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is the level of self-referential artificiality we’ve been reduced to:

How do blacks prove they aren’t inferior and were unjustly oppressed and are capable of succeeding? By successfully selling people a movie which says so, after decades of deceitful brainwash propaganda which prepared people for it psychologically.

How did feminists prove women aren’t inferior and were unjustly oppressed and are capable of succeeding? By getting some people (police/military) to force other people to put women in various positions of power and pay them to say so.

How very truthful and productive…
Back to top Go down
apaosha
Daeva
apaosha

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1837
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 37
Location : Ireland

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptyThu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 am

Quote :
This is the level of self-referential artificiality we’ve been reduced to:
"we"
Don't identify yourself with degenerates, or their humiliations will become your humiliations too.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
https://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptySat Feb 02, 2019 3:48 pm

Bolton, Kerry wrote:
'Vertical Race' and 'Horizontal Race'
The two types of race theory according to Yockey are 'horizontal race' and 'vertical race'. The first is the race of the 'spirit,' culture and soul, expounded by the German Idealists, Herder, Goethe, Fichte, et al. The second is biological and materialistic, measured and tabulated, influenced by Darwin and introduced to Germany by Haeckel. Ironically, the Hitlerites largely adopted the English rather than the German.

Yockey - A Fascist Odyssey



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptySat Feb 23, 2019 6:59 am

Race mixing is convolution genetic distinctions. The continuum from genes to memes is obscured.

'Horizontal' race is becoming difficult to trace, leaving 'vertical race' as the only clear connection which is also convoluted when culture can be imitated and/or adopted, sometimes superficially.
A combination can triangulate with more precision.

Race, as a sub-species of the species homo sapient is the English 'vertical' type - gene.
Race, as a attitude a way of engaging reality, use of semiotics spirituality, is a cultural identifier, the German 'horizontal' type - meme.
The point where the horizontal meets the vertical is the precise point, incorporating both genetic memory (DNA) and memetic memory (culture).
If memes are gene specific, and a specific culture could only have emerges from the convergence of specific genes within specific environments, then there can only be a memetic continuance of genetics.
That these memes can be transferred to 'alien' genes, and genes can be integrated into memes that are not of its genetic past, only indicates that in the transference corruption (mutations) occur that may contradict the original.
Dilution of potentials follow when superior mixes with inferior genes, so we can expect a loss in the transference of superior culture into the minds of an inferior.
Furthermore, when someone adopts an alien, to his own genetic past, culture he simply imitates, superficially, what he cannot intimately relate to, lacking the foundations to fully appreciate it.
He wears it like a purchased garment from a tourist's visit to a strange land - an ornament of his 'wordiness'.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Kvasir
Augur
Kvasir

Gender : Male Posts : 3546
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : Gleichgewicht

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptySat Mar 09, 2019 4:02 pm




Animals never have difficulty acting and behaving, unless they become domesticated and their natures are subverted into dysfunction, manifesting neurosis. And even in animals this would be a proper reaction. The negro, however, is never subverted, either culturally or politically or socially. His bestial nature is perennial, constant and mindless. The nigger never has issues acting out, or following impulse, like animals, and if their awareness becomes subverted it manifests as a lashing out at something external because no selfhood exists within them to take precedence over it. Even an animal has the minuscule degree of awareness to know how to discriminate between something good or bad, or a harmful action, and a beneficial action. The nigger's humanness in conjunction with his impulses make him less than an animal, because he has the faculty of decision-making. An animal cannot decide whether something is right or wrong. It knows this instinctively, through urges, but healthy natural urges, not degenerate ones. The nigger is the timeless victim of history. They know themselves only as victims. They know themselves only in someone, or something else which must give them awareness.

Modern blacks, I.e. the tame and domesticated ones, are obsessed with the liberal idea of "love" and "equality". Not in any intellectual way that they understand, but that it is an ideological succor they enjoy, like anything else that makes them feel positive sensations, until something disturbs it and they revert to their hostile base natures to deal with it.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptySat Mar 09, 2019 5:20 pm

Blacks are adopting their old mastr's beliefs, a generations after they've been established.
They are currently discovering that 'slavery' is also a state of mind. This idea is so remarkable to them that only a few can actually understand it.
Like sacrificing all free-will so as to become 'innocent' and not responsible for anything you do.
The domesticated manimal will do anything to remain chained - institutionalized - because it has lost self-respect and is afraid of its own choices, because it no longer trusts its won judgements.

Like a domesticated animal that chooses to be its master's pet than face the wilds on its own.
Some birds die in captivity, others thrive.

Negroes have just now begun to realize that blaming others for their won state is part of their enslavement.
Something Europeans realized centuries ago.
Race mixing is producing benefits for the inferior Negro, while it is producing decline in the superior European.

Superior = what traits make the species homo sapient superior to other species - though they have many other superior traits - is what makes one race superior to another - though not all who belong to the group are to be considered so.
The traits that enabled the species homo sapient to dominate species that were bigger, stronger, faster and more durable, is what is being used to describe superiority between individuals and sub-groups.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 36826
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 58
Location : Hyperborea

Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 EmptySat Mar 09, 2019 6:36 pm

Language, like all technologies, is the externalization of internal processes.
The mind's quality, and how it processes data, is presented through language use.
The individual's 'motive' is in the subtext.
But there's a third layer, unknown to the speaker himself.
Language carries with it subconscious data, along with the conscious data.
Not only what the individual wants to communicate, what motivates him - through the choice of words and their sequence - but also the very essence of the individual that he may not even be aware of - exposed through tone, rhythm, gestures, facial expressions, volume, etc.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Sponsored content




Race - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Race Race - Page 8 Empty

Back to top Go down
 
Race
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 8 of 18Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 13 ... 18  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Race and Demographics
» Race and Tolerance.
» is there a superior race?
» Race, Elitism, and Self-Respect
» No danger no order of rank no race and culture

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: