Facebook's censorship of mainstream science

[ApostateAbe]

Facebook follows a pattern that has been typical among western nations for decades, a pattern that helps to explain why mainstream public thought on matters of race have become grossly absurd relative to relevant mainstream scientific thought: races don't even biologically exist and racial intelligence score differences are either lies or meaningless. When one side of the debate is systemically silenced, then almost everyone accepts the other side of the debate, the winner by default. It has worked. It may strike us as totalitarianist, but it isn't: it is free democracy, the will of the people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That graph doesn't make sense. Look at the white distribution line--a typical bell curve. Note that the line turns down and then levels off in both directions.

Now, look at that supposed black distribution. It looks basically like a triangle, the turn down and then level out pattern does not appear on the left side and is nowhere near as pronounced on the right as it is for the white curve.

That says to me that it's very likely there's something wrong with this data.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That graph doesn't make sense. Look at the white distribution line--a typical bell curve. Note that the line turns down and then levels off in both directions.

Now, look at that supposed black distribution. It looks basically like a triangle, the turn down and then level out pattern does not appear on the left side and is nowhere near as pronounced on the right as it is for the white curve.

That says to me that it's very likely there's something wrong with this data.

Yeah, that's probably why some guy in India deleted it and blocked me for thirty days on behalf of Mark Zuckerberg. From my perspective, the plot seems to fit the theoretical expectation surprisingly well, but you don't have to trust it. Analyses of many other tests show the same thing: blacks lagging behind whites by a standard deviation. See Roth et al, 2011, "Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability and educational setting: A meta-analysis.

 

[blastula]

Facebook is always censoring stuff they shouldn't. Their policy appears to be that if one person says they're offended, they block it.

 

[bigfield]

Facebook follows a pattern that has been typical among western nations for decades, a pattern that helps to explain why mainstream public thought on matters of race have become grossly absurd relative to relevant mainstream scientific thought: races don't even biologically exist and racial intelligence score differences are either lies or meaningless. When one side of the debate is systemically silenced, then almost everyone accepts the other side of the debate, the winner by default. It has worked. It may strike us as totalitarianist, but it isn't: it is free democracy, the will of the people.

Facebook is neither a state nor a democracy. It's a privately-run totalitarian oligarchy that requires obedience of a set of rules designed to maximise profits. They are neither required to be neutral nor obligated to provide you with a political platform. You should cancel your Facebook account if you don't like the way you are being treated.

Besides, it's ironic that you would come crying to TFT about this, when you regularly accuse the TFT mods of bias against your hobby-horse junk science.

 

[crispy]

Could be more fun if they had broken down white IQ into groups of those who care about race/IQ distrubutions and those who dont...

 

[ApostateAbe]

Facebook follows a pattern that has been typical among western nations for decades, a pattern that helps to explain why mainstream public thought on matters of race have become grossly absurd relative to relevant mainstream scientific thought: races don't even biologically exist and racial intelligence score differences are either lies or meaningless. When one side of the debate is systemically silenced, then almost everyone accepts the other side of the debate, the winner by default. It has worked. It may strike us as totalitarianist, but it isn't: it is free democracy, the will of the people.

Facebook is neither a state nor a democracy. It's a privately-run totalitarian oligarchy that requires obedience of a set of rules designed to maximise profits. They are neither required to be neutral nor obligated to provide you with a political platform. You should cancel your Facebook account if you don't like the way you are being treated.

Yes, you are right. Facebook makes its own rules, and that is in the context of a marketplace. Facebook is a writing medium, like a pen and paper. In this case, it is a pen and paper that erases your words and malfunctions if you write words that disagree too much with Mark Zuckerberg. And, it is the only way to communicate with millions of people, the most popular form of communication. Google Plus has only a tenth of the membership. The people love the top-down censorship, so they get it. Facebook is only following a pattern common to every organization with the power to censor. We think to ourselves, "I don't like censorship," but censorship of racism is commonly taken to be a moral responsibility. So, what do you think follows from this? What follows is the heavy happy promotion of anti-racist absurdities, absurdities that would seem grossly ridiculous if not for the self-brainwashing.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Facebook follows a pattern that has been typical among western nations for decades, a pattern that helps to explain why mainstream public thought on matters of race have become grossly absurd relative to relevant mainstream scientific thought: races don't even biologically exist and racial intelligence score differences are either lies or meaningless. When one side of the debate is systemically silenced, then almost everyone accepts the other side of the debate, the winner by default. It has worked. It may strike us as totalitarianist, but it isn't: it is free democracy, the will of the people.

Besides, it's ironic that you would come crying to TFT about this, when you regularly accuse the TFT mods of bias against your hobby-horse junk science.

This forum intermediately follows in the pattern, confining my threads to the poisoned well of "Pseudoscience." But, I am a ten-year veteran, and this forum is much more libertarian than is typical. What is far more typical is an immediate ban and deletion. That is common. What do you think follows from that pattern? A rational society on matters of race?

 

[bigfield]

Facebook is neither a state nor a democracy. It's a privately-run totalitarian oligarchy that requires obedience of a set of rules designed to maximise profits. They are neither required to be neutral nor obligated to provide you with a political platform. You should cancel your Facebook account if you don't like the way you are being treated.

Yes, you are right. Facebook makes its own rules, and that is in the context of a marketplace. Facebook is a writing medium, like a pen and paper. In this case, it is a pen and paper that erases your words and malfunctions if you write words that disagree too much with Mark Zuckerberg. And, it is the only way to communicate with millions of people, the most popular form of communication. Google Plus has only a tenth of the membership. The people love the top-down censorship, so they get it. Facebook is only following a pattern common to every organization with the power to censor. We think to ourselves, "I don't like censorship," but censorship of racism is commonly taken to be a moral responsibility. So, what do you think follows from this? What follows is the heavy happy promotion of anti-racist absurdities, absurdities that would seem grossly ridiculous if not for the self-brainwashing.

I note that it is merely your opinion that the post was deleted due to being "hateful, bigoted, racist"; while that might turn out to be true, posting a graph--without an accompanying comment, annotation or argument--is low-effort shitposting. George S made the same post on this forum as you did on Facebook and it was moved to Pseudoscience.

Besides, it's ironic that you would come crying to TFT about this, when you regularly accuse the TFT mods of bias against your hobby-horse junk science.

This forum intermediately follows in the pattern, confining my threads to the poisoned well of "Pseudoscience."

Pseudoscience is the appropriate place for junk science.

But, I am a ten-year veteran, and this forum is much more libertarian than is typical. What is far more typical is an immediate ban and deletion. That is common. What do you think follows from that pattern? A rational society on matters of race?

Heavy moderation works very well for scientific journals and other media that require a high level of quality at all times. The most laissez-faire discussion boards are sites like 4chan, which have nonexistent moderation and are the virtual equivalent of a toilet stall door. TFT resides somewhere between those two extremes.

An aside: I used to participate on a forum run by outspoken libertarians and they made it very clear that they would perform whatever censorship they deemed necessary to successfully monetise that website. Libertarianism doesn't oblige a private forum to provide freedom of expression.​

Facebook didn't take away the public's rationality; the public has always been irrational. Groups do not spontaneously engage in rational discussion; they spontaneously devolve into rampant shitposting. Facebook is not destroying the rationality of society; the small fraction of people who desire reasoned argument seek it out elsewhere, just as they did before the Internet.

 

[Bronzeage]

Besides, it's ironic that you would come crying to TFT about this, when you regularly accuse the TFT mods of bias against your hobby-horse junk science.

This forum intermediately follows in the pattern, confining my threads to the poisoned well of "Pseudoscience." But, I am a ten-year veteran, and this forum is much more libertarian than is typical. What is far more typical is an immediate ban and deletion. That is common. What do you think follows from that pattern? A rational society on matters of race?

This is a society being rational on matters of race.

 

[ApostateAbe]

This forum intermediately follows in the pattern, confining my threads to the poisoned well of "Pseudoscience." But, I am a ten-year veteran, and this forum is much more libertarian than is typical. What is far more typical is an immediate ban and deletion. That is common. What do you think follows from that pattern? A rational society on matters of race?

This is a society being rational on matters of race.

Would you really expect that rationality would follow from a systemic silencing of scientific claims, a silencing motivated by political ideology? It is an improbable expectation, but there is no need to guess, as the popular beliefs that have followed are internally contradictory. The racial intelligence differences are non-existent and purely cultural caused, both at the same time.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is a society being rational on matters of race.

Would you really expect that rationality would follow from a systemic silencing of scientific claims, a silencing motivated by political ideology? It is an improbable expectation, but there is no need to guess, as the popular beliefs that have followed are internally contradictory. The racial intelligence differences are non-existent and purely cultural caused, both at the same time.

I just checked and it's my fifteen minutes to make you a better man. I know this doesn't come up often, but why waste it. You are misapplying the data of IQ tests to serve your own goals. No one said that IQ tests do not show differences in different racial groups. What is said is the differences are cultural and do not reflect a fundamental physical differences between people of different races.

Please don't be sad when people do not buy into your prepackaged conclusions about the superiority of one race over the other. Oops, look at the time.
Bye now.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Would you really expect that rationality would follow from a systemic silencing of scientific claims, a silencing motivated by political ideology? It is an improbable expectation, but there is no need to guess, as the popular beliefs that have followed are internally contradictory. The racial intelligence differences are non-existent and purely cultural caused, both at the same time.

I just checked and it's my fifteen minutes to make you a better man. I know this doesn't come up often, but why waste it. You are misapplying the data of IQ tests to serve your own goals. No one said that IQ tests do not show differences in different racial groups. What is said is the differences are cultural and do not reflect a fundamental physical differences between people of different races.

Please don't be sad when people do not buy into your prepackaged conclusions about the superiority of one race over the other. Oops, look at the time.
Bye now.

When a science is suppressed, it means a lost opportunity for scientific advancement. The lost opportunity can not be directly seen until the suppression is lifted and the science is allowed to progress. Until then, the science reaches a dead end, and the best path of potential progress is treated as just another one of many dead ends. A few years ago, an intelligence researcher hypothesized that the Flynn effect (the rise of IQ 2-3 points per decade over the last century) could be caused by a secular shift in the frequency of epigenetic marks for intelligence. As time progresses, the genetic variants for intelligence have been activated and expressed. I would like to generalize this hypothesis, as it isn't just intelligence, but there have been many other secular shifts over the last century: bodily stature, brain size, cranium size, fertility, and violence. They have tended to be in the direction of greater K selection, per the theory of JP Rushton. He theorized that races differentiate according to r/K selection, with higher IQ and lighter skinned races being more K selected. The most plausible environmental trigger for such epigenetic K selection would seem to be a progressively lower rate of observed death. Less death would mean greater K selection, an evolutionary reason to immediately invest in the K traits. My hypothesis would build on Rushton's theory, and, if true, the hypothesis would have the potential to enable epigenetic engineering for a large array of K selected traits, which tend to be more desirable. If I were to take the hypothesis almost anywhere, then it would be immediately shut down because it is racist. According to you, I presume this is exactly the way it should be.

 

[Bronzeage]

I just checked and it's my fifteen minutes to make you a better man. I know this doesn't come up often, but why waste it. You are misapplying the data of IQ tests to serve your own goals. No one said that IQ tests do not show differences in different racial groups. What is said is the differences are cultural and do not reflect a fundamental physical differences between people of different races.

Please don't be sad when people do not buy into your prepackaged conclusions about the superiority of one race over the other. Oops, look at the time.
Bye now.

When a science is suppressed, it means a lost opportunity for scientific advancement. The lost opportunity can not be directly seen until the suppression is lifted and the science is allowed to progress. Until then, the science reaches a dead end, and the best path of potential progress is treated as just another one of many dead ends. A few years ago, an intelligence researcher hypothesized that the Flynn effect (the rise of IQ 2-3 points per decade over the last century) could be caused by a secular shift in the frequency of epigenetic marks for intelligence. As time progresses, the genetic variants for intelligence have been activated and expressed. I would like to generalize this hypothesis, as it isn't just intelligence, but there have been many other secular shifts over the last century: bodily stature, brain size, cranium size, fertility, and violence. They have tended to be in the direction of greater K selection, per the theory of JP Rushton. He theorized that races differentiate according to r/K selection, with higher IQ and lighter skinned races being more K selected. The most plausible environmental trigger for such epigenetic K selection would seem to be a progressively lower rate of observed death. Less death would mean greater K selection, an evolutionary reason to immediately invest in the K traits. My hypothesis would build on Rushton's theory, and, if true, the hypothesis would have the potential to enable epigenetic engineering for a large array of K selected traits, which tend to be more desirable. If I were to take the hypothesis almost anywhere, then it would be immediately shut down because it is racist. According to you, I presume this is exactly the way it should be.

Sorry, your 15 minutes are up.

 

[ApostateAbe]

When a science is suppressed, it means a lost opportunity for scientific advancement. The lost opportunity can not be directly seen until the suppression is lifted and the science is allowed to progress. Until then, the science reaches a dead end, and the best path of potential progress is treated as just another one of many dead ends. A few years ago, an intelligence researcher hypothesized that the Flynn effect (the rise of IQ 2-3 points per decade over the last century) could be caused by a secular shift in the frequency of epigenetic marks for intelligence. As time progresses, the genetic variants for intelligence have been activated and expressed. I would like to generalize this hypothesis, as it isn't just intelligence, but there have been many other secular shifts over the last century: bodily stature, brain size, cranium size, fertility, and violence. They have tended to be in the direction of greater K selection, per the theory of JP Rushton. He theorized that races differentiate according to r/K selection, with higher IQ and lighter skinned races being more K selected. The most plausible environmental trigger for such epigenetic K selection would seem to be a progressively lower rate of observed death. Less death would mean greater K selection, an evolutionary reason to immediately invest in the K traits. My hypothesis would build on Rushton's theory, and, if true, the hypothesis would have the potential to enable epigenetic engineering for a large array of K selected traits, which tend to be more desirable. If I were to take the hypothesis almost anywhere, then it would be immediately shut down because it is racist. According to you, I presume this is exactly the way it should be.

Sorry, your 15 minutes are up.

I don't much care for your 15 minutes, as you may have expected.

 

[Bronzeage]

Sorry, your 15 minutes are up.

I don't much care for your 15 minutes, as you may have expected.

It's not possible for you to care more than I expected.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The sordid reality would be: my theory probably isn't my theory. A few other academics likely thought of it years ago, and they never found the opportunity to publish it, because of the exceptionally high bar imposed by respectable journals on racist theories.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are misapplying the data of IQ tests to serve your own goals. No one said that IQ tests do not show differences in different racial groups. What is said is the differences are cultural and do not reflect a fundamental physical differences between people of different races.

Something to keep in mind: any data which attempts to show racial differences (whether genetic or discrimination) and doesn't control for socioeconomic status is worthless.

 

[ApostateAbe]

You are misapplying the data of IQ tests to serve your own goals. No one said that IQ tests do not show differences in different racial groups. What is said is the differences are cultural and do not reflect a fundamental physical differences between people of different races.

Something to keep in mind: any data which attempts to show racial differences (whether genetic or discrimination) and doesn't control for socioeconomic status is worthless.

Racial intelligence differences exist even after controlling for SES, but maybe that is not what you mean. I can take a guess at what you mean, but I don't want to misrepresent your thinking. I suggest being highly aware of the motivation to look for excuses to dismiss the data. Even if we had absolutely no idea of what causes the racial intelligence gaps, the data is far from "worthless." It deeply ties into a vast array of other racial inequalities.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I actually agree with Loren here:
(1) the black distribution in the op does not look nearly as normal as the white distribution;
(2) while i don't think that SES completely covers all the effects of poverty, not including it or other factors does make the graph worthless.