Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
hifihigh said:
WOW! sciencemag. It has science in the name1111. I wonder if this is a front for 'race realists'. probably not because they have 'science' in their doman name f
kS SAKE YOU IDIOT. YOU fkING MORON
in the mean time: https://twitter.com/davecurtis314/status/122970117...
When you say 'we spread to every continent' do you mean humans or white humans?
Not really going into much on the back and forth, but the magazine is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which it almost certainly not a front for Race realists despite having Science in its name. kS SAKE YOU IDIOT. YOU fkING MORONin the mean time: https://twitter.com/davecurtis314/status/122970117...
When you say 'we spread to every continent' do you mean humans or white humans?
Graveworm said:
hifihigh said:
WOW! sciencemag. It has science in the name1111. I wonder if this is a front for 'race realists'. probably not because they have 'science' in their doman name fkS SAKE YOU IDIOT. YOU fkING MORON
in the mean time: https://twitter.com/davecurtis314/status/122970117...
When you say 'we spread to every continent' do you mean humans or white humans?
Not really going into much on the back and forth, but the magazine is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which it almost certainly not a front for Race realists despite having Science in its name. kS SAKE YOU IDIOT. YOU fkING MORONin the mean time: https://twitter.com/davecurtis314/status/122970117...
When you say 'we spread to every continent' do you mean humans or white humans?
hifihigh said:
Thanks. It's a shame he spoiled it at the end by revealing his emotional involvement, it always detracts from credibility. His range of definition is very narrow in that he restricts to breeding eugenics and is adamant we will *never* be able to do something; CRISPR etc are of course a burgeoning science, human embryo experimentation is beyond the pale in the West, but - despite their claims to the contrary - very much alive in the Chinese military labs. [it's not particularly my bailiwick though tbh].On the general 'evil racist' comments there and above, I think again that people should be careful, the epithet becomes more destructive to people (rightly) as time goes on, it is a brand carried for a long time and before branding, we should be clear on it. Lumping Eichmann, Tommy Robinson and Sabisky together both devalues the word and misses the nuance. I don't think he is racist, I think he studied a century of research and threw that in with other ideas in a detached way rather than having been motivated by a hatred for other races to find that data and twist it. If you are not pro-celibacy, are you a rapist...?
In the US, SAT scores lie on pretty much the same line as IQ scores. As discussed before, this is interpreted as largely due to environmental factors. Colleges in the US this year have an algorithmic option - 'Environmental Context Dashboard' or 'adversity index' - that allows for fine-tuning environmental factors out of SAT scores, so if you are coming from a school with a high rate of 'free lunches', a deprived area, large class size etc, you get a lower threshold to enter college. [1600 becomes 1230 etc]. This may help with leveling the playing field, including for those financially poor white kids who were lost in the data.
There is a certain irony of the, no doubt well intentioned, hyperbolic reaction of people promoting 'empathy and a high EQ' in the same breath. I get why and laud the feeling, but facts don't care about feelings, particularly in a more scientific context/conversation which occurs prior to asking society what it thinks. The two are, and should be, separate. [There are dangers, but we're used to those]. That's how we got to the moon.
This isn't particularly a defense of Sabisky - the irony of a forecaster ignoring potential societal reaction to posts he made [on obscure fora several years ago] isn't lost, nor do I think he was completely right on the points courting controversy. it's an attempt to balance the more intense reactions, usually fed to us and greeted with unblinking acceptance today by a press and social media world that we spent only yesterday condemning for lies and exaggeration.
JagLover said:
DeepEnd said:
It might be more useful to focus on Emotional Intelligence and empathy than IQ if we want a better society.
Which would be great for sitting around in a drum circle but rather less effective in producing the scientific breakthroughs needed to improve our way of life. (Sounds like a discussion between Dr McCoy and Mr Spock).
Does the quest for perfection trump the quest for humanity?
Shades of Aldous Huxley.
I prefer imperfection and inefficiency and all the other weaknesses of people. It's what makes life interesting.
Eric Mc said:
Are you suggesting that that the best chances of scientific breakthroughs are likely to come from people who are less emotionally mature - or who rate their emotions as somehow being less important than their purely rational side?
(Sounds like a discussion between Dr McCoy and Mr Spock).
Does the quest for perfection trump the quest for humanity?
Shades of Aldous Huxley.
I prefer imperfection and inefficiency and all the other weaknesses of people. It's what makes life interesting.
What I am suggesting is that scientific advance has tended to come from brilliant minds who are of limited numbers and the modern world we live in is predominantly due to their work.(Sounds like a discussion between Dr McCoy and Mr Spock).
Does the quest for perfection trump the quest for humanity?
Shades of Aldous Huxley.
I prefer imperfection and inefficiency and all the other weaknesses of people. It's what makes life interesting.
Emotional intelligence has a vital place in a well functioning society but the advancement of the human condition is driven by the best of us (intellectually speaking) who may well be detached from the normal human condition or even on the "spectrum".
Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 19th February 10:15
Sway said:
Should we seek to eliminate autism as they're insufficiently capable of gaining "emotional intelligence" or "empathy"?
Lots of people who are on the spectrum - especially those who are undiagnosed - will struggle with a lot of things in life that others find easy (social gatherings, relationships, adapting to change etc) and will suffer as a result. So, maybe yes we should.TTwiggy said:
Lots of people who are on the spectrum - especially those who are undiagnosed - will struggle with a lot of things in life that others find easy (social gatherings, relationships, adapting to change etc) and will suffer as a result. So, maybe yes we should.
Wait - you're talking about this Sabinsky incel, right?JagLover said:
What I am suggesting is that scientific advance has tended to come from brilliant minds who are of limited numbers and the modern world we live in is predominantly due to their work.
Emotional intelligence has a vital place in a well functioning society but the advancement of the human condition is driven by the best of us (intellectually speaking) who may well be detached from the normal human condition or even on the "spectrum".
Right but wouldn’t eugenics actually be about getting rid of those traits? That’s the irony of some of these people really into eugenics, if you’re proposing eugenics you’ve likely got traits that would be seen as undesirable in society, depending on who gets to decide obviously. Emotional intelligence has a vital place in a well functioning society but the advancement of the human condition is driven by the best of us (intellectually speaking) who may well be detached from the normal human condition or even on the "spectrum".
Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 19th February 10:15
The people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.
El stovey said:
Right but wouldn’t eugenics actually be about getting rid of those traits? That’s the irony of some of these people really into eugenics, if you’re proposing eugenics you’ve likely got traits that would be seen as undesirable in society, depending on who gets to decide obviously.
The people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.
bingo againThe people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.
how many incels have we got here?
El stovey said:
Right but wouldn’t eugenics actually be about getting rid of those traits? That’s the irony of some of these people really into eugenics, if you’re proposing eugenics you’ve likely got traits that would be seen as undesirable in society, depending on who gets to decide obviously.
The people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.
A well functioning society wouldn't all have people of a particular intelligence or emotional type. To point out one obvious problem if everyone is a brilliant scientist who is doing all the basic work. The people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.
El stovey said:
The people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.
Seriously? You dont think its a good thing to eliminate genetic deficiencies/disadvantages? I am not prone to alzheimers /heart disease etc etc (at least yet!)but I dont wish those conditions on anyone. So why not edit out the bad genes?
JagLover said:
El stovey said:
Right but wouldn’t eugenics actually be about getting rid of those traits? That’s the irony of some of these people really into eugenics, if you’re proposing eugenics you’ve likely got traits that would be seen as undesirable in society, depending on who gets to decide obviously.
The people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.
A well functioning society wouldn't all have people of a particular intelligence or emotional type. To point out one obvious problem if everyone is a brilliant scientist who is doing all the basic work. The people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.
JagLover said:
A well functioning society wouldn't all have people of a particular intelligence or emotional type. To point out one obvious problem if everyone is a brilliant scientist who is doing all the basic work.
Yes but JagLover said:
What I am suggesting is that scientific advance has tended to come from brilliant minds who are of limited numbers and the modern world we live in is predominantly due to their work.
Emotional intelligence has a vital place in a well functioning society but the advancement of the human condition is driven by the best of us (intellectually speaking) who may well be detached from the normal human condition or even on the "spectrum".
Eugenics would likely be about getting rid of the “spectrum” and people “detached from the normal human condition”Emotional intelligence has a vital place in a well functioning society but the advancement of the human condition is driven by the best of us (intellectually speaking) who may well be detached from the normal human condition or even on the "spectrum".
s2art said:
El stovey said:
The people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.
Seriously? You dont think its a good thing to eliminate genetic deficiencies/disadvantages? I am not prone to alzheimers /heart disease etc etc (at least yet!)but I dont wish those conditions on anyone. So why not edit out the bad genes?
If you’d got rid of bad genes, would you keep autism? If not you wouldn’t have people like Newton or Michelangelo or Mozart or Sir Isaac Newton etc
El stovey said:
Eugenics would likely be about getting rid of the “spectrum” and people “detached from the normal human condition”
Extremely unlikely as autism is also described as being an "extremely male brain". Scientists and mathematicians usually test higher on the autistic spectrum and to try and eliminate those traits is also likely to significantly reduce scientific advancement.When it comes to intelligence any realistic eugenics programme is likely to be to try and shift the mean a bit to the right so the average is slightly higher and those with exceptional intelligence far more prevalent.
JagLover said:
El stovey said:
Eugenics would likely be about getting rid of the “spectrum” and people “detached from the normal human condition”
Extremely unlikely as autism is also described as being an "extremely male brain". Scientists and mathematicians usually test higher on the autistic spectrum and to try and eliminate those traits is also likely to significantly reduce scientific advancement.When it comes to intelligence any realistic eugenics programme is likely to be to try and shift the mean a bit to the right so the average is slightly higher and those with exceptional intelligence far more prevalent.
the article said:
Genetics plays a large role in causing autism, so knowing more about which genes influence it could allow a better understanding of the condition.
It is a rapidly unfolding area of research, but there is a problem. As director of the University of Cambridge’s Autism Research Centre, I am increasingly aware that more and more autistic people don’t want to take part in genetics studies.
It seems to be happening because of a fear that the agenda is eugenics – find the genes to identify potentially autistic babies in pregnancy, and terminate such pregnancies. These fears are understandable if we look at how this has happened in the case of Down’s syndrome.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2179104-genetic-studies-intend-to-help-people-with-autism-not-wipe-them-out/#ixzz6EOf2h05IIt is a rapidly unfolding area of research, but there is a problem. As director of the University of Cambridge’s Autism Research Centre, I am increasingly aware that more and more autistic people don’t want to take part in genetics studies.
It seems to be happening because of a fear that the agenda is eugenics – find the genes to identify potentially autistic babies in pregnancy, and terminate such pregnancies. These fears are understandable if we look at how this has happened in the case of Down’s syndrome.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff