The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Are the Stupid Too Stupid to Realize They’re Stupid?

Has it ever seemed to you that less competent people rate their competence higher than it actually is, while more competent people humbly rate theirs lower?

It’s not just your imagination. This is a genuine cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The Dunning-Kruger experiments behind the research focused on cognitive tasks (logic, grammar, and evaluating humor), but similar disparities exist in other areas. In self-assessment of IQ, below-average people overestimated their score and those above average underestimated.

Studies of healthy and unhealthy behaviors are handicapped when they rely on self-reporting because test subjects tend to improve their evaluation. In self-evaluations of driving ability, job performance, and even immunity to bias, we tend to polish our image.

This is called the Lake Wobegone Effect, named after the town where “all the children are above average.”

Notice that there are two different categories of error:

(1) the error where there is a preferred answer and most people are biased toward giving that answer (“How much snack food do you eat?” or “How popular would you say you are?” or “How good a driver are you?”), and

(2) the error where bias changes depending on actual competence, with the less and more competent groups rating themselves too high and too low, respectively.

Let’s look at the second category, where the two extremes make opposite errors. The Dunning-Kruger research hypothesizes that the competent overestimate others’ skill levels. But the error is more complicated for the incompetent—they overestimate their own skill level and they lack the metacognition to realize their error. In other words, they were too incompetent to recognize their own incompetence. Improving their metacognitive skills drove down their self-assessment scores as they became better evaluators of their own limitations.

The original paper was titled, “Unskilled and Unaware of It,” for which the authors won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2000.

The trouble with the world
is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt.
— Bertrand Russell

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 8/25/12.)

Photo credit:  Robert Orr, flickr, CC

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Dys

    I would be remiss if I didn’t provide the video of Monty Python’s John Cleese on the subject. Because he’s awesome.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      “There are two things infinite; the universe and human stupidity
      and I’m not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein

      • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

        lol

        • adam

          Funny how your stupidity has no limits?

      • johzek

        I recently heard this Einstein quote. “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”

      • RichardSRussell

        I heard something similar about the difference between the Universe and the NBA playoffs, in that we know the Universe will eventually come to an end.

    • RichardSRussell

      You know what else is awesome? Right after that video is done running, YouTube offers up still shots of 4 similar videos you might also like. 2 of them are more Cleese, 1 is George Carlin, and 1 is Sarah Palin.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Oh, I see. All people dedicated to making us laugh. Nice.

  • ElRay

    They’re not too stupid to realize they’re stupid. They’re too arrogant to even conceive that they’re ignorant and need to learn something.

    • David Andrew Kearney

      Well, both can be true.

    • Kodie

      I definitely know one guy like that. If he learns something he likes, it goes in his personal bible. If you say something, usually offhand, he will chime in that that’s wrong because he read somewhere else a long time ago and it was chiseled in stone as far as he’s concerned. His credentials give him a lot of confidence as well – graduated from an Ivy League school more than 40 years ago. His impression of himself is a guy whose stories are wonderful and everyone will gather ’round to hear about him, or read the really really long facebook updates about his time at the airport or his time at the doctor, or whatever. He’s proud of some of his incompetence, as people who are just too important to ever have learned how to grocery shop or get himself dressed without putting something on inside-out often seem to have a “self-deprecating” humor about how difficult easy things are for them.

      • Aram McLean

        I think I know that guy.

    • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

      oh…so if they just buckled down in school they will equal the A students. Thanks for enlightening me dude.

  • mobathome

    Dunning and Kruger don’t discuss “the stupid”. Their study us about self-perception in particular classes of tasks. They are careful to say that people can be competent in one area, while being incompetent in another.

    • Ann Kah

      Second verse, same as the first. We all know people who are very good at one thing and bad at another. The word “stupid” is a paraphrase which explains the concept just the same.

      • RichardSRussell

        It’s not the same, tho. It’s a meta-analysis.

        For instance, I am good at databases and terrible at cooking, but I know I’m terrible at cooking. The Dunning-Kruger Effect refers to people who are so incompetent they don’t know how incompetent they are and actually think they’re good. The term covers a broader range than just intelligence, but it certainly includes stupid people who think they’re smart.

        It also includes climate-change deniers who think they’re scientists; they actually believe they know better than the overwhelming consensus of actual, practicing, well informed, well trained climatologists — and they indignantly proclaim as much at every opportunity. Classic D-K.

        • Kodie

          More meta than that – they don’t think they’re smarter than scientists, but they think they’re smart enough to discern who is telling them the truth. Liars very often use someone’s perceived intelligence to hook them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The evolution or climate-change denier argument to me is always some variant of “Think for yourself!”

          That’s normally good advice, and it feels good–that I’m smart enough to decide for myself, not have some ivory-tower egghead tell me what to think–and yet it’s complete bullshit.

    • Greg G.

      When the press got ahold of it, one of the examples was a bank robber who didn’t wear a mask. When arrested, he was saying he had used the juice. He had got the idea that lemon juice would render his face invisible to cameras. He tested it by trying to take a selfie with old camera and only got the wall.

  • 90Lew90

    I often find myself thinking “Dunning-Kruger” in discussions with religious people, particularly when they start listing questionable “credentials”. Like our Greg the “lawyer” who posts here. I try not to fire off that charge unless they’re being completely stupid because I’m well aware and unabashed that I’m nothing more than a dilettante. Religion interests me, but less and less so daily, I’m finding. Plants and animals interest me more and more daily. Every decent job I’ve held down I feel like I’ve bluffed my way into. I’ve never been sacked, but people much better qualified than me on paper have come and gone either for lack of diligence or sheer incompetence. The situations in which I’ve managed to pass myself off as plausible during my youth make me shudder now. Irish terrorists. Yardies in London. Street people. Been there, done that. And at the opposite end of the social spectrum, particularly in London, fashion crowds, establishment journalists, artistic crowds, important young academics. I’ve never felt as though I fitted into any of the circles I’ve moved in, from the seriously violent and criminal to the seriously sophisticated and privileged to the just plain fucked up. I’ve been a little barfly. The older I get (I’m only just into my late-30s), the more I find I’d just like to read more and spend some time writing my own truth. Nothing shocks me any more. I wonder what Dunning and Kruger would have to say about that. It’s a difficult job to be honest — really, really honest — and it is the job of any writer to try to be honest. If anything, since childhood, I’ve always thought I’d be a writer. I’d quite like to have a go at that. I suppose I’ll either have to order a Kevlar suit or move into the woods and live in a tent.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Sounds exciting. Aside from “write what’s true,” do you know what you’d want to focus on? Is your journalism working for you, or do you want to move on to books?

      • 90Lew90

        I got out of reporting very quickly because I didn’t like what I was being asked to do (basically screwing people over and making stories out of non-stories at editors’ behest). I had another go at it when I came back to Northern Ireland from London but the editor I was working under there was a disaster. He very nearly sank the paper. So most of my newspaper work has been as a sub-editor (copy editor), writing headlines, cleaning up and cutting copy, shielding the paper from libel suits because some of the reporters didn’t seem to understand that you can’t convict people before an actual judge does. That sort of thing.

        As regards my own writing, I’m not sure. Everyone thinks they have a book in them and it would be daunting. I’ve thought about blogging but a blog needs consistency. I’ve only really started thinking about it in the past couple of months. I’ll have to give it some more serious thought. I know a guy who’s a great character and a very accomplished writer. He’s published a lot and ran a writing group in a prison which resulted in two books, so I suppose my first move would be to get some ideas together and approach him. It’s good to bash ideas around though, thanks for the interest!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It may be a misery-loves-company kind of thing, but I’m always interested in other people getting more into writing. For me, it was lots of solitary work, but I was pleased with the result.

          I think everyone thinks they’ll get more sales than they do, which gets back to the idea of writing to satisfy yourself. If you do that, then the project is successful even before it winds up in paper form.

        • TheNuszAbides

          He’s published a lot and ran a writing group in a prison which resulted in two books, so I suppose my first move would be to get some ideas together

          it’s inspiring that your first move isn’t to prison! (not to say that there’s no reason to work in/with one…)

        • 90Lew90

          Hope not! I went to the launch of the first anthology though (it’s called ‘The Magilligan Sentence’ if you’re interested) and the contributors who were able to make it gave readings from their work, before we all got thoroughly drunk together and the stories got even more colourful than the ones in the book.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i’m very interested, thanks!

    • Kodie

      I don’t like to write and think I’m terrible at it, and even I have a pseudonym all picked out.

      • Max Doubt

        “I don’t like to write and think I’m terrible at it, and even I have a pseudonym all picked out.”

        I got kicked out on the first day of a creative writing course at the community college. The instructor asked if I had a pen name. I said, “Yes, it’s Papermate.”

        • Kodie

          Was your professor unimpressed by your quick wit or just unwilling to teach someone unfamiliar with the term?

        • Greg G.

          I would quill for a nom de plume like that.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Reminds me of a line in “Dumb and Dumber.” The boys are looking for a guy whose briefcase they have. They’re trying to remember his name and then one of them has the clever idea to check to see if it’s printed on the briefcase somewhere.

          They decide that his name must be “Samsonite.”

        • busterggi

          The ancient Hebrews conquered the Samsonites – with Yahweh on their side victory was in the bag.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And weren’t the Samsonites the strong guys with the long hair?

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        You do a good job at writing here–a little in need of tightening sometimes but your word pictures are without equal.

        But if you dislike it, then I guess that’s that.

        • Kodie

          If I can think of what to say, I just have to say it. If I have to go over it, that’s the dreadful part. If it’s a short post, not so dreadful, but could become a longer post. I mean longer.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Interesting. I’m usually the opposite with my editing. If I am writing about something I care about (as opposed to some sort of drudgery), I’m usually interested in rereading it and improving it.

        • Kodie

          Once I get involved with my writing as an editor, all I do is think of more stuff to add in, and hardly anything to take out or tighten up as you say. If it’s a one-liner, I could say it sometimes takes a while to get that, but it’s only one line. If it’s already a lot of lines, it’s just going to become more lines. And I will also tell you that if I am going on, about half the time, editing says post, and half the time, editing says delete the motherfucker. So.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve heard the writerly advice, “Kill your darlings”?

          It ain’t easy.

        • TheNuszAbides

          it seems especially galling when most of one’s darlings are parts of occasionally-argumentative exchanges, and one doesn’t wish to compromise on turning one more parenthetically-embedded phrase… no matter how few others will ever be inclined to tease out any inadvertent substance…

        • Greg G.

          That’s how I do it. I even do that with when I write Javacripts.

        • 90Lew90

          Your writing is well polished, the effort you put in is obvious. If I’m writing *for* something as opposed to commenting on blogs I usually write in the morning, re-read at night and again the following day. A bit of a problem with me is that my “voice” tends to change. When I’m reading this blog for example, I’m “hearing” it all in an American accent, especially with your writing because I’ve actually heard you speak, and I catch myself slipping into American idiom. I’m also fully aware that sometimes I come across as insufferably pompous, but I had Queen’s-English rules drummed into me and try to aim for clarity. I practically idolise Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Hitchens, Joyce and (perhaps an odd one, this) Nabokov for achieving that so brilliantly and seemingly effortlessly.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I have the same problem. Sometimes after I watch an engaging movie, I’ll feel like one of the characters that I connected with, and that changes how I speak, act, and write. But of course the upside of that is that if you’re writing a scene with a particular quality, you can watch a movie (or listen to music) to get you in the right mood.

          I’ve never gotten a sense of pomposity from your writing. If you often corrected others’ grammar, that might get annoying, but you don’t. (I’m occasionally tempted, especially since it’s always the Christians with the atrocious grammar, but my comments are poorly edited and I make mistakes myself.)

        • CandideThirtythree

          When I was a kid, I would imitate how different people spoke. It was fun, I got laughs, so I kept doing it until one day I realized that I didn’t remember how I was supposed to sound.

          It made my mother furious so of course that was another reason for doing it until she ordered me to stop and I couldn’t. She slapped me in the face repeatedly and I still couldn’t so I had to just stop talking for a few days.

          I had gotten many of those ‘voices’ out of books and I still think the best writers give their characters voices.

        • Dys

          And that’s why I usually have anywhere from 3-4 edits on my comments, lol.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ah–that’s why your thoughts flow better. You cheat!

      • MNb

        For someone who’s terrible at writing you quite often formulate better what I think and feel than I myself.

        • Kodie

          I swear I wasn’t fishing for compliments but thanks. I don’t think I’m a good writer and I take Bob’s critique as pretty much why. I don’t map out where I’m going, and I don’t look back, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think I pass some pretty good material on the way. If I edit any of my comments after post, it’s mostly because of verb tense, break a paragraph or two (somewhat arbitrarily), or I thought of something else I needed to say. I don’t think an occasional spontaneous keen observation or turn of phrase makes a person good at writing.

          The point was I’m not a writer nor do I aspire to be one, I sort of hate the idea of it, but I mentally record an episode of life here and there, and think it might be part of a good story (of the “truth is sometimes stranger than fiction” category), if I felt like writing it. Lew’s ideal to tell the truth was to either face the music and take his beatings or hide in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, why hide that far away if you can just make up a fake name.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I have a long-standing habit of obsessing over my textual output for a thoroughly randomized amount of time before ‘letting it go’ but I have never been consistent academically, nor even remotely inclined professionally to “have a go at it”. (perhaps an allergy to the notion of selling creativity…) it’s pure accident when i can even begin to evaluate the efforts of others, let alone describe them coherently to a third party.

          but weirdly, i find myself coming out of a certain sort of fog/fugue and noticing that [x amount of time] has been spent in various nooks and crannies of the blogosphere, half-wittingly dispensing utterly unasked-for advice regarding the argument-constructions of others. on some puny level, i’m only trying to help! but sometimes (particularly when you were letting Bob have it for the ‘witch hunt’ post) i’m just worried enough about giving the wrong impression that I blur that distinction. fortunately i tend to end up battling alongside folks who recognize more than “you’re either with us or against us” mentality…

          so, thanks for that. 😉

      • 90Lew90

        I like how you write. There’s often a lot of passion in there!

        • Kodie

          Thanks, Lew. Honestly, I like everyone’s writing how they are, their own voice. Good luck with your writing, make up a pseudonym, that’s the fun part. You get out a pad of paper or open your text program, and you can’t get any ideas, mind wandering yadda yadda yadda – pen name.

        • TheNuszAbides

          The Elements of Style 2.0
          by Yadda Yadda Yadda

    • Greg G.

      I sometimes cast Dunning-Kruger as a general aspersion but I am very careful to spell it correctly. Otherwise, it would look like a self-diagnosis.

      Fortunately, my spell-checker recognizes it so it doesn’t “correct” it. Yesterday, it turned “Kodie” into “Kodiak” when I wasn’t watching.

      • Kodie

        Don’t think I didn’t see it either.

        • Greg G.

          My cell phone has a Freudian chip.

        • Kodie

          Don’t have a problem admitting that took me a couple seconds. :)

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        She is kind of a grizzly bear when she is in a certain mood.

      • busterggi

        Shoulda taken a selfie when you typed that – it was a Kodak moment.

      • 90Lew90

        I use Wordpad for longer posts here because it doesn’t auto-correct and keeps the formatting you choose.

        • Greg G.

          The options are limited on the cell phone. I often use Notepad on my laptop, especially when I’ve hit the “Load More Comments” at the bottom of the page a few times and Disqus has been brought to its knees.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i simply eschew anything that doesn’t permit autocorrect {SPIT!} to be Banished With Extreme Prejudice.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t mind when it corrects my mistake and it probably fixes a lot that I was unaware of. But when I type in a word correctly and it changes it to something that makes no sense and changing back requires re-typing it, it gets disturbing. Tihs is mdae wsroe bceuase teh hamun mnid cna wrok out meespllisd wdors fi olny the frist adn lsat letetr aer ni teh ccorert oderr.

        • TheNuszAbides

          to mitigate my spite, i cannot lay claim to the sheer output (or sheer purpose of said output) of any number of individuals who at least occasionally benefit from That Damned Thing.

    • RichardSRussell

      it is the job of any writer to try to be honest.

      I should introduce you to a whole category of books that goes under the collective description “fiction”.

      • Kodie

        “Write what you know”. Or don’t.

      • 90Lew90

        Chuckle. A lot of fiction writers would argue strongly that they aim at truth.

      • MNb

        In addition to Lew: the great Dutch writer Gerard Reve once said that authors lie the truth.

      • Isabelle Ashura

        Fiction is actually the most honest form of writing – because the only thing people will know about the universe in which your work takes place, is what your write about it. So you can’t really lie about it, and if your work starts contradicting itself readers will notice it is. A fictional universe needs to be coherent, or it will cease to exist (see : stories about time travel).
        The only case of fiction being actually dishonest is when the narrator lies on purpose, and generally the author gives enough clues about the fact the narrator is unreliable, so it’s not about the author being dishonest, but one of his characters.

  • Kodie

    The thing about these people is, when they don’t know anything about something, they either think it’s impossible and are easily impressed, or incredibly easy and if they took a whack at it, their results would be much more amazing, so what’s the big deal, why you want praise/ higher pay/ any attention whatsoever. But they want a parade for everything they do, no matter how shitty it is.

  • RichardSRussell

    There’s a related phenomenon, called Imposter Syndrome, wherein competent but insecure people are afraid that everyone will find out they’ve been faking it and aren’t really worthy of credit for their actual abilities and accomplishments.

  • Rob

    All a smart person has to do to convince a stupid person that they are are themselves stupid is to say something that the stupid person doesn’t understand.
    -me, 2015

    “Never argue with a stupid person, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience!”

    -Mark Twain, during history

  • Sophia Sadek

    Don’t let stupid people find out about this or they will start to act humble just to appear to be smarter than they really are.

    • 90Lew90

      Or smart people like Pope Ha-Ha will act stupid to appear more humble.

      • Sophia Sadek

        There is a Roman legend about a guy named Brutus who pretended to be stupid in order to be elected king. He knew that the plutocracy wanted a king they could manipulate.

        • hisxmark

          Actually the original Brutus acted stupid so he wouldn’t be killed. It is dangerous to be openly intelligent.
          As John Lennon sang, “They hate you if you’re clever and they despise a fool.” The safest course is to blend in.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      That’s always the problem, isn’t it? Stupid people acting smart. Or something.

    • Greg G.

      The stupid people will still think they are one of the smart ones so they won’t try to act differently.

  • CandideThirtythree

    My daughter is an actual card carrying genius, I taught her to read and write in just a couple of months…when she was four!
    She was reading the newspaper to her grandfather every morning by the time she turned five. She was doing medical research for the military when she was 17. She is now an epidemiologist and she has told me numerous times in her life that she did not feel particularly smart.

    She has said that it is terrifying to her that if she is one of the smartest people, she has to wonder just how stupid the stupid people really are.

    Most of us know that someone is deemed mentally impared if they possess an IQ lower than 70 but do we really know what the true definition of stupid is?

    America is collectively below average in the IQ department, we are not even in the top 25 of countries with average or above IQ. Scary isn’t it?

    • Greg G.

      You must be one heck of a good teacher.

      • CandideThirtythree

        I was pretty good at it, I am retired now.

    • RichardSRussell

      She has said that it is terrifying to her that if she is one of the smartest people, she has to wonder just how stupid the stupid people really are.

      “Think about how stupid the average person is, then reflect on the fact that half the population is dumber than that.”

      —George Carlin

      • CandideThirtythree

        I loved George! And yes, that is a scary thought. LOL

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      On the topic of IQ, I touch on the Flynn Effect here. You might find that interesting.

      • CandideThirtythree

        Thanks

    • TheNuszAbides

      what’s scary to me is an educator crediting IQ testing with too much significance. Sturgeon’s Law is all I need to prompt despair/disgust over the majority of Human Endeavor; the perverting of Binet’s noble efforts just compound that despair.
      not, in any way, to defend the imaginary dignity of the collective mental prowess of any nation, mind you.

      • CandideThirtythree

        Did you not understand the part about a 4 year old learning to read and write in 2 months?

        I thought not, the whole comment was so far over your head that you didn’t even catch a breeze from it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          maybe i should have said “any” educator; if you thought i was accusing particular-you of anything, please disabuse yourself of the notion.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and you are correct that i wasn’t addressing your startling personal anecdote; but if you require all tangents to be explicitly labeled as such, i issue a blanket apology in advance.

    • Gregory Mullaley

      Yes, I know 535 who are deemed mentally impaired, they are called politicians. These folks are grossly overestimate their intelligence, with a much higher percentage of those at the bottom rung being found in the Republican Party. In a world of Idiots and Imbeciles, a Moron is king; or speaker of the House.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Reminds me of the scene in “Religulous” where a Kentucky senator (?) is excusing his not knowing something fairly important by saying, “Well, you know there’s no intelligence test for being a senator.”

        Oops.

      • CandideThirtythree

        Brilliantly put ole boy!

        They are called “The Stupid Party” and they earned every syllable of that epithet!

    • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

      So the Time Lord Effect™? “Funny little human brains; how do you get around in those?”

  • RichardSRussell

    An exuberant Dag van de Revolutie to our friends in Suriname.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Wednesday is Suriname’s Independence Day? I didn’t know.

      Yay!

  • 90Lew90

    An 8-year-old goes to war on the Dunning-Kruger affected.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fT-jX11poU

  • 90Lew90
  • 2too

    Isn’t it obvious that the less you know, what you know, is a larger part of what you think there is to know, than if you know there is so much you don’t know?

    • Metis

      Socrates first pointed that out, according to Plato.

      “The phrase “I know that I know nothing” or “I know one thing: that I know nothing”, sometimes called the Socratic paradox, is a well-known saying that is derived from Plato’s account of the Greek philosopher Socrates.

      This saying is also connected or conflated with the answer to a question Socrates (Xenophon) or Chaerephon (Plato) is said to have posed to the Pythia, the oracle of Delphi, in which the Oracle stated something like Socrates is the wisest.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

  • Metis

    This reminds me also about unusually brave and heroic people such as those who protected Jews in Europe during World War II. I’ve often heard such heroes quoted saying they were only doing the right thing that anyone would have done. They never give themselves a lot of credit.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Bravery and modesty? That’s an interesting new domain.

      If you’re right, I wonder if there’s the opposite side–the people who are not particularly heroic but who once did something unselfish and then their friends and family never hear the end of it.

      • Metis

        I wonder if a lot of people who brag like that are exaggerating if not actually prevaricating. OR…if what they think is heroic is in reality just brutality.

      • Kodie

        I know that guy.

    • Lookingup73

      Very good point. So many brave and heroic people or others deserving of admiration are rarely the first to point out their accomplishments.

      Even in everyday life, if someone gives me his or her resume (in conversation, orally) or tells me where he or she went to school (when it had nothing to do with the real conversation) I immediately know this person is not worth anything close to what he or she is saying he or she is. After 22 years in the professional world (business world, academia, and even 2 years in seminary) I have never been wrong.

      • Metis

        At the risk of gaining your dislike, may I make a slight grammatical correction? So sorry to quibble, but “someone” does not agree with “their,” since the former is singular and the latter is plural. You’d have to use “his or her” to be correct. I’ve been on a grammar site lately so forgive me.

        • Lookingup73

          Oh good catch – definitely! Correcting it.

        • Lookingup73

          Although, technically their and they are becoming more common and accepted. Even by “grammar authorities”. I forgot to mention that in my previous response to you. (It is also not a necessarily new development in English). Language bends toward simplification over time and saying “his or her” becomes cumbersome.

        • Metis

          You are correct. Language does indeed bend, but some of us resist. “His or her” is awkward (although I sometimes use that expression in the form of his/her); better to change the number of the antecedent to plural, such as “people.” Thanks for your balanced answer.

        • Lookingup73

          Don’t resist! If people always resisted we would be speaking old germanic still and the French would be speaking latin!! :) have a good one – thanks for the discussion!

        • Metis

          Language and its “progress” is a fascinating topic, in my opinion. Shouldn’t be off limits. We need to be at least conscious of how language is changing. It interests me partly because I study ancient dead languages that have great literatures, such as ancient Greek.

        • Lookingup73

          Awesome – I did Latin, German, French – I wish I had been motivated to get to ancient Greek. A great book you might enjoy since you are into language is “Language Change: Progress or Decay” I read it in Grad school and it made me wish I had chosen a linguistic’s degree rather than a literature degree!

        • Metis

          Thank you! I shall investigate that book. Never too late for ancient Greek. I cannot recommend it highly enough, so beautiful in the hands of great writers unsurpassed – Homer, Sophocles, Plato – it goes on and on.

        • MNb

          “I did Latin, German, French”
          Now that’s awesome! It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to learn Dutch as well.

          http://educatie-en-school.infonu.nl/taal/40353-veelgebruikte-latijnse-begrippen-en-hun-vertaling.html

          All Dutch word wbeginning with con (like concluderen), most with inter (like internist) and with in (like informeren) come from Latin.

          https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_Franse_woorden_en_uitdrukkingen_in_de_Nederlandse_taal

          http://kunst-en-cultuur.infonu.nl/taal/24562-leenwoorden-en-hun-oorsprong.html#6

          https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_Duitse_woorden_en_uitdrukkingen_in_de_Nederlandse_taal

          Don’t worry about pronunciation when you try to talk Dutch. Perhaps 20 000 Dutch pronounce the language properly.

        • Lookingup73

          Yeah I have always heard from my Dutch friends that few foreigners are able to speak it well when it comes to pronunciation – but they are nice about it. (Sometimes the french can be a bit extreme with their criticisms!).

          Why suggest Dutch though?!

        • MNb

          Because I’m a chauvinist Dutch pig!

        • Metis

          Honesty is always the best policy! :)

        • MNb

          For instance every atheist should read Anton Constandse’s “The Misery of Religion”. Admit it – such a title makes your mouth water. And it’s from 1923!

          http://www.tijdschrift-de-as.nl/documenten/de_AS_172.pdf

          A teaser:

          “De religie is immer geweest: religie der ellende. De slaaf, de geketende, de ongelukkige wil een rechtvaardiging vinden der misère. Waaraan heb ik het verdiend? Dàt hij het niet verdiend had, maar te wijten vond aan meesters en exploitanten, hij dorst het niet te denken.”

          “Religion always has been: religion of misery. The slave, the chained one, the unfortunate one wants to find a justication for misery. What made me deserve it? That he hadn’t deserved it, but owed it to masters and exploiters, he didn’t dare to think it.”

          Remember this when someone claims that New Atheism is a recent phenomenon.

          I’d also love to read this:

          http://poortman.kb.nl/long2.php?TABEL=T_TITEL&ID=41037

          from

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriaan_Koerbagh

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What made me deserve it? That he hadn’t deserved it, but owed it to masters and exploiters, he didn’t dare to think it.”

          That’s a bit like the post hoc rationalization you see in the Old Testament. “Our country was defeated and we’re in exile? How can that be when our god was the strongest one! Wait … hold on … maybe our god allowed us to be defeated. Maybe he’s punishing us through the other country’s defeat of us. Wow—he actually is the greatest god!”

        • Kodie

          “Their” is a word that already exists, as opposed to inventing words to mean a single person of indeterminate sex/gender. “His or her” does not include all possible genders, and also orders the primary two, putting males ahead and females, I guess they could be maybe included – that’s what “his and her” means, and why so many people are using xe and hir? Blech. I will continue using “they” or “their” when talking about a single person, “someone” is not the same as “people”, and I do not write for any strict publication that gives a damn. I also learned to get over people trying to communicate spelling words wrong. The local culture is not so uptight.

        • Metis

          Fair enough.

        • melonhead

          Good luck applying those standards to comments in internet forums. I’d be in favor of ‘zer’ or ‘xir’ or whatever, but yeah, ‘their’ has been in common use for a long time, and now there are what, 32 flavors of gender (heard that recognized by some piece of the US govt)? So, save your energy :).Yet one more bastardization of English, but that’s how it’s been throughout its poor, victimized history.

        • Metis

          So true.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Someone gives me their resume”–is that the phrase in question?

          You’ve probably heard that “their” is now encouraged as a gender-neutral singular pronoun.

          I’d be fine with “its,” but that’s off the table. I was taught “his,” but that’s out of vogue at present. I try to recast it as plural so there’s no number problem, but I’ll admit to using that construction.

        • Metis

          Yes, it is a problem in our language. I know that “their” has become number neutral and has always been gender neutral, but technically it’s still incorrect, though now so common. I try to change the antecedent instead. “People give me their resumes.” Otherwise I say “Someone gives me his/her resume.” None of these alternatives are completely satisfactory I realize.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          technically it’s still incorrect, though now so
          common

          And therein lies the problem. If a usage is common then whatever “technically” has to say about it is irrelevant.

          “his/her” is too clumsy for me, but I see how it solves the problem. I’m actually nostalgic for the male pronoun to be used as the neuter one, but that ship has sailed. And of course you’re right that making it plural (where possible) is an easy solution.

        • Metis

          Agreed. My mind was warped by being forced to study and practically memorize Fowler’s English Grammar my whole 7th grade year (about 60 years ago). It has ruined me for common speech ever since. http://www.amazon.com/Fowlers-Modern-English-Usage-Burchfield/dp/0198610211

    • MNb

      A stark contrast with the May Resistance Heroes in The Netherlands.

      • Metis

        Could you explain that further?

        • MNb

          May refers to May 1945 – the end of nazi occupation. Suddenly a lot of people were involved in Dutch Resistance and made that loudly clear.

        • Metis

          Oh I see. Thanks a lot!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          On the other side: in France after the war, there was retribution to the traitors–the local women who cozied up to German soldiers to get better living conditions, etc.

        • MNb

          The same happened in The Netherlands.

          http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/start/0/tstart/0/q/zoekterm/moffenmeiden

          Again usually it were the May Resistance Heroes who did this. And they didn’t care too much about guilt and innocence.
          Another victim, a famous one:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anni-Frid_Lyngstad

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m confused about your last example. Anni-Frid Lyngstad of ABBA? Where’s the connection?

        • MNb

          “In early 1947, Lyngstad, her mother, and her maternal grandmother, Arntine Lyngstad (“Agny”), left her birthplace, fearing reprisals against those who had dealings with the Germans during the occupation. This could entail not just insults and threats, but also forced separation of infants from their parents and relatives (see War children).”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Fascinating, thanks.

  • RevCleetusT.BuzzSteckerz

    So true! Dunning-Kruger is perhaps the root-cause basis explanation as to why you have so many incompetent and/or unethical people working in Govt (Civil Service) at the Federal, State and Local level(s).

  • MarMa

    Agree. Totally agree.

  • mrbrockpeters

    Sums up Kanye West in a nutshell.

  • Tonyo Ramirez Amorado

    In Tagalog: ” Anting sa Gigil”

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      And what does that mean in English?

      • JGuerzon

        “Anting” = a charm or amulet, “gigil” – the type of fear that makes your teeth shiver. “Anting-anting sa gigil” a type of “agimat” or amulet/charm against fear to make user courageous in pre – Hispanic(?) Philippine folklore.

        That comment has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks. Perhaps it was a spell.

          I feel more courageous already!

  • Jim Samaras

    Ahhh, this explains the left

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I fear that I’m suffering from Dunning-Kruger myself since I don’t follow your point. Perhaps I need examples (and evidence that this isn’t a problem on the Right).

      • Jim Samaras

        Well, perhaps the delusional thinking that there is a possibility of negotiating with ISIS, coddling these little cupcake students across the country, embracing BLM and not acknowledging that radical Islam exists for starters. The right has it’s faults for certain such as being anti abortion and anti gay rights but surely not as delusional.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “thinking that there is a possibility of negotiating with ISIS”

          Are prominent leftist even proposing the idea of, let alone arguing for, negotiating with ISIS? If so, I am more-than-usually disappointed by the left. Please to provide sources.

          “coddling these little cupcake students across the country”

          Was the teacher/dean at ?Yale? who met with students about the Halloween costume debacle not a leftist? It seems to me that he is, and that he engaged these “cupcake students” in public debate.

          “not acknowledging that radical Islam exists for starters”

          Are Bill Maher and Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens not leftists? I’m not saying that you’re not partially correct on this point, you are. But you’re also ignoring those segments of the left which would contradict your point – that’s sloppy thinking and sloppy argumentation.

          “Not to mention the love fest going on with the pathological lying Hillary!”

          Bernie. Sanders.

          “but surely not as delusional.”

          Donald Trump + Ben Carson: game, set, match.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It says volumes to realize that in the GOP, Donald Trump is now viewed as the smart one.

        • adam

          The GOP

        • Jim Samaras

          What else could the strategy be other than trying to invoke “conversation” with them by showing how we will “welcome” them into our country regardless of what the people are saying? Kerry actually saying this massacre makes no sense but the last one did. Negotiation may not be the right term. Trying to reason with them may be better I don’t know, but utter OUTRAGE has never been intimated by this administration!

          Yes, it’s an example of how that sleepy eyed, corduroy wearing, dandruff laden liberal has gotten bit in the a$$ due to his own left wing teachings. It’s occurring now at some of our most prestigious campuses in the country.

          I’m a righty and enjoy Bill Maher more than most. Even he sees it for what it is and is willing to say so. Why can’t the candidates on the left say it?

          Bernie Sanders, while meaning well and makes some good points, is a socialist and is that what you’re really looking for in a democratic, capitalistic society?

          Not a fan of Carson but Trump is anti PC and shoots straight more than I can say about ANY of the other candidates, right or left. I understand that campaign promises can be taken for nothing more than dreams. Any more so than Bernie talking about free higher education for all? Amnesty for student loans? As delusional as Trumps’ wall, no?

        • Paul B. Lot

          What else could the strategy be other than trying to invoke “conversation” with them by showing how we will “welcome” them into our country regardless of what the people are saying?

          ISIS is not equivalent to Syrian refugees. In fact, one might be able to make a strong case that they are categorical opposites. Your comment proceeds from a misunderstanding, once that misunderstanding is corrected this section of your comment is irrelevant.

          “Yes, it’s an example of how ….”

          You attacked “the left” in your initial comment. You went on, later, to make the implication that “the left” “coddles” some set of students. You were presented with an example of a leftist professor not coddling that set of students. Your rejoined starts with “it’s an example of”… something of which it is not an example. Therefore this section of your comment is irrelevant.

          “Bill Maher …sees it for what it is and is willing to say so.”

          Your opening comment indicted the entire “left”. NOW you acknowledge that you were imprecise. Getting you to acknowledge your exaggeration was my only goal. Thank you. The rest of this section of your comment is irrelevant.

          Bernie Sanders, while meaning well and makes some good points, is a socialist and is that what you’re really looking for in a democratic, capitalistic society?

          You are clearly misinformed, and therefore misunderstand. Sanders calls himself a “Democratic Socialist”, contra to your mis-labeling of him here. Yes, that is “really” what I want. You also want (at least some) aspects of “socialism” in your shining-city-on-a-hill of pure capitalism, even if you’re too stupid or cowardly to know and admit it.


          Not a fan of Carson but Trump is anti PC and shoots straight more than I can say about ANY of the other candidates, right or left.

          Disagree. I think Sanders will tell you the direct truth more often than will Trump. The rest of this section of your comment pure speculation and “my dad can beat up your dad” stuff; it is irrelevant.

          *Edits for clarity, spelling, and context*

        • Jim Samaras

          Why must you leftists end every conversation with “irrelevance’?
          ISIS and the Syrian refugees, while being different subjects, are 99% Muslim which means they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result. So NOT irrelevant.

          He stepped down rather than taking a stand and telling the student athletes that if they don’t play they will be stripped of scholarships and any hope of playing pro ball is dashed. Now this may come from higher ups but still showing no signs of standing up for your self or principles. So not irrelevant.

          I just said “the left” Aren’t we getting a little ticky tacky here Paul. Still relevant.

          “Democratic Socialist” is a socialist with the ideas that I fore mentioned Paul and if that’s what you want then you my friend are delusional. Must we succumb to name calling to get our point across? So again, relevant.

          While Sanders will tell the truth it’s not the truth as a Republican that I care to hear. So what we have here is a difference of opinion Paul so it makes both arguements

        • Paul B. Lot

          they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result

          So this is just a plainly false statement. While Wahabi/Salafi Muslims might be well-characterized by your statement, I see no reason to believe that it applies to all other forms of Islam. Nor even a majority of other forms. Nor even a large part.

          “So NOT irrelevant.”

          You based your comment on, once again, a faulty premise – therefore it is, still, irrelevant. If you wish to say things which matter to anyone but yourself – educate yourself.


          He stepped down rather than taking a stand and telling the student athletes that if they don’t play they will be stripped of scholarships and any hope of playing pro ball is dashed. Now this may come from higher ups but still showing no signs of standing up for your self or principles. So not irrelevant.

          You seem to be under the impression that I have been discussing what happened at Mizzou recently. I am not. I am talking about what happened at Yale – a fact which would’ve become apparent to you noticed when I wrote “the teacher/dean at ?Yale?…” Since you have misunderstood the referent, the rest of this section of your comment is irrelevant.

          “I just said “the left””

          Indeed. And when you use a phrase like “the _____”, without qualifiers, your readers are left with few options but to understand that you mean all of ______. If you wrote something other than what you meant, by all means let me know and we’ll proceed from there.

          —-

          “”Democratic Socialist” is a socialist with the ideas that I fore mentioned Paul”

          “Democratic Socialist” does not equal “Socialist”. Full stop. End of discussion. Neeeext.

          ” if that’s what you want then you my friend are delusional”,

          Oh really? Do you not like the police? Firefighters? Are you going to put out your own house when it catches on fire, or pay someone to do it for you? How much will you pay them? What if they up the price on you, while your house is burning down? Will you wait for a competitor to arrive while Fluffy or Spot are being roasted alive? You already live in a system which is partly socialist.

        • Jim Samaras

          Paul, any Muslim that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Kuran teaches exactly what I’ve written and is not a peaceful religion. Relevant. I urge you to educate yourself

          I WAS talking about the president of Mizzou so…relevant.

          Are you arguing semantics now Paul? Come up something better please. It’s beneath you

          If Democratic socialist does not mean socialist remove the word…..neeeext.

          The programs of which you speak are EXPECTED from our government and is the way our tax dollars should be spent and I do not consider socialist programs like welfare, food stamps, Obama phones and the like.

          When all the dust settles Paul, Bob hit the nail on the head in his article. He must know you.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Paul, any Muslim that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Kuran teaches exactly what I’ve written and is not a peaceful religion.

          Once again you reveal yourself to be a fool and an ignoramus. :(

          If what you say were true, there would have been no non-Muslims left alive inside Muslim lands during the times of the Caliphates/Ottoman Empire.

          While it is certainly true that some flavors of Islam’s many, many, sects teach what you claim – it is false to assert what you have: that they all do.

          “I urge you to educate yourself”

          In a thread about DK, this is hilarious! :) I can only assume, at this point, that you are in fact a troll who knows better – yet sock-puppets an pure imbecile for the lulz, much like our buddy “Greg”.

          “I WAS talking about the president of Mizzou so…relevant.”

          I don’t give a damn whom you were referring to originally, since you subsequently responded to my question about a Yale professor. You indicted all professors/students, I provided a counter-example…..now you’re trying to refer back to your original idea. Irrelevant AND wasting my time. If you continue to misunderstand the flow of combox discussions like you are here, I will have no choice but to jettison civil discourse and mock you relentlessly.

          I must warn you, I am part French. We do not mock lightly.


          Are you arguing semantics now Paul? Come up something better please. It’s beneath you

          This smells very much like a Greg-type comment. In any case, if you would rather deflect to a personal critique of me than be a man and accept the consequences of what you write: be my guest.

          “If Democratic socialist does not mean socialist remove the word…..neeeext.”

          You don’t seem competent to discuss the nuances of political/economic theory; I will stop conversing with you on the subjects.

          “When all the dust settles Paul, Bob hit the nail on the head in his article. He must know you.”

          Of course it’s always possible that the spec is in my eye! :)

        • Jim Samaras

          Paul, if you wish to converse please keep the childish insults to yourself as you reveal your true leftist ignorance.
          IMO they’re trying to finish what those inept baboons were trying to accomplish 600 years ago. The Quran orders them to do so.

          I do not know “Greg” but I’m thinking he and I would concur on many subjects given the fact you dislike him.

          When ya gonna learn it ain’t always about YOU Paul?
          I’ll talk about what I want to talk about and you can do the same. But then again you are part French

          I am competent to discuss a myriad of subjects Paul but with open minded people. I’m not ALL wrong as you would like to make me and all who read this blog to believe.

          Not sure what to think about the spec in your eye comment

          Since you have failed to convince me of your argument and I have failed to convince you let’s just agree to disagree and move on

        • adam

          “The Quran orders them to do so.”

          Yes, commanded by the ‘god’ of Abraham

          This is right out of your bible, that is where the Muslims got it,

          FROM YOUR “GOD”

          1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do
          not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone himto death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God,
          (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

        • Paul B. Lot

          Why must you…end every conversation with “irrelevance’…if you wish to converse please keep the childish insults to yourself

          It’s a simple equation; [say irrelevant/ignorant/stupid thing] = [be informed that you are being irrelevant/ignorant/stupid].

          You seem to dislike the right-side of the equation, if that’s so all you have to do is change the left-side of the equation.


          leftist ignorance.IMO they’re trying to finish what those inept baboons were trying to accomplish 600 years ago. The Quran orders them to do so.

          1) We are all Great Apes. You are, I am, ISIS is. Baboons, despite some of them being quite large, are not Apes, but Monkeys – a distant relative.

          2) In any case, I take your point: ISIS are barbarians. As are Al Queda, and the Taliban et al. I have never disputed this; indeed I specifically mentioned Wahbi/Salafi Islam as being an exemplar of what you’re talking about.

          You don’t hate them more than I do; you wouldn’t be able to if you tried because you are ignorant of the specifics of the situation – the enormous variety of ways in which they are evil.

          3) ISIS et al., however, are explicitly not-representative of the world-wide Muslim community – one would only have to look at the numbers of Muslims ISIS has killed for apostacy/infedility to know that. But more specifically I chose the example of how the old Calphiates/Sultanates often chose to handle non-Muslims as my counter example to your assertion that EACH and EVERY Muslim believes that “ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced.”

          This is factually incorrect, and only needs a single counter-example to be falsified:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#The_dhimma_contract_and_sharia_law


          When ya gonna learn it ain’t always about YOU Paul? I’ll talk about what I want to talk about and you can do the same.

          I mean, look: yes, I struggle with ego. (Who doesn’t?)

          What does that have to do with the situation? YOU decided to respond to my question about a Yale professor, and either didn’t notice what I was asking, or later got confused and started re-referring to Mizzou. Your incompetence/confusion is not my fault.


          I am competent to discuss a myriad of subjects Paul but with open minded people. I’m not ALL wrong as you would like to make me and all who read this blog to believe.

          I honestly don’t care very much about you, or what you believe, or what others believe about you. I am only responding to the stupid things you have said, and continue to say. :-/ I’m sorry if that’s painful for you.

          “Not sure what to think about the spec in your eye comment”

          I mean….you accused me of being an example of the DK effect.

          I admitted to you that you might be correct. After all, if I were suffering from DK-style incompetence, would I know it?

          Worse yet, would I even suspect it?

          Or would I carry on obliviously confident in my abilities and confident that it is my opponents who are incompetent, asserting that every “error” of mine is somehow my opponents’ fault.

          Hmmmm, does any of that sound familiar to you @jimmywalkerblue:disqus ?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          you reveal your true leftist ignorance

          Holy shit—can you ever respond to the person instead of the group that person is in?

          I love a commenter who says stuff like, “The problem with you blacks is …” Do you have some of that planned as well?

          IMO they’re trying to finish what those inept baboons were trying to accomplish 600 years ago. The Quran orders them to do so.

          “Those inept baboons”—is that the Crusaders? Or those in charge of the Inquisition? There’s just so much shit to lay at the feet of Christianity that I can’t keep it all straight.

          I do not know “Greg” but I’m thinking he and I would concur on many subjects given the fact you dislike him.

          Right.

          I am competent to discuss a myriad of subjects Paul but with open minded people.

          I’ll believe that after a dozen comments with no reference to leftists.

        • MNb

          “please keep the childish insults ”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Write the guy who just childishly insulted my ex-wife, my current female counterpart and large parts of their families.

        • adam

          “Paul, any Christian that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Bible teaches exactly what I’ve written and is not a peaceful religion.”

          ftfy

          This is right out of your bible, that is where the Muslims got it,

          FROM YOUR “GOD”

          1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do
          not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God,
          (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          any Muslim that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Kuran teaches exactly what I’ve written and is not a peaceful religion.

          All Muslims are liars? Fuck you.

          As for the requirements of Islam, I impatiently await your evidence that it can only be interpreted in a violent fashion. Your sweeping generalizations get a laugh down at the Klan meeting, I’m sure, but here we’d like to see claims backed with evidence. You make a big claim, then we’re looking for the big evidence.

        • MNb

          “any Muslim that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Kuran teaches exactly what I’ve written .”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          So any muslim (like my female counterparts) who doesn’t tell you what you have written is a liar by definition.
          Head you win, tail you don’t lose.

        • Rudy R

          Do we need to start pulling out Bible scripture that’s not peaceful, just to be consistent with your Muslim remarks? When’s the last time you stoned an adulterer? And yes, I know, you’re probably a New Covenant guy, so all that old stuff don’t count.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          ISIS and the Syrian refugees, while being different subjects, are 99% Muslim which means they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result.

          You have the gift of mind-reading, too? Golly.

          I hear that Islam is a big tent. That the Quran can be interpreted a certain way doesn’t mean that every Muslim does so.

          While Sanders will tell the truth it’s not the truth as a Republican that I care to hear

          Huh?? Did you really want to phrase it that way?

        • Jim Samaras

          Stopped, killed or silenced. Take your pick, Many prefer to silence the infidels which is just as bad the other two. Kind of reminds me of the left not wanting to hear or listen to any other discussion than what they believe. IMO there are always more than one way to view any subject.

          How else could I have phrased it to make my point Bob? He tells the truth as HE sees it to be, not the way I see it to be.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          (You need to quote what you’re referring to. You’re jumping between subjects without signposts.)

          Stopped, killed or silenced.

          Those are the only options for every single Muslim? You’ve bitten off a mouthful. Or maybe that’s just your foot in your mouth. I await with interest your justification of this bold claim.

          Kind of reminds me of the left not wanting to hear or listen to any other discussion than what they believe.

          Do your comments always have some unhinged broadside at the Left? Fun.

          How else could I have phrased it to make my point Bob? He tells the truth as HE sees it to be, not the way I see it to be.

          You said, “While Sanders will tell the truth it’s not the truth as a Republican that I care to hear.” I’m fine hearing you phrase it that way. It just seems to be a far franker admission that I expected. You select your truth based on how it pleases you rather than how likely it is to be true. Fair enough—thanks for your honesty.

        • Jim Samaras

          Bob, why must you take every sentence so literal? Of course there are some Muslims that will live and let live. But if I were to offer you 10 M&M’s but tell you 1 is injected with poison are you going to try one?

          I don’t think my comments are an unhinged broadside at the left necessarily. Fun to debate philosophies perhaps which is why I’m still paying attention here. My question is why a debate must be filled with left handed insults? This sounds like the first 3 Republican debates don’t you think?

          Aren’t you also basing YOUR truths/opinions on how it pleases you? I think that’s a fault of us all.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          why must you take every sentence so literal?

          Because it highlights how ridiculous your statements are. Perhaps a literal interpretation will get you to focus on, y’know, facts.

          Fun to debate philosophies perhaps which is why I’m still paying attention here.

          Some commenters enjoy goading just for laughs. Not my idea of a good time.

          My question is why a debate must be filled with left handed insults?

          My bad. I was intending very direct and literal insults.

          But if your goal is some good-natured ribbing, that doesn’t work too well with me. I guess I find that taking things literally works best. If you have ideas to share, that’s fine, but leave the hyperbole on the cutting room floor.

          Aren’t you also basing YOUR truths/opinions on how it pleases you?

          Hell no. Give me the unvarnished truth, thanks.

          I’m amazed that you’d admit that you do anything else.

        • Jim Samaras

          Facts are something that many try to distort for their own agenda or aggrandizement Bob.

          I’m not goading you nor trying to get your ire up. Not my idea of a good time either.

          Insult if it makes you feel like a winner Bob.

          I get the feeling that the unvarnished truth on many subjects eludes you at times. I was referring to how it pleases my instinct as to how to better the country.

          I enjoyed reading your article Bob and you’re spot on as far as that’s concerned. It explained many things. I always knew there had to be a reason for the way people think and you put a name to it. Thank you

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If I’m missing the truth, feel free to share.

          Thanks for the feedback. I’m glad the article was helpful.

        • MNb

          “Facts are something that many try to distort for their own agenda or aggrandizement”
          As you do with almost every single comment of yours.

        • MNb

          “Of course there are some Muslims that will live and let live.”
          Actually all muslims in the country where I live, which make 14% of the population.

        • MNb

          Since I married my ex-wife (them muslima, after her second marriage converted to christianity) I have been stopped, killed, silenced or none of these. Take your pick, Mr. Self-delusional ignorant guy.

          “the left not wanting to hear or listen to any other discussion than what they believe.”

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          As if ignorant self-delusional guys like you ever accept inconvenient facts – about socialism in western Europe and my relationships with two muslimas, for instance.

        • adam

          “ISIS and the Syrian refugees, while being different subjects, are 99% Muslim which means they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result.”

          Dear Mr. Dunning

          This is right out of your bible, that is where the Muslims got it,

          FROM YOUR “GOD”

          1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do
          not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God,
          (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

        • MNb

          “they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result.”
          I wonder how I as an atheist survived a relationship of 12 years with a practicing muslima.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’d better listen to Jim Samaras–he knows. She’s just biding her time.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Those are some nice thoughts about Bernie Sanders. I am unsure of him myself, but he actually takes a stand (I don’t see much from Hilary, though admittedly I’m allergic to politics and don’t understand the issues as well as I’ll need to next fall).

          As for being a socialist, wasn’t Jesus one, too? You know–sell all your assets, give to the poor, and follow Me?

          I assume you’ve seen the social stats (homicide, suicide, teen pregnancies, and so on) that show socialist, gay-loving northern Europe kicking our ass.

          I do like Trump’s candor. With him, though, I don’t know if it’s honesty or just entertainment.

          They have free higher education in Europe. Is it so hard to imagine here?

        • Jim Samaras

          Bob, the problem I have with socialism is that it takes away any initiative on the part of the people to stretch themselves to make for a better life. It’s been going on in the black community for 50 years since the LBJ war on poverty and as you may have noticed, has turned them into individuals manufacturing ways to get more from the government without putting forth any real effort to improve their lot in life. What was meant to be a good program hasn’t turned out well for the community in general and makes one think that it was in fact a plan to keep the blacks enslaved forever and get the democratic vote for perpetuity.

          I suppose as such, Jesus was a socialist to a point but was a carpenter by trade. That meant he did work for a living. Little is known about him during his early years but he did teach a good way to lead your life and is a good guide for man to follow.

          I’d like to think Trump speaks from the heart and is a true patriot. Time will tell.

          The only reason it’s hard to imagine is how it will be paid for. Not all deserve or are cut out for college imo. Some are more suited for a trade which is much less expensive and with a little strategy for a better life can turn into a very profitable self owned business. Much more so than a liberal arts degree will get them after wasting 4 years drinking and partying. The reason the US is so far down in the education standings world wide is another topic entirely that I must blame on the liberal left but let’s save that for another time.

        • adam

          “Bob, the problem I have with socialism is that it takes away any
          initiative on the part of the people to stretch themselves to make for a
          better life. It’s been going on in the black community for 50 years
          since the LBJ war on poverty and as you may have noticed,”

          Dear Mr Dunning

          Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

          None of the black community ever had ownership nor democratic means of production, so no socialism.
          At least TRY and be HONEST….

        • Jim Samaras

          Maybe so Adam but it still is a socialistic program developed by the left, blessed by the right and I believe would all agree has been a colossal failure

        • adam

          No, it is still not socialistic Mr. Dunning

          And no not all would agree that it has been a colossal failure.

          The government (especially the right) gives MUCH, MUCH more ‘welfare’ to rich corporations than people who actually NEED it.

          “It says that three-quarters of all state economic development subsidies went to just 965 corporations since the beginning of the study in 1976. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks.Recommended by Forbes Think about that. The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole.”

          But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks.http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/

          Mr. Kruger MUST be proud of you….

        • Jim Samaras

          Much of that is due to cronyism of which BOTH parties are to blame. They get them elected favors are paid back. This is why every one of them with the exception of Trump will be at the behest of corporations if elected.

          Did I accidentally fall into a liberal bunny hole here?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “This is why every one of them with the exception of Trump will be at the behest of corporations if elected.”

          *….coughSanderscough….*

        • Jim Samaras

          Ok, ya got me this time Paul. I did say “every”. Sanders as well as Trump will be beholden to no one. I just happen to disagree with the Sanders’ approach

        • adam

          “Much of that is due to cronyism of which BOTH parties are to blame.”

          Corporatism not cronyism

          “This is why every one of them with the exception of Trump will be at the behest of corporations if elected.”

          Trump is already indebted to Corportism
          In FACT, he owes who he is to them ALREADY

          http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2068227_2068229_2068209,00.html

          http://www.alternet.org/story/156234/exposing_how_donald_trump_really_made_his_fortune%3A_inheritance_from_dad_and_the_government's_protection_mostly_did_the_trick

          “Did I accidentally fall into a liberal bunny hole here?”

          I dont know where you fell, but I am libertarian.
          I believe i free trade, not government sponsored profit centers for the already wealthy.

        • MNb

          “the exception of Trump”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Trump is a lackey of the American socio-economical elite as much as every single other GOP candidate. Yeah, he poses as an anti-establishment guy and self delusional guys like you fall for it like ripe apples, but he hasn’t proposed anything that harms the interest of that elite and benefits the common man.

        • Jim Samaras

          While it’s early in the campaign he has said the hedge fund managers and even himself will not be happy about his tax plan. Cutting waste in government, paying down the national debt and securing our border won’t help the common man?

        • MNb

          “he has said”
          Yup. He said.

          http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

          “substantially lower individual income taxes”
          Like any good lackey of the American socio-economical elite does – because this benefits that elite, including himself.
          Thanks for confirming again that you are the one who is most delustional, not the left.

          “securing our border won’t help the common man?”
          Only delusional right-wing guys like you think it will help the common man.

          http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says

          But of course you don’t have any use for inconvenient facts. That’s what you are a self-delusional right wing guy for.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What has been a failure?

        • MNb

          As western Europe has demonstrated over and over again since WW-2.
          Or not and you are the delusional guy.

        • MNb

          Socialism is an umbrella term for political views that go back to Marx, but may have changed a lot since then. The two main branches are revolutionary socialism (ie communism) and social democracy. Social democrats (like Sanders) accept liberal capitalism, ie the competition of free enterprises, but want to introduce rules for this game to minimize negative side effects (especially important during economical crises) and optmize the positive results.

        • adam

          So do feel that American welfare both corporate and individual falls under ‘socialism’.?

          I understand that the rich and corporate have ownership, but that is capitalism.

          But the poor here have no ownership or demoncratic means of production.

        • MNb

          Neither in western Europe and Scandinavia.

          “do feel that American welfare both corporate and individual falls under ‘socialism’.?”

          Not necessarily – christian democrats may advocate it as well. But all social democrats indeed want to maintain welfare (called social security in The Netherlands) and many more radical socialists as well.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          the problem I have with socialism is that it takes away any initiative on the part of the people to stretch themselves to make for a better life.

          Done poorly, yes, that’s a worry. I don’t think we’ve found the right balance in the U.S.

          I suppose as such, Jesus was a socialist to a point but was a carpenter by trade. That meant he did work for a living.

          Who cares? I’m talking about what he actually preached. Hint: he said a lot more about doing good for the poor than he did about abortion, slavery, or gay bashing. It’s weird how so many conservatives are sure they’ve got a mind meld with Jesus when they have so little to go on.

          I’d like to think Trump speaks from the heart and is a true patriot. Time will tell.

          I think he’s an entertainer.

          The only reason it’s hard to imagine is how it will be paid for.

          My numbers may be off, but here’s what I think they are. State and local governments pay $200B for public schools and $100B for college. The fraction that students pay of the actual cost of their being in college is 1/3 in the case of elite schools. I’m guessing it’s more in state schools. If it were 1/2, then governments would need to find another $100B per year. No small feat, of course, but that’s an increase of only 1/3 of their total education budgets.

          That logic is just off the top of my head, and my figures could be off.

          Not all deserve or are cut out for college imo.

          Agreed. Trade school or community college can be the right fit for many.

          The reason the US is so far down in the education standings world wide is another topic entirely that I must blame on the liberal left but let’s save that for another time.

          Oh, goody—more bloviating against the Left. I can’t wait.

          I assume your concern is about U.S. public schools and not colleges.

        • Jim Samaras

          Done poorly Bob? Don’t think we’ve found the right balance? Ya think not? It’s been 50 years! Both parties have had enough time to size up human nature and CHANGE things so as not to demotivate the herd.

          I am more of an agnostic as far as God is concerned Bob, no mind meld here. As far as slavery goes was it not the Democratic party that was for it and the Republicans fought against? I agree abortion is a choice and round mouths are of no concern to me. Their effect on me is none.

          I would never debate your numbers because the only thing I know is that besides robbing from one account to pay another bill is mental masturbation and that somehow/someway another tax will be levied on an already exhausted American small business man.

          Bloviating! Good word Bob but does it really apply here? Have I come across as a blowhard or know it all in any of these texts? I apologize if I’ve come off that way.

          My concern is with the public school system as pushing students along to justify more federal funding is egregious Bob. I agree it’s the governments job to assist in the basic education of our youth but it’s up to the parents to decide where and which schools curriculum is best for their offspring.

          Now let’s talk about tenure and the wonderful things the teachers’ union has done for our students shall we…….

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ya think not? It’s been 50 years!

          And not one thing to show for it? Is that your final answer?

          As far as slavery goes was it not the Democratic party that was for it and the Republicans fought against?

          Ah, the good old days! And now it’s the Democrats who are the ones working to improve lives. How ’bout that.

          round mouths are of no concern to me.

          Huh?

          somehow/someway another tax will be levied on an already exhausted American small business man.

          Don’t get me started, bro! It must be, what, 70, 80 percent now??

          Have I come across as a blowhard or know it all in any of these texts?

          Every comment seems to have the words Left or Leftist in them. You have come across as someone who enjoys sweeping generalizations (so far, of the Left and Muslims, but I’m sure you’ve got plenty more where that comes from) with no interest in being precise or backing up the bold claims with evidence.

          Thanks for the apology. My suggestion is that you say what you can easily defend and no more.

        • Jim Samaras

          Please advise me as to the good that has come of it Bob. It’s really enslaved the population on welfare more than helped.

          Are they really trying to improve lives or pandering for votes with free s%&t? See above…the slavery part.

          No it’s not that high Bob but during your candidates debates Eisenhower’s 90% bracket was spoken of more than once.

          The round mouth comment is a derogatory reference to gay men. I apologize. It’s thought to funny in some circles but I guess not this PC crowd…Lol

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Please advise me as to the good that has come of it Bob.

          You’ve not heard success stories? Perhaps you need to listen more. People who had some health crisis that drained all their money? Someone loses a job and then runs out of money trying to find another? Someone living hand to mouth with some minimum-wage job who then loses their job?

          Helping those fellow citizens who’ve had a temporary bit of bad luck.

          It’s really enslaved the population on welfare more than helped.

          Enslaved? It’s limited to 60 months.

          No it’s not that high

          No, it’s not.

          during your candidates debates Eisenhower’s 90% bracket was spoken of more than once.

          What’s that supposed to mean? That the average small business man might be saddled with an a 90% tax burden year after year? That any Democratic candidate would want this? Show me.

          The round mouth comment is a derogatory reference to gay men. I apologize. It’s thought to funny in some circles

          No, not especially funny here. But say “fag” a few times and you’ll have ’em rolling in the aisles.

        • Jim Samaras

          Not to be cliche but giving a safety net IS the taxpayers responsibility, and I have no problem with it, but not a hammock that gives cradle to grave relief.

          Explain the 60 month thing to the unwed mother that pops out 5 kids in 7 years. She’s getting cut off? I think not.

          The thought of 90% shocks people. So when 60% is law they don’t feel so bad. Slip it in slowly……

          Fag is acceptable as well I suppose, just thought I’d bring a term up that was new to some that I feel is hilariuos

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not to be cliche but giving a safety net IS the taxpayers responsibility, and I have no problem with it

          I don’t know why it’d be cliché. The standard conservative line is to dismiss the freeloaders. If you actually want to help the least fortunate get on their feet, that’s terrific. And a little unusual if you’re properly placed in the set of conservatives.

          but not a hammock that gives cradle to grave relief.

          Limit of 60 months. Not a hard concept, right?

          Explain the 60 month thing to the unwed mother that pops out 5 kids in 7 years. She’s getting cut off? I think not.

          Then explain it to me. Yeah, I thought she gets cut off. That’s what you want, right?

          The thought of 90% shocks people. So when 60% is law they don’t feel so bad. Slip it in slowly……

          I await the evidence of your bold suggestion that any Democratic candidate spoke favorably about a 90% tax bracket on the small business owner.

        • adam

          “Not to be cliche but giving a safety net IS the taxpayers
          responsibility, and I have no problem with it, but not a hammock that
          gives cradle to grave relief.”

          Well it certainly does to those who can afford to have laws written for them, like the banks..

        • MNb

          “It’s really enslaved the population on welfare more than helped.”
          Yeah, and the right wing is less delusional. Entire populations in western Europe are enslaved on welfare these days.

        • Jim Samaras

          It doesn’t seem to working that well in Greece so far.

        • MNb

          Guess what? The Greek population hardly enjoys any welfare program, just like you advocate. As a result some Greeks have literally starved from hunger.
          You don’t know your facts, like the good right wing christian you are.

          http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2015/02/12/poll-25-of-athens-school-children-going-hungry/

        • MNb

          “Both parties have had enough time …..”
          and both parties are right wing and still USA does poorly on most social rankings compared to European countries, which have enjoyed the influence of socialists more radical than Sanders. Thanks for confirming that you’re delusional and that the USA need a change to keep up.

        • MNb

          “the problem I have with socialism …”
          Yeah, when people more radical than Sanders ran western European countries their populations became totally apathetic. At the other hand the USA have the lowest rate of couch potatoes.

        • adam

          “Bernie Sanders, while meaning well and makes some good points, is a socialist”

        • MNb

          “Bernie Sanders, while meaning well and makes some good points, is a socialist and is that what you’re really looking for in a democratic, capitalistic society?”
          Some more socialists a la Sanders for you:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Palme
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schmidt
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joop_den_Uyl
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Hollande

          All are/were more radical than Sanders.
          Are you saying that these guys harmed their democratic, capitalistic societies?That Hollande is a softie towards IS?
          And you still want me to take you seriously, a delusional guy like you?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Cupcake students? I recently posted a slightly-off-topic rant about things that included a response here.

          I have no idea what your problem with the Bureau of Land Management is.

          Anti-same-sex marriage is completely delusional. You don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay married. End of issue. Ordinary citizens are being led around by politicians on the Right, determined to invent an issue where there isn’t one.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “I have no idea what your problem with the Bureau of Land Management is.”

          :)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          (Is there another BLM that I’m unaware of … ?)

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Black lives matter”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks. It’s embarrassing when Jim Samaras references a social movement that goes over my head.

        • Jim Samaras

          Come on guys can’t we have a civil conversation. I don’t believe we are that far apart on a few subjects like gay marriage and abortion. Does that make me a centrist? Are you against them too?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m in favor of both abortion rights and same-sex marriage. You?

        • Jim Samaras

          Yes I am Bob. It’s invasive of the government to be involved in any decision concerning a persons freedom providing it doesn’t hurt the general population. I’m a weed smoking, freedom loving American that just sees this country headed in the wrong direction. I voted for Obama in 08 but am appalled that he was re-elected in 12. I also believe the country is more divided because of his administration than ever before Bob. You MUST agree with SOME of my assessments.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s good to hear. What baffles me is conservatives decrying Big Gubmint but in the next breath wanting cameras in all bedrooms so they can make sure people aren’t doing rude things they oughtn’t.

          Yes, the country is very divided. I credit the GOP’s strategist, Machiavelli. As for Obama, I wonder what he could’ve accomplished if the Legislative branch hadn’t been controlled by the Party of No.

        • MNb

          Very unkind of you. Macchiavelli was a proto-scientist, trying to objectively analyse how politics around 1500 CE worked. His political views were, the few times he presented them, were actually quite liberal. He was one of the very few who thought that the common people should have a voice and advocated a check and balances not unlike Montesqieu.

          “I wonder what he could’ve accomplished”
          Even more killings of civilians?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve read The Prince, and I’m a fan of Machiavelli. I was using the name in the colloquial sense.

          I didn’t know Obama was known for his killing of civilians. Is this a reference to Afghanistan?

        • MNb
        • MNb

          No. Not if you call me delusional by strawmanning me and not if you think Clinton left wing, thus showing that you’re the delusional guy yourself.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Don’t look further than Ben Carson to observe how delusional the far right is.
          And Clinton, who lies according to you, of course is also right wing.

        • Fallacy Finder

          What’s delusional (and a fallacy) is believing that radical Islam is more dangerous than radical Christianity, radical Catholicism, or radical Atheism. Also delusional is the ASSUMPTION that ‘lefties’ don’t think radical Islam exists. I don’t identify with a party, but I know people on both sides of this bullshit dichotomy, and the ‘lefties’ that I do know are not only aware of the dangers of radical Islam… they are aware of RADICALISM. The difference is, they don’t say one is more dangerous than another just because the media convinced them to hate people of a particular creed.

        • Jim Samaras

          Well, if Christianity or Atheism is more dangerous today than Islam I can’t wait to see anything more brutal than taking peoples heads off or murdering people in the streets for no reason other than being infidels. Muslims have created the animosity themselves by pursuing Sharia law in countries other than their own. The media reports the atrocities and sensationalizes them sure, but the fact that it even occurs fall directly on the shoulders of RADICAL ISLAM

        • adam

          “I can’t wait to see anything more brutal than taking peoples heads off
          or murdering people in the streets for no reason other than being
          infidels. ”

          Carpet bombing of innocents?
          Bombing of water supplies and infrastructure to TERRORIZE people into turning against their government?
          The deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people sitting on oil reserves?

          Drone bombing wedding parties, because a terrorist MIGHT be in the party?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Drone bombing wedding parties, because a terrorist MIGHT be in the party?”

          Sure, but come on: Obama is a Muslim. /s

        • Jim Samaras

          I’m not defending the US foreign policy here. Those moves had NOTHING to do will radical religion which was the topic Adam

        • adam

          It IS the result of Radicalization…

        • Jim Samaras

          You mean their radicalization is the result of our foreign policy. Perhaps, but those people were obviously animals BEFORE that all occurred. Just the way they have treated women as cattle for many years shows that. And that was the case before we were involved in anything

        • adam

          Both.
          The policy was the result of radicalization.
          Which radicalized the people being bombed.

        • Jim Samaras

          Radicalized them to kill their own? Those people are crazy and should be eradicated.

        • adam

          OUR policy to go and MASS MURDER was a RADICALIZED policy.

          So who has killed more innocent people?
          them or us?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I assume this is hyperbole? I don’t think genocide is the tool for the West to use.

        • Jim Samaras

          Yes Bob, it was and you are correct

        • MNb

          “but those people were obviously animals BEFORE that all occurred”
          When was the last time again that position was popular? Ah yes – when those self-proclaimed bearers of western civilization called SS was in charge.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          The battle of Lepanto, the Muslim invasion of Spain, and the repeated Ottoman invasions of the Balkans were all due to “radicalization,” too, right? And the Barbary pirates, of course…

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So you’re advocating for an America First, noninterventionist foreign policy, rather than a neocon-driven, Israel First one? Good point. Don’t bomb ’em over there; don’t bring ’em over here.

        • adam

          Maybe not even an America First, but a world first.

          Certainly not the Israel first one, we already know what their goal is:

        • MNb

          “if Christianity or Atheism is more dangerous today than Islam”
          Well, there are atheists who advocate dropping nuclear bombs on muslim countries.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t know of any atheists who want to drop nuclear bombs on Muslim countries, but I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there were. I’m not sure what we make of that, though. Maybe there are homosexuals in that group as well. Or vegetarians. Their homosexuality or vegetarianism are incidental.

          Would the atheists’ atheism not be?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Lol, “Fallacy Finder”.

          “What’s delusional (and a fallacy) is believing that radical Islam is more dangerous than radical Christianity, radical Catholicism, or radical Atheism.”

          This is a series of words strung together by someone who thinks he/she is saying something reasonable, but doesn’t quite have an adequate grasp of the concepts involved, nor logic itself, to realize that he/she is not.

          “Catholicism” and “Islam” are both complicated religious systems which have hundreds of years of doctrinal accretion.

          “Atheism” is a lack of belief in god(s), or, sometimes, the belief in a lack of god(s).

          The first two are examples of dramatically different abstract categories than the latter – your conflation of them seems to me to be, as it so often is with others, a sign that you might suffer from a combination of sloppy thinking and delusions of competence.

          Yours is a fitting contribution to a thread about the D-K effect. :-/

          Now that we’ve got that bit of housekeeping out of the way, let me address what I take your point to be.

          You seem to be saying that “R”adicalism, per se, is “the problem” – contra what racially/culturally bigoted demagogues would have us believe, yes?

          If not, feel free to correct me….but that’s the way that I read your comment: you seem to be arguing that no flavor of “radicalism” is “more dangerous than another”.

          Would you agree to that paraphrase of your point?

        • MNb

          You’re reading uncharistically uncharitable here. The key words here are “more dangerous”. There have been more than enough radicals who also where atheists and I think FF is right pointing out that they are as dangerous as radical believers.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “You’re reading uncharistically uncharitable here.”

          Unless you’ve read through my entire comment history, you’re in a precarious position to be making this sort of assertion.

          Which behavior seems, to me, like an uncharacteristically foolish thing for you to do. But, then again, I don’t know you that well; perhaps my analysis is off.

          “The key words here are “more dangerous”.

          I will take your leave to make my own assessments about which of his words were “key”, since your reading comprehension seems to be failing you at this moment. You have misconstrued FF’s point, as I read it:

          “There have been more than enough radicals who also where atheists”

          He did not write so as to convey the idea of [radicals, who also happen to be atheists]. He wrote about [radical Atheism]. In other words, people radically pushing Atheism, qua atheism, the way radical Catholics would push Catholicism, per se, or radical Islamists would push their vision of Islam, per se. I know of very few people who could be called purveyors of “radical Atheism”, indeed I would love to be told whom FF thinks “they” are.

          Those whom I can imagine *might* be called purveyors of “radical Atheism” don’t strike me as dangerous in the way that those whom I CAN imagine being called purveyors of “radical Catholicism” or “radical Islam” being dangerous.

          I could wish you would do me the courtesy, going forward, of carefully reading both the posts I reply to, and the posts I write so as not to inject more confusion than necessary.

          “I think FF is right pointing out that they are as dangerous as radical believers.”

          I will let FF respond to me (or not) in his/her own good time to tell me whether or not I well-understood his/her point of view.

          Let us assume, for the moment anyway, that I HAVE well-understood his/her point: “no flavor of “radicalism” is “more dangerous than another”

          That point, a point which you also seem to be defending, is patently absurd.

          Someone promoting “radical Jainism” is not going to be dangerous to anyone (except perhaps themselves). Comparing that person to someone promoting “radical Wahhabism” leaves us with the following insight:

          Person 1 who “radically” believes [propositions abc] will be as dangerous as Person 2 who “radically” believes [propositions xyz] if, and ONLY if, radically believing the content of [abc] leads to behaviors as destructive as radically believing the content of [xyz].

          In order to meaningfully and accurately compare the threat posed by 1 vs. 2, we will actually have to read, understand, and compare the content of [abc] vs [xyz].

          Of course, saying that “not all ‘radicals’ are alike, and that we have to carefully consider what we’re talking about in each case” is less sexy, and less easy to say, than

          “RADICALISM IS BAD.”

          On the other hand, it has it benefits….it’s harder to be accurately criticized for lazy thinking when one does the former.

        • adam

          “He wrote about [radical Atheism].”

          Is it equivalent to militant atheism?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Hard to know for sure, until/unless I get responses:

          “I know of very few people who could be called purveyors of “radical Atheism”, indeed I would love to be told whom FF thinks “they” are.”

        • MNb

          My my, is Radical Atheism the latest taboo word? Here you have a radical atheist:

          http://zoom.iprima.cz/sites/default/files/image_crops/image_620x349/9/397346_martin-bormann-v-barve_image_620x349.jpg

          An atheist and a full radical. Hence a radical atheist. And dangerous. For this observation whining about the correct formulating is totally irrelevant.

        • adam

          My bet is that he believes that people like Dawkins are Radical Atheists.

        • MNb

          Perhaps you win this bet, perhaps it’s just your prejudice. However it’s totally relevant for his point:

          “radical Islam is [not] more dangerous than…. radical Atheism”
          Good luck showing that the caliph of Islamic State is more dangerous than the radical and atheist Martin Bormann. If you can’t this quote may not be formulated according to you taste, it doesn’t mean this quote is wrong.

        • adam

          “radical and atheist Martin Bormann”

          Isnt that different from a Radical Atheist?

          Was it atheism that he was radical about or not?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Category error.

          Sloppy thinking.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “An atheist and a full radical. Hence a radical atheist.”

          My my, but we have a sloppy thought process this week.*

          * I haven’t read your whole comment history, the problem might well go back much further.

        • MNb

          “My my, but we have a sloppy thought process this week.*”
          My my, the Ultimate Thought Process Judge has spoken. Or just a grammar nazi? What we call in Dutch a comma fucker? Hey – shall we put every single comment to you from now on? Then it will only become visible after your approval regarding style and grammar?
          You’re acting like a bigot. Like I said – as far as I know you that’s very uncharacteristic.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Lol, a raw nerve, eh?

          No, this isn’t about “grammar”, per se. It’s about clear definitions, thinking, and writing.

          And what’s wrong with commas, anyway? They can save lives!

          “Let’s eat Grandpa.” vs. “Let’s eat, Grandpa.”

          In any case, I’ll get back to you when I have a free moment. For now I have important things which require my attention. 😛

        • MNb

          “a raw nerve, eh?”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Says the guy who gets upset as soon as he meets the term Radical Atheism. Nonono! Can’t have that!

          “For now I have important things which require my attention.”
          Good to read that you get sensible again. May it last long.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Says the guy who gets upset as soon as he meets the term Radical Atheism. Nonono! Can’t have that!”

          You have again misunderstood. Willfully?

          In any case, the fact is that I have no problem with that term. I dare you to try to point to something I’ve written wherein I indicate that I do.

          You won’t be able to.

          Because I didn’t.

          Because I don’t.

          You should probably publicly acknowledge that fact, and apologize for being needlessly insulting.

          What I DO have a problem with is your poor English reading comprehension, combined with your unwarranted self confidence and your need to interject….

          I don’t mind people being assholes, as long as they’re correct assholes.

          A criterion you have failed to meet.

          And, now, for realz: I’m outtie for a few hours!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Surely a guy who’s an atheist and a radical isn’t necessarily what’s meant by someone who’s a “radical atheist.” The first are two traits of that person that may or may not overlap or interact. Not so the second.

        • MNb

          “isn’t necessarily what’s meant”
          No, but it isn’t necessarily ruled out either. As I agree with Adam that it doesn’t make sense to place Richard Dawkins (no matter how much I dislike his non-biological views) in the same sentence as the caliph of ISIS the charitable reading of FF’s comment (like I pointed out to PBLot) is that he/she doesn’t refer to Dawkins, but to for instance Bormann.
          That’s all.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “the charitable reading [one way to interpret, not the actual words, but what I assume the intent was] of FF’s comment (like I pointed out to PBLot) is that he/she doesn’t refer to Dawkins, but to for instance Bormann.”

          FTFY

        • Smash Islamophobia

          The 100 million+ killed by atheist Communists in the 20th century are completely irrelevant to your point, of course…

        • adam

          Because, they didnt kill because atheist says to…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Bingo! Well stated. Official atheism was a consequence of the dictatorship just like the millions of deaths were.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So Trotsky and Lenin were devout Christians until 1917 or so, then dictatorship changed their minds?

        • ssm99

          Nope, they were Jews.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Do I need to type slower so you can understand?

          The church was a separate, unwanted power structure. They dismantled it. It’s how dictators roll.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          You’re still not getting it, are you? Let me spell it out for you: When postulating a causal relationship between two events, it can be difficult to convince people that a subsequent event is the cause of a prior event.

          Since Lenin and Trotsky were atheists before they gained power, it is somewhat irrational to maintain that gaining near-absolute power was the cause of their (pre-existing) atheism. Time only goes one way. Cause must precede effect.

        • MNb

          Eeeehhhhh – BobS never claimed that gaining near-absolute power. You might want to work on your comprehensive reading skills.
          Lenin and Trotsky gained near-absolute power, ie became dictators.
          Then they started dismantling the church.
          So cause (dictatorship) nicely precedes effect (dismantling church).
          You are wrong on your very own terms. I like that.
          Now if you’ve got that we might try to make the next step. Take your time.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re still not getting it, are you? Lenin and Trotsky being atheists isn’t the issue. Atheism imposed on the country from the top is. Why do you suppose that was?

          Having the church with an independent hold on the people was a problem. Solution: outlaw the church.

          It’s pretty easy to understand when you think it through.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So their imposition of totalitarian, atheist rule on the USSR caused them to become atheists– many years prior to that? Ordinarily, cause must precede effect. They imposed atheism on the country because they were atheists who achieved near-absolute power over the country. If they were not atheists, they would not have imposed atheism.

        • MNb

          Repeating your silly error doesn’t do anything to remedy it.
          Cause: Lenin and Trotsky becoming dictators.
          Effect: prosecution of everything non-communist.
          Evidence: the first ones to go to Lubyanka were anarchists – ie full blown atheists. The second ones were social-democrats (Mensheviks), many of whom were atheists as well.

          Conclusion: they imposed atheism because they imposed communism. They imposed communism because they were communists and communists don’t tolerate deviating views, whether religious or non-religious. That’s why we call communist leaders dictators. In short: their dictatorship was the cause, persecution of religion and non-communist atheism was the result. That’s confirmed by all the democrat atheists who never have persecuted anyone at all.
          May I suppose that your islamophobia has smashed your thinking skills?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So their imposition of totalitarian, atheist rule on the USSR caused them to become atheists– many years prior to that?

          Nope.

          They imposed atheism on the country because they were atheists who achieved near-absolute power over the country.

          They imposed atheism because they could? Because that advances the Global Atheist Agenda®? I’ve already explained this: the church was a competitor.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So you would maintain that Lenin and Trotsky imposed a Communist dictatorship on the country, not because they were Communists who gained control of the country, but because gaining control of the country somehow made them Communists? Leftist “reasoning” is always entertaining…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wrong again.

          But perhaps I’m too hard on you–English not your first language?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Why do leftists always have such difficulty with fairly simple, direct analogies? Is it nature? Or nurture? Do you have any particular insight into this recurrent problem?

          You maintain that gaining power magically turned Lenin and Trotsky (both previously enthusiastic Christians, evidently) into hard core atheists, yet Communism was a fixed, immutable part of their identity, that was completely unchanged by their ascent to power. This despite the fact that Communism is invariably an atheistic ideology. Hmm…

        • MNb

          Why do right wing bigots always have such difficulty with comprehensive reading?

          “You maintain that …..”
          Nope. BobS or anyone else didn’t even write this even once.
          Let me try to answer the question myself. It’s because right wing bigots and especially religious ones are dishonest, stupid or both.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Seems to be your reading comprehension that is lacking.
          “Lenin and Trotsky being atheists isn’t the issue. Atheism imposed on the country from the top is…”
          Argument by simple assertion is never convincing. “Bob” asserts that Lenin and Trotsky’s deeply-held atheist ideology is irrelevant to their imposition of atheism on Russia. Why? Because Bob’s feelz tell him so. And who are we to question a leftist’s feelz with mere facts?

          And you somehow also manage to believe that effect can precede cause, temporally speaking. Lenin and Trotsky’s rise to power did not somehow cause their preexisting atheism, no matter how strongly you believe in time machines.

          You also seem to be arguing from a position of near-complete ignorance of the history of Communism in the 20th century. Once power is initially gained, the elimination of useful idiots, fellow travelers, and rivals generally is at least as high a priority (usually higher) as the elimination of enemies. Mensheviks and anarchists, of course, fall into the former category, and Christians and “kulaks” into the latter.

          Perhaps you can see the weakness of your (and Bob’s) argument by way of a simple analogy, though the difficulty you two have demonstrated so far with even the most straightforward of analogies leads me to doubt it. If I were to maintain that Mohammed and other Muslim leaders imposed Islam on the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, etc., persecuting Christians, Jews, and (especially) members of non-Abrahamic religions such as Zoroastrianism, not because they were Muslims, but because gaining absolute power somehow made them hate non-Muslim religions, would you regard that in any way as a serious argument possessing even a smidgen of face validity? I doubt it. Yet that’s exactly what you’re doing.

        • MNb

          “Seems to be your reading comprehension that is lacking.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Writes the guy who can’t understand BobS’ argument no matter how often repeated. You again paraphrase him wrongly.

          “Bob” asserts that Lenin and Trotsky’s deeply-held atheist ideology is irrelevant to their imposition of atheism on Russia.”
          Nope.
          That’s not what he asserts.

          “And you somehow also manage to believe that effect can precede cause, temporally speaking.”
          Nope.
          I don’t.
          That’s your utterly poor reading comprehensive skills again.

          “Lenin and Trotsky’s rise to power did not somehow cause their preexisting atheism,”
          And I never said otherwise.
          That’s your utterly poor reading comprehensive skills again.
          The more often you repeat this stupidity the more often you confirm your stupidity.

          “of near-complete ignorance of the history of Communism in the 20th century.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          I started studying it – and also in the 19th Century – when I was 13 or 14.

          “Once power is initially gained, the elimination of useful idiots, fellow travelers, and rivals generally is at least as high a priority (usually higher) as the elimination of enemies.”
          Exactly what I wrote and carefully missing the point: all those “idiots, fellow travelers and rivals” who were the highest priority were …… also atheists. So they weren’t killed for atheism. Just like christian authorities weren’t persecuted for their belief. They were persecuted because the communist regime perceived them as ….. rivals and enemies.
          Excellent! You demonstrate my “ignorance” by confirming what I wrote and directly contradicting your erroneous standpoint.
          And you do it again here.

          “Yet that’s exactly what you’re doing.”
          Yes. Let me do the trick. I quote you almost literally.

          If I were to maintain that Lenin and other communist leaders imposed communism on the Russia, the Ukraine, Poland etc., persecuting anarchists, social democrats, christians, jews, and all other adherents of potentially competing ideologies, worldviews and religions because gaining absolute power somehow made them fear non-communists, would you regard that in any way as a serious argument possessing even a smidgen of face “validity?”
          Yup. That’s exactly the argument, solidly backed by the historical facts. And yes – mutatis mutandis that applies to totalitarian versions of religion as well, as for instance the Crusades demonstrated, but also ISIS. Some Crusades picked (deviating) christians as their victims and ISIS has killed more muslims than non-muslims.
          Once again thanks for nolens volens confirming the argument.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wrong again.

          Say–I have an idea! If you want to accurately convey what I’ve said, quote me directly. Conservatives are clearly too stupid to paraphrase.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So you do admit that Lenin and Trotsky were hardcore atheists and Communists prior to gaining power, and their imposition of atheism on the country was due to their strongly-held, pre-existing beliefs? That’s encouraging. Who says leftists are incapable of learning? Not me. If a simple enough concept is repeated often enough, even progressives can sometimes grasp it…

        • MNb

          “So you do admit that …..”
          Bobs (nor anybody else) ever denied that.
          Yeah, leftists are capable of learning.
          Rightwing nut you aren’t.
          Because you still don’t understand the argument ……
          No use to repeat it – it would be never enough for stupid conservatives like you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’d love to have a conversation with you, but you’re determined to ensure that it never gets off the ground. What a shame.

        • MNb

          “Unless you’ve read through my entire comment history”
          Oh come on. This is creationist logic, well beneath your usual level. I’ve read many, many comments of yours on this blog and various other blogs on Patheos. Your reading is always charitable as far as I have read your comments but this one of yours isn’t.
          Sorry, PDL. It’s my habit not to read any further after howlers like this one. I won’t make an exception for you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          1. I don’t know what radical atheism is. Atheism is simply a lack of god belief; nothing else proceeds from that. Atheists are often humanists, for example, and that is indeed a worldview, but atheism per se isn’t.

          2. Suppose someone said “Radical X is worse than radical Y.” How would you test that? You’ve apparently done so and concluded that radical Islam is no worse than radical anything-else. I want to check your work.

          3. If you’re saying that “radical X” is merely a statement, then I might agree with you that the crazy stuff in the Quran is no worse than the crazy stuff in the Old Testament. But in most people’s mind, “radical Islam” is a collection of people, the actual expression of the statement, and those people are actually quantitatively pretty bad.

        • MNb

          “I don’t know what radical atheism is.”
          Martin Bormann was both a radical and an atheist. I read it like this. Now you possibly will answer that Bormann’s atheism was not radical, but that’s irrelevant for the “dangerous” statement.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wasn’t Bormann’s atheism the same as yours or mine? Or are you saying that he was a radical atheist where you and I aren’t?

        • MNb

          Yeah, Bormann’s atheism was about the same as yours and mine. He was also a radical. So he was a radical and an atheist. And he was dangerous. That this danger was not caused by his atheism is irrelevant for FF’s comment.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “That this danger was not caused by his atheism is irrelevant for FF’s comment.”

          Of course it is. What foolish tripe, this is truly disappointing from you.

        • adam

          “Yeah, Bormann’s atheism was about the same as yours and mine.”

          So his atheism wasnt radical, so he wasnt a Radical Atheist, but an atheist who was radical about something else?

          Do you have any examples of any Radical Atheists besides the one I offered?

      • Jim Samaras

        Not to mention the love fest going on with the pathological lying Hillary!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Jim Samaras

          Perhaps I do Bob, perhaps I do

        • Amy Wilborn

          Gee, I wonder why Politifact has found that she lies less than anyone else, followed by Bernie….AND they found that Republicans lie three times more than Democrats…easy to look up….too bad..lol

        • Jim Samaras

          Amy, they all lie to the degree that has really gotten reprehensible. Politifact? Ha!

        • Amy Wilborn

          LOL….believe what you want (yeah yeah, I know; you will say the same back to me) but many conservatives are really despicable in just about every way. How many Benghazi hearings do you think they will have? But that;’s okay; I love the way inbred Dowdy loses every time.

        • Jim Samaras

          Dowdy is a pussy that can’t think on his feet or for some reason was afraid to offend. He should have admonished her more for admittedly lying to the families of the fallen yet telling the truth to her daughter and King of Egypt. Totally let her off the hook. I hope Trump gets the chance to face her down. I truly hope that you are not backing this woman just based on gender Amy. She and her husband are reprehensible people! I can understand perhaps feeling the Bern as he seems to be a genuine individual but as an American it would be hard to understand a fellow patriot backing socialism for our country. Speaking of inbred how about that other guy Lindsey Graham. Talk about a joke….

        • Paul B. Lot

          “as an American it would be hard to understand a fellow patriot backing socialism for our country”

          As an American it is hard for me to understand a fellow American not understanding that “Socialism”, ala Soviet Union, is not equivalent to “democratic socialism.”

        • Jim Samaras

          What I do know is that the government is involved heavily in any kind of socialistic democracy. Whenever they are involved in ANYTHING the costs go up greatly. While all men are CREATED equally their upbringing and genetics make a huge difference in how they turn out. Some are smarter than others and should reap greater reward. Not only for their effort but their willingness to take risk. Most people are satisfied with a mundane existence while others strive for greatness. All motivation is taken away under any type of socialist system so I cannot condone anything of the sort Paul

        • Paul B. Lot

          “All motivation is taken away under any type of socialist system”(emphasis mine)

          The American Freeway system is a socialist system.
          The American Army is a socialist system.
          The American Navy is a socialist system.
          The American Air Force is a socialist system.
          The American Marine Corps is a socialist system.
          The American FBI/CIA/NASA/DIA are socialist systems.
          American Fire Departments are socialists systems.
          American Police Departments are socialists systems.
          American Public Schools are socialists systems.
          etc…
          (sorry, I’m getting bored – there’s more though, and I’m sure you get the idea)

          “Whenever [people with socialist ideas] are involved in ANYTHING the costs go up greatly.”

          Orly? Have you never heard of the Ancient, private, Roman fire brigades who would charge you money to put out your house fire? Can you imagine the possibilities for corruption if a private fire brigade had enough mussel to start fires, and then charge for them to be put out?

          What about the fact that we pay waay more, per capita, in the US for health care – and yet still receive worse outcomes than countries with stronger regulations and socialist policies?

          “While all men are CREATED equally their upbringing and genetics make a huge difference in how they turn out. Some are smarter than others and should reap greater reward. Not only for their effort but their willingness to take risk. Most people are satisfied with a mundane existence while others strive for greatness.”

          I agree with you to a point – but I think it’s quite easy to fail to see to what degree your success was built on the backs of others who ante’d up into the pot before you.

        • Jim Samaras

          The items you mention Paul are many of the things that we have come to expect from our government and rightly so. Now our school system is atrocious as you must admit. We spend more money per student than any other country and get little return in comparison to those in the top 30. I’m not for privatization but a chit system would give parents and students a choice and weed out the bad teachers and administrators created by the unions that make it difficult to get rid of the bad apples.

          Again, genetics has much to do with ability and the ability to recognize an opportunity when it arises. I still say socialism takes away initiative to strive to be the best you can be.

        • Paul B. Lot

          But, wait….you just finished saying:

          Whenever [people with socialist ideas] are involved in ANYTHING the costs go up greatly…All motivation is taken away under any type of socialist system

          …but now you’re saying that:

          The items you mention Paul are many of the things that we have come to expect from our government and rightly so.

          Which is it?

          “Again, genetics has much to do with ability and the ability to recognize an opportunity when it arises”

          I agree – I also think that those who are the beneficiaries of the gifts of others often do not realize how much they’ve been given. It’s easy to assume you’ve done _________ all on your own, when in reality you come from a long line of financially stable people or were raised in a stable environment or had access to early nutrition, health care, eusocial relationships, and good education.

          “I still say socialism takes away initiative to strive to be the best you can be.”

          I heard you the first time – it was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. “Capitalism”, unregulated by government (scary!), does not produce optimal human outcomes.

        • Jim Samaras

          Just because I expect and want those things from the government does not mean that it couldn’t be accomplished more economically in the private sector. While I agree that may open the door for greed and corruption but are you under the delusional thinking that it does not exist now? One has to look no farther than the Chicago public school system to see what goes on without the checks and balances needed to keep people honest.

          Of course it’s human nature to think that it’s all about you and what you’ve done that made it all possible but those are the people that this article is all about Paul. A smart person knows he’s had a leg up and willingly admits it! The dummy on the other hand maybe just got lucky but will always be a dummy.

          I never said that unchecked capitalism is the end all be all. Again, checks and balances are needed in all walks of life if for nothing other than to keep honest people honest

        • Paul B. Lot

          “are you under the delusional thinking that it does not exist now”

          Nope.

          “Just because I expect and want those things from the government does not mean that it couldn’t be accomplished more economically in the private sector.”

          “Just because”? I don’t know about “just because”, but I do know that I’ve never heard of a well-run private Fire Department. Have you? I HAVE heard of private Fire Departments extorting people, however.

          ” A smart person knows he’s had a leg up and willingly admits it!”

          It is possible to have-had a “leg up” in non-obvious ways – in ways that even a “smarty” and not a “dummy” won’t automatically realize.

          “I never said that unchecked capitalism is the end all be all. Again, checks and balances are needed in all walks of life if for nothing other than to keep honest people honest”

          GOVERNMENT provides those checks/balanced to the private sector – the private sector never regulates itself well.

          Let me leave you with two excellent, and short, videos by renowned economist Robert Reich.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PaLxOkjvJE
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0

        • Jim Samaras

          You have one up on me because I’m not aware of any private fire dept. other than perhaps in a very small wealthy community maybe. I would enjoy hearing of your experience with a corrupt private fire dept.

          I would also love to hear of the non obvious leg up that could occur that even an intelligent person wouldn’t recognize.

          The true job creators in this country is small business. Why not cut the unnecessary red tape to make it easier for entrepreneurs to open a small business?
          Raising corporate taxes will only drive more out of the country to others with a smaller rate. Why not cut taxes and give credits to motivate staying and building more facilities to manufacture in this country?

          Raising minimum wage to unearthly numbers will only inhibit the creation of small business. I have friends in the restaurant business already closing their doors in NY state that say making a profit after analyzing the risk is a poor investment and are moving there money elsewhere creating more unemployment.

          Government does create the free market. Who is the government? Attorneys….shoot them all.

          Government does rig the game. How? Why? See above
          Donald Trump will work for the many and not the few.

          Our economy grew between WWII and the 80’s because we were the only game in town after the we destroyed the rest of the world. Everyone has caught up and that reality is tough to take.

          He is correct about reducing the debt as a percentage of our GDP. The way that is gone about is where the argument lies.

          He also may be right about using Medicares leverage to reduce the costs and I like the idea of paying incentive to cure not just medicate.

          I would have no problem lifting the ceiling on SS payroll taxes. The problem is it’s gotten away from it’s initial form and is paying benefits to people that are just working the system.

          He is also correct that lower income folks pay an already high percentage in taxes when accounting for sales taxes and other things mentioned.

          Thank you for the videos. Another perspective is always welcome

        • Paul B. Lot

          “I’m not aware of any private fire dept. other than perhaps in a very small wealthy community maybe”

          I am not aware of any either, nor have I ever heard of any, maybe…not even in very small wealthy communities.

          ” I would enjoy hearing of your experience with a corrupt private fire dept.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome

          “I would also love to hear of the non obvious leg up that could occur that even an intelligent person wouldn’t recognize.”

          I am fairly smart. I grew up fairly lower middle class. I thought I had been taught to appreciate my family and my waay-better-than-3rd-world lot in life.

          I had never heard of water-based lead poisoning before Lansing, MI blew up.* I was unaware it was a problem, nor even could be a problem, until the issue got large enough in scale to hit the national news.

          Children’s lives have been permantently ruined.

          And now the issue is fading again.

          Unless you live there. Then I imagine it’s hard to forget – especially if you have a child who is exhibiting symptoms of lead neurtoxicity.

          *Outside of ancient contexts like, you guessed it, Rome.

          “The true job creators in this country is small business.”

          In a way this is true, in a way it’s false. Small businesses have no one to sell to if the public has no money to spend. You can’t employ anyone if you don’t have any customers.

          “Raising corporate taxes will only drive more out of the country to others with a smaller rate. Why not cut taxes and give credits to motivate staying and building more facilities to manufacture in this country?”

          Raising the tax rate on the highest brackets is going to do nothing to “small businesses.”

          [Walmart] and [Dave’s Hardware Store] are not playing the same sport, nor are they in the same country, let alone the same ballpark.

          “Raising minimum wage to unearthly numbers will only inhibit the creation of small business.”

          1) $15/hr isn’t “unearthly”.
          2) More money in low-income American’s hands = more customers for small-businesses to sell to.

          “I have friends in the restaurant business already closing their doors in NY state that say making a profit after analyzing the risk is a poor investment and are moving there money elsewhere creating more unemployment.”

          Why are you talking to me about NY state?

          “Our economy grew between WWII and the 80’s because we were the only game in town after the we destroyed the rest of the world. Everyone has caught up and that reality is tough to take.”

          I disagree with this analysis in large ways – it was not necessary for us to allow nor motivate American companies to take their jobs and tax-free profits overseas.

          ” The problem is it’s gotten away from it’s initial form and is paying benefits to people that are just working the system.”

          Welfare fraud, as I understand it, is NOT a significant percentage of the costs we’re talking about.

        • Jim Samaras

          I suppose a scenario as in Rome back then would be possible. That’s one reason local government should handle it.

          While a terrible event in Lansing, I don’t know how it applies to our conversation. Where was the leg up?

          I was saying small business creates the jobs and gives the people money to spend on items.

          It would be nice if Walmart and other giants actually bought from companies that make the products they sell to American consumers here in America.

          $15 an hour is unearthly to fast food operators and restaurant owners who are trying to remain competitive. That will only push for more automation in those fields and drive up the cost of a burger.

          Being the only game in town was a large part of our success during that period Paul. The other part of our demise was the NAFTA agreement which was put in effect during the Clinton years.

          Welfare in general is more of a significant cost than they are leading us to believe not to mention the fraud.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “That’s one reason local government should handle it.”

          I’m glad we agree! There are scenarios/situations/circumstances where having a socalized system is better/more efficient than a privatized one.

          I have never called for complete Socialism, nor would I support any candidate who did.

          “While a terrible event in Lansing, I don’t know how it applies to our conversation. Where was the leg up?”

          I think having access to clean, safe, non-neurotoxic drinking water is a fairly substantial leg-up – particular if one has that access all throughout the most sensitive years of one’s neurological development.

          I think that having access to that clean water is also something which one could easily take for granted – I know I did.

          That is my only point: it is easy to over-look all the interlocking systems and all the previous generations of man-hours which were necessary for us to have what we have access to now.

          Hell, even when we’re trying to weigh-out and carefully account for all the advantages we’ve had – very very rarely does anyone talk about all the generations who have come before us…that’s socialism too, albeit a socialism of the dead, as Chesterton might say.

          “I was saying small business creates the jobs and gives the people money to spend on items.”

          The egg comes before the chicken – if there are no people willing/able to buy, then there’s no demand for small businesses’ products.

          “It would be nice if Walmart and other giants actually bought from companies that make the products they sell to American consumers here in America.”

          It’s much, much worse than that. Walmart underpays it’s employees, which drains the lower-income people of buying power, which forces them to buy at Walmart.

          Walmart also under-employs it’s employees, which allows them to be booked as part-time and thus free from benefits. This forces their workers to apply for/use food stamps, effectively using the Federal Gov’t to subsidize it’s own employment costs.

          And where do those employees use the foodstamps? At Walmart.

          That’s the point here, Jim: corporations are smarter than you. They’re smarter than me. Even if they’re not smarter, they have so much money that they can BUY smarter people – people to lobby, people to fight in the courts, people to sniff out loopholes, people to market to the poor/vulnerable.

          Corporations don’t give a fuck – they’re not BUILT to. They’re built for PROFIT. Profit is not evil, but nor is it good – it’s neutral. If the easiest way for corporations to make profit is to engage in unethical practices, like water will flow down hill and find it’s own level, corporations will do the easiest thing.

          Walmart is a great example of this.

          “$15 an hour is unearthly to fast food operators and restaurant owners who are trying to remain competitive. “

          $15/hr is not “unearthly” for McDonalds and BK and Arbys and Taco Bell.

          “That will only push for more automation in those fields and drive up the cost of a burger.”

          1) automation is coming, minimum wage or not
          2) maybe if the burgers were more expensive, we would eat fewer of them and be placing less of a burden on our overpriced healthcare system where the public eats costs and private insurance/medical suppliers reap obscene rewards.

          “Being the only game in town was a large part of our success during that period Paul.”

          Did I argue against that? I agree with you – I have a better grasp of what the European wars from the ’60s to the ’40s did to West Europe than most Americans I know. You have a point here.

          “The other part of our demise was the NAFTA agreement which was put in effect during the Clinton years.”

          I agree with this as well – this is another piece of the puzzle – I have no love for the Clintons.

          “Welfare in general is more of a significant cost than they are leading us to believe”

          Welfare programs are a much, much lower cost to our society, imo, than having a:

          -malnourished
          -lead poisoned
          -unstable
          -poorly educated
          -obese
          -incarcerated
          -unemployed

          population.

        • Jim Samaras

          You bring up some very good points Paul and I obviously don’t put you in the category of people who were the point of this article.
          All the things you bring up, Walmart, malnourished, lead poisoned, POORLY educated are all on Trumps’ agenda to fix if elected into office. While I also think he has a downside inasmuch as his bombastic attitude I believe his heart to be in the right place and that attitude also has a good side when negotiating with these fuckstick corporations and world leaders who now are taking advantage of the American people visa vie through our corrupt politicians in office now. While I believe Bernie to be an honest straightforward guy I don’t think he’d have the know how to deal with all these tough issues as would a guy like the Donald. In reality how much worse can it get under a change of leadership such as his?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “In reality how much worse can it get under a change of leadership such as his?”

          Obama has done some horrible things, and I think he’ll go down in history as one of the worst offenders in a lot of categories. I never voted for him, and never would knowing what I know about him now.

          That said; he inherited a truly awful situation. The country is not doing great right now, but it was dying the way Bush left it.

          “While I believe Bernie to be an honest straightforward guy I don’t think he’d have the know how to deal with all these tough issues as would a guy like the Donald”

          Hmm, that’s an interesting take. At the end of the day, I guess I trust Bernie to do the best that a President could with these issues: he’s been working on them for over thirty years, he’s intimately acquainted with the difficulties of getting rational and useful legislation through congress, and he tells the truth.

          I can’t predict the future, and I don’t know what 4 years of Bernie-as-POTUS would look like, but I’d rather vote for someone I believe in than try to decide whom of the rest I dislike the least.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Thank you for the videos. Another perspective is always welcome”

          PS. Thank you for saying so, it’s a refreshing thing to hear. Take care!

        • Greg G.

          I would enjoy hearing of your experience with a corrupt private fire dept.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome

          But that example is before fire departments became socialized.

        • Amy Wilborn

          I sure hope you are not talking about the “Bell Curve” because that has been debunked many times. I think you place too high a value on “genetics” because a person may be extremely intelligent but not see opportunities, and I think that is because people confuse intelligence with critical thinking skills which are so different. A good example is Ben Carson, who has got to be one of the dumbest people I have ever heard speak. He may be an excellent mechanic but analytical thinking? Good grief, no..

        • Jim Samaras

          You bring up a good point Amy. I do correlate intelligence to critical thinking skills and perhaps have been wrong in doing so. While I do place a high value on genetics there also is a thing called environment which dictates ones direction in life. You may be being a bit hard on the good doctor. He’s a smart guy in his field but was way out of his element on those debate stages and was made to look foolish at times. He would be my choice as a Surgeon General however and has some very good ideas as far as health care refinement may be concerned.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Sorry, to me he is an idiot. I have watched too many videos of him. I really like the one where he put down welfare but then admitted his mother had to take it. And I don’t think I am being too hard on him. At the same time, I don’t think he is a bad man, just too clueless, and I hate his silly religious beliefs which cloud many peoples’ judgments. And he thinks homosexuality is a choice which means he does not think critically at all. I realized that by the time I was 12.

        • Greg G.

          I was thinking about listing those socialist systems but I got bored before I got to the keyboard.

        • Paul B. Lot

          How ’bout Crassus and his cockleshell brigades?

          /facepalm

        • Greg G.

          I think that was meant for Jim S. as an example of corrupt fire departments, wasn’t it? I recalled a corrupt fire department in Rome from the time before Julius Caesar and when I looked it up it was Crassus.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Well, it was meant for you in that I was being self-deprecating about:

          ” if a private fire brigade had enough mussel muscle to start fires”

          but other than that: yes. Your recollection is spot-on.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Plus people have a different idea of what “greatness” means. Again, people have different values and they usually don’t change.

        • Amy Wilborn

          See, you are talking about “costs” like that is the only thing that matters. And, although nature and nurture contribute to a person, so does the lack of equality..greatly, more so than you probably think. And most people want to work, because people want to conform to their society. There are very few “moochers” out there, as conservatives like to believe. Oh gosh, now that I have started, it is hard for me to stop! but I will….sigh

        • Amy Wilborn

          Sorry, but I think Dowdy is just plain stupid. I lover Bernie, but Hillary is okay, and many, many times better than any conservative. You see, everything is about values…you know the old saying about how no one should talk politics and religion, but, gee, we all do it, right? LOL..we truly have to laugh at ourselves, all of us. Anyway, many liberals’ values are the welfare of people and conservatives care mainly about money and property. Of course, there is much more to both, but you know what I mean. What gets me is that cons go on and on and on about Hillary lying, when EVERY politician has lied, I’m sure. And all the so-called scandals have NEVER been proven. I rest my case. And, even if they were true, I cannot abide racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, people who hate Muslims, poor people, etc. …conservatives. I am now a retired 64 y/o social worker, have a Masters in Social Work and believe me, the crap that conservatives believe about the poor and minorities is just that….crap…sorry, didn’t mean to get on my soap box…lol But, basically, conservatives do not understand and they cannot help it, because they just do not have the empathy that many liberals have.

        • Paul B. Lot

          ” And all the so-called scandals have NEVER been proven. I rest my case.”

          Bill Clinton lied to you, to me, and to Congress….under oath.

          This is not a “so-called” scandal. This is has been proven. This is fact.

          The Clintons are political scum, perhaps, but they are still preferable in some ways to Trump or Cruz.

          But in any case, I’m voting for Bernie – with or without the nomination.

          Neither the Clintons, nor Trump, nor Cruz are as bad, in my opinion, as:
          a) the way the political process has been infiltrated by money
          b) the two-party system.

          I don’t give a damn if the Democratic or Republican party collapse because of this race, in fact I hope they do.

          Perhaps we need to burn them down to make room for a better system.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Sorry, but if you are talking about Lewinski, who cares???? Anything to do with sex is a bunch of nothing. And anyone would like about having sex with someone they aren’t supposed to. There were so many heads of state ffrom other countries who said, “What are they doing to their President”? Too bad the Puritans and Calvinists came here….
          Do you remember or remember hearing about Shirley McClain stating when others talked so much about JFK’s affairs? She said “Would you rather he did it to the country or a woman?” lol….And I think that bigoted, narrow mind Stark fellow was a much greater “sinner” (if you believe that stuff; I don’t) than anything Clinton could ever do. Being judgmental is just about the worst character flaw a person could have and conservatives have it in abundance!
          Trump is an anti intellectual bigot in every way and Cruz? I thought you said you didn’t like liars?? That man is worse than Trump. Maybe you should do some research on him? He wants his religion to be the law of the land, has the critical thinking skills of a rock and, like most conservatives, is a hateful bigot, which can be easily proven. But you don’t like the Clintons? Unbelievable….jthey aren’t racist, sexist and homophobic, now are they. But Clinton lied about sex…whoop dee doo…. Any, and I mean, the worst Democrat is always better than the best Republican, unless you like bigots. And please, don’t try the “you are bigot, too, cause you don’t like conservative…..blah blah blah…” doesn’t work because I readily admit I have no tolerance for intolerance, but I have no wish to prevent anyone from living and working where they want or marrying the person they want, etc.unlike many conservatives.
          And I love Bernie because he really cares about ALL people and it is not about the money…but then, what I just posted are my values.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Sorry, but if you are talking about Lewinski, who cares???? Anything to do with sex is a bunch of nothing. And anyone would like about having sex with someone they aren’t supposed to. There were so many heads of state ffrom other countries who said, “What are they doing to their President”? Too bad the Puritans and Calvinists came here.

          You seem to have misunderstood me.

          While I certainly think it was cretinous and immoral to have a sexual relationship with his employee, and while I think it was tasteless and base to do so in the Oval office, and while I think the man is a misogynist/philanderer who has pressured other women into sexual encounters and then destroyed them when they dared speak out….I think ALL of those things, and yet they are not my point.

          You can TELL that they’re not my point….because I didn’t SAY them.

          What I DID say was that the President of the United States lied. He lied on-camera. He lied in print.

          He lied under-oath. Which is a felony.

          Calling that “a bunch of nothing” is you begging to be lied to by good-looking, charismatic men and women. I promise that with a country full of voters like yourself, your wish will come true, and often.

          “Being judgmental is just about the worst character flaw a person could have”

          We disagree here.

          “Trump is an anti intellectual bigot in every way and Cruz? I thought you said you didn’t like liars?? That man is worse than Trump. Maybe you should do some research on him? “

          Did you perhaps miss it when I said this: “The Clintons are political scum, perhaps, but they are still preferable in some ways to Trump or Cruz” ?

          “Any, and I mean, the worst Democrat is always better than the best Republican, unless you like bigots. And please, don’t try the “you are bigot, too, cause you don’t like conservative…..blah blah blah…””

          What are you talking about? I have voiced my support for Sanders already.

          It would help me if you would try harder, in the future, to actually read/understand what I’m saying before replying. :-/

        • Amy Wilborn

          Again, I don’t care about the lying about sex…and, yes, I know people get all bent out of shape about that, but I would bet my son’s life that most Presidents have cheated on their wives (except maybe Jimmy Carter/..lol) I just don’t care, and I think most people would lie. If he lied about something important, I would probably feel differently, I don’t know, but he’s not a bigot and that is what is most important to me. Btw, I think he is charismatic, but I never thought of him as a misogynist…oh well…and he never appealed to me that much…:)
          I did re read your post, and I must apologize because you are right.. sometimes I get on my somewhat “self righteous” soap box and get carried away. Please accept my apology.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Again, I don’t care about the lying about sex…and, yes, I know people get all bent out of shape about that, but I would bet my son’s life that most Presidents have cheated on their wives

          You’ve missed my point. Again. If this is a pattern you keep repeating, we won’t have much fruitful dialogue.

          The point is not that “he lied about sex”, as in a scenario where someone casually asks you if you’ve snogged someone and you deny it because you’ve got a girlfriend.

          He committed
          p
          e
          r
          j
          u
          r
          y
          .

          Do you know what that means? Do you understand the gravity of what “lying under oath” means for “normal” citizens in this country?

          THAT is my point.

          Address it, or don’t, but please stop playing this game where you pretend you’re talking about the same thing I am.

          It does not matter whether or not one lies “about something ‘important'” – lying under oath is a felony.

          ” he’s not a bigot and that is what is most important to me”

          He and his wife have no problems using and abusing those around them, minorities included, for political gain. Maybe they’re not bigots, sociopaths hate and mistreat everyone equally.

          I guess there’s that. :(

          “I did re read your post, and I must apologize because you are right.. sometimes I get on my somewhat “self righteous” soap box and get carried away. Please accept my apology.”

          Well, look:

          I appreciate your saying so, and I accept the apology.

        • Amy Wilborn

          LOL…yes, yes, yes, I KNOW he committed perjury and I DO NOT CARE!!! If it were about something really important, I might care, it would depend on what he lied about. And, nothing he has ever done has come close to equal all the horrible things Republican Presidents have done to people; it’s just that being a social worker, I got to study a lot of things most people don’t pay attention to. Now, I know there are people( liberals) who do know the horrendous things Reagan did to people, and I also realize that not everyone cares/cared about things like that, but I’m sorry, causing homelessness, taking money away from people and being a bigot is much, much worse than perjury about an affair. And remember Ira-Contra?
          And, please show me some proof, research, links, something that shows the Clintons used and abused minorities?

        • Paul B. Lot

          ” I KNOW he committed perjury and I DO NOT CARE”

          And this makes me sad. If you don’t care when your leaders commit felonies, you will get more leaders who commit felonies. It’s a really simple equation, imo.

          The Clintons lie to your face, and then either deny with a smile (Bill), or scream at you (Hillary) if you call them on it.

          We don’t need them at the helm again.

        • Amy Wilborn

          sigh…re read what I said…I don’t care about that! You are looking at things like many cons do…black/white, no grey, etc. I does make a difference what the person is lying about/for!
          And what about the other things I mentioned? You don’t think they are worse? And I’m waiting for proof about their using abusing minorities….

        • Paul B. Lot

          “sigh…re read what I said…I don’t care about that!”

          :-/ I understand. I understood it the first time I read it, which is why I said it makes me sad.

          ” You are looking at things like many cons do…black/white, no grey, etc.”

          I disagree.

          “I does make a difference what the person is lying about/for!”

          1) Lying to save your political skin is not a “good cause”. 😛
          2) It’s not like this is my only complaint, we’ve only talked about it so long because you were not willing to understand my point.

          “And what about the other things I mentioned?”

          What about them? They were irrelevant. Have you not absorbed that I’m a pro-Bernie liberal? Why would you whine to me about Reagan, then? I imagine I know more of the damage that the neo-cons have done than you do.

          Bringing up that damage to distract the conversation from the Clintons is a shitty tactic.

          “And I’m waiting for proof about their using abusing minorities….”

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/22/520138/-

        • Amy Wilborn

          I did/do understand your point, and I just think you are being way too rigid. And you are telling me that the things I mentioned are irrelevant. well, okay, not nice of you, but okay. And I was not bringing up anything to distract…believe me, that is not something I do; I don’t even think I am capable of that. lol and shitty? not nice for I haven’t done anything on purpose.
          And your link? One link from 2008? Sorry, but don’t think I buy that. It’s like you’re looking for something, anything to say negative about the Clintons. Oh well, let’s stop talking about the Clintons, then.
          Let;’s discuss what’s not to love about Bernie! I wonder how many other candidates have birds flying to their podium? 😛

        • Jim Samaras

          We do have empathy Amy, we really do. We have empathy for those who cannot help themselves otherwise why all the crying about the lack of care for our veterans? It’s the way liberals almost justify the corruption in our welfare policies that reward people for dumb decisions and actually perpetuate them by giving away free stuff! Then when we complain about it we’re called all the names you mentioned above.
          I’m sure as a social worker you see many families that truly deserve and need what they are given but I’ve seen first hand many instances where they are not deserving and have just figured out how to work the system.
          You’re right about the politicians all being full of it. Give the Donald a chance though. It can’t get any worse. I remember the same things were said of Reagan back in 1980 and he turned out to be, not perfect, but pretty good for this country.

        • Amy Wilborn

          hahaha…you THINK you do, and what you said about people not being “deserving” proves my point. Conservatives love judging others to make themselves look good, of course, but it doesn’t work. There is much more to peoples’ stories than you think, much more. It’s easy to pick on the little poor guy “working the system” than it is the “big” guys that cheat and steal, the ones cons love. Also, what you have seen “first hand” is ancecdotal. The real cheats, the ones who steal the most and work the system in Medicaid and Medicare are the agencies and vendors, not the individuals. Give Donald a chance? He’s a guy who appeals great to the uneducated and bigoted, so I don’t think so; he has none of my values.
          And Reagan? LOL..he was one of the worst Presidents wwe have had, and he did a real number on poor people, but you wouldn’t know that because cons don’t care about people. I guess you don’t remember when he referred to a black man as a “buck” told poor people that “ketsup is a vegetable” never mentioned AIDS, so research got far behind, and he is one of the main reasons for homelessness. I’m not going to debate it because I already have researched and studied it.

        • Jim Samaras

          While agree it’s the “mechanics” that help cheat the system and make a healthy profit on the people who actually collect the money it’s no excuse for the people who go to these attorneys, agencies and vendors that help them cheat the hard working taxpayer who foots the bill.
          I’m neither uneducated nor am I a bigot Amy and I am insulted by your insinuation. Your Masters degree and all your higher education make you nothing more than an educated idiot if if you don’t see what Trump is bringing to the limelight that the MSM and establishment politicians are scared to death of. Because he doesn’t share your values? So what if he can clean up this mess that these lying, corrupt POS have put us into for the last 30 years.
          Reagan wasn’t perfect by any means but he was a whole lot better than the ones we’ve had since

        • Amy Wilborn

          Oh my! Trump certainly has you fooled! Sorry, but I cannot believe anything he says. I cannot stand the man because he is a racist, sexist, homophobe, Muslim hating, etc….and it’s been proven, sorry. And what did he just say about punishing women for having an abortion?? And what did he say about he would date his daughter? And what did he say about Muslims? What did he say about Mexicans being rapists?

          Oh, and here:

        • Jim Samaras

          Like the democrats have had you fooled for how may years? Go ahead and believe what the media spews about him. He has never made a racist remark. Women that have dealt with him all say nice things. Can the same be said about slick Willie? His children are all upstanding productive members of society and that speaks volumes. What has he said about gays disparaging? Muslim hating? Muslim cautious for sure! Mexico is not sending their best is all. Some ARE rapists and has been proven. He’s against ILLEGAL immigration and for the time being, until we figure it out, refugees from the middle east. A man that has the best interests of the United States seems to get the most rhetoric from the press that I’ve ever witnessed. He must be onto something because he’s getting it from all sides yet he’s popular. The right, the left, the media, the lobbyists, special interests are all against him. I think I’ll give him a try. Fire him in four years if he’s worse than what we’ve got.

        • Amy Wilborn

          I am liberal, I don’t care what you call the party. And yes, I pretty much believe what the media “spews” about him because I have listened to him! And everyone talks about him because he is an egomaniacal bigoted lowlife! And white males love him because they think he might take them back to the 1950’s when white males ruled! You know what, you can choose to reply or not, but it’s no use talking to you for reasons I’d rather not say.

          http://www.glaad.org/trump

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/18-real-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-women_us_55d356a8e4b07addcb442023
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

        • Jim Samaras

          Okay Amy I understand you’re a liberal and that you don’t care about many things even to the point of a president lying under oath and committing perjury. Well I don’t care whether he prefers hetero marriage to gay marriage and I don’t care that he calls ugly women what they are! What I do care about are the important issues to this nation which is safety for it’s citizens, a balanced budget, the very real threat of bankruptcy because of the spiraling national debt and putting the people that you champion and say WANT to work back to work. Go ahead and spew all you want on such trite issues but your over educated posterior is showing big time that you care not about the real issues threatening our nation and it’s no use talking to YOU for reasons that are in the minds’ eye of every red blooded American male who read your posts. You’re a man hater with 20 cats would be my guess

        • Amy Wilborn

          LMAO…and thanks for proving my points!

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Excellent example of how leftists are only concerned with feelings and virtue signaling competition, and view incentives, real-world results, and (especially) unintended consequences as irrelevant and/ or nonexistent. Thanks.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Where did I say I was ONLY concerned with feelings? LOL…actually, it seems conservatives may be more emotional…afraid of everything.

          http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

    • Amy Wilborn

      Too bad, but all the research shows liberals are not only more intelligent that conservatives, but less prejudiced. Most scientists are liberals, as well as creative people.

      • Jim Samaras

        Then it’s too bad all that intelligence doesn’t translate into truth, logic and common sense to all those cerebral geniuses Amy

        • Amy Wilborn

          Ahhh, but it does, but one has to be able to see and understand it

        • Jim Samaras

          Perhaps, but get brain cramps when it comes to their political views

        • grandpamike1

          Amy, you have proved your point judging from the responses .

        • grandpamike1

          Amy. You have proved your point, and realize that you cannot fix stupid.

        • Richard Haley

          Within my very inferior mind, I find it very difficult to understand the way liberals rationalize most everything. So I have come up with the following; Yes, liberals are very smart, have a truly great vocabulary, and can really write well, but, (and you must know there is always a but), there is one thing that the liberal mind cannot or will not be allowed to do, and that is the God given ability to reason things out.
          Or maybe the liberal mind just refuses to use that God given ability.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Actually, it is liberals who do the reasoning or they wouldn’t be the most intelligent, wouldn’t have most of the scientists, people in academia, etc. And they don’t talk about “God” a lot. Get a clue…

        • Richard Haley

          Yes, you must be right. But would you please enlighten me as to just one liberal policy that has withstood the test of time?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Social Security? Medicare? Or is this a trick question?

        • Richard Haley

          Yes Social Security is in great shape because all or most of the reserve has been stolen by the libs in Congress.
          Medicare, another great eater of money.
          So I think your attempt to portray the above is the real trick answer.

        • Michael Neville

          Anti-slavery for one. Universal sufferage (that’s a big word meaning “able to vote”) for another. Public education for a third (that’s until conservatives manage to take it away from us).

        • Richard Haley

          I do think it was the Republicans under Abe Lincoln that abolished slavery within this country.
          Universal sufferage would have happened anyway inspite of being liberal or conservative.
          And Public Education; Yes that has a really a great track record for excellecnce. How come every public school child is not as smart as you. You will never beat the opportunity of going to a private school. It is just too bad it is soooo expensive. Yet when you look at what a public school education cost per student, private school looks afforadable.

        • Michael Neville

          Lincoln’s Republicans were the liberal party then, now they’re the conservative party, as well you know.

          Conservatives fought tooth and nail against universal sufferage. It took liberals to get the property requirement removed and then to get women the right to vote. Now even minorities can vote, at least in states which don’t legislate against non-existent “voter fraud”.

          Before public education literacy was quite uncommon. Until about 1700 in England a legal proof that a commoner was a clergyman was literacy because only the clergy were taught to read and write. Nowadays, despite the efforts of conservatives, literacy is almost universal, thanks to public education.

          Now that we’ve got that sorted out, give me three things that conservatives have done to improve the country.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Well said

        • dconklin

          They know nothing of the Southern Strategy!

        • Richard Haley

          I can’t seem to find your last retort so I’m using this one. I hope you don’t mind.
          I saw that you didn’t give an answer to my last question posted below.
          Anyway, please go to the attached address for a great understanding of where I’m coming from.

          http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/04/carr_new_dem_glossary

          And of course I’ll be waiting for your most intelligent reply.

          Til then.

        • Amy Wilborn

          LOL..try this and libs got “some” help to these, but they are mostly liberal:

          http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/12/150-achievements-of-liberalism-that-conservatives-seek-to-destroy/

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          But once something becomes established and accepted, won’t the conservatives simply claim that for their own?

        • Amy Wilborn

          Probably, but no surprise!

        • Robert Jones

          It could.. But that doesn’t mean they will. The same could be said for your own party, but you conveniently ignore this simple equalization. What did I tell you about intellectual dishonesty?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What did I tell you about intellectual dishonesty?

          Oh dear. I hope I don’t get sent to sit in the corner.

          Why are you a mod if you can’t conversate honestly, and shift equity when relevant?

          I’m not just the moderator; I’m the host. This is my house, and you’re a guest at my party. I don’t mean to swing my dick around excessively; I’m just making a few points clear since you brought it up.

          As for the rest, I’m not sure what you’re concerned about.

          Why are mods even allowed to participate on political discourse?

          I have little interest in political discussions. I’m here to talk about Christianity and related topics (which does sometimes touch on politics, though I try to keep that to a minimum).

          If you have an important point that I ignored because it made no sense, explain it more clearly and I can try again.

        • Robert Jones

          FYI: If you classify yourself as a liberal, did you know that you’re actually calling yourself a liberty-loving conservative?

          Social liberalism IS conservatism, at its most elemental core. This is ultimately derived from what’s called “classical liberalism”.

          What were you saying again about low-information voters?

        • Amy Wilborn

          OMG, you just helped to prove how ignorant, nasty, and judgmental so many conservatives are….thanks!

        • Robert Jones

          You’re projecting Amy. Please stop. It’s almost embarrassing for me… Why?

          Because I feel like I’m in a conversation with children. IF you can’t be responsible for intellectual honesty, than that must really suck.

          I don’t pity you, but I wouldn’t want to be locked in your %@*#.

        • Robert Jones

          Confirmation bias. I see you learned not a g-d thing.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So you’re saying that the conservatives want to imagine that God did it (or will do it) while the liberals are out there actually curing disease, solving problems, and discovering facts about reality?

        • Robert Jones

          Correction sir… on a few points… Liberals hardly own both absolute success and failure.

          About liberals. Most Americans don’t understand the technical definitions of labels. Liberals ARE Conservatives! Here in this thread, the term, “liberals” are referring to progressives/ neo-progressives, which currently share an alliance with Communism, as Bolshevism aligns with neo-communism. Again, neo-Bolshvists are in an agreement with progressives — which has been around for awhile, mainly from the Progressive rise in the early twentieth century — formerly Prussian in conception, and highly defended by Hegel of the day, which smoothly transitions into my point that Marx’s dialectical materialism, as it was a direct reaction of Hegelianism. Finally, the Democratic party has been infiltrated by all of the neos above, and have claimed to now be the “P” word, instead of the “L” one.

          You see, It really makes no sense for any republican/ conservative or right-leaning citizen of the U.S. to “hate” liberals…

          Liberals …achem.. PROGRESSIVES have jumped labels because they’ve been given a bad name over the years.

          Liberalism came from Classical liberalism, and it remains a core-republican principle. Progressivism has been alive and well within the Democratic echo-chambers, but as of late, these progressive-chambers create a sense of resentment, as Democrats have been exploited by a close-proximity philosophy near their trusted center, and as a result have been strewn apart/ divided and practically no longer physically existent; as an illusion only.

          Most of the world is far left of “American center”, contrasted with the U.S.’s far left, relative to the world’s.

          Many Americans just write off this critique as, “well the United States is different”. Uhh… No. Language is used for both informal and formal communication, which is vital in this post-postmodern economy… You don’t have a monopoly on words.. You can’t change definitions on a whim to suit your argument. How convenient.

          No… For every criticism you dish out, you must take from your own, to shift equity.. If not, than it’s obvious you have an agenda.

          I hold people to high expectations, yes… But I hold myself to much higher standards than the rest of you. I don’t believe you’re being intellectually dishonest, which is why I’ve taken the time to pump this out.. But intellectual dishonesty pisses me off the most.. I can’t stand that….and I will call anyone out, even if it brutally ruins my reputation…. whatever the $*(% that means!

          Best recognize.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I appreciate that “center” in the US is conservative in most of the rest of the world. I’m not sure what the rest of your comment was in support of.

        • MNb

          “Correct” semantics.
          To add to the confusion: socialism, including the Soviet-Russian version, comes from the same source as liberalism (whether any American or European version).

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Does it? Soviet socialism comes largely from Marx. (I’ve read Engels but not Marx, so I’m no expert.)

          While Marx had some insightful things to say (Peter Drucker said that he had an excellent understanding of technology change and its impact on society), I don’t see how he was the primary driver in Western socialism (I’m thinking here of whatever they have in Scandinavia).

        • MNb

          Marx didn’t operate in a vacuum either. Earlier examples of socialism are De Saint Simon, Proudhon and Robert Owen. Marx’ main innovation was a concrete version of Hegel’s dialectics.
          The version in Scandinavia, in Europe usually called social-democracy, stems from Germany and split at the end of the 19th Century. The most important name is Eduard Bernstein. The part of marxism he abandoned is the violence, ie the proletarian revolution.
          Bernie Sanders stands in that tradition.

        • melgoza

          Bravo, sir!

      • Keith Martin

        I guess you have proven Jim correct? I will correct your
        poor choice of grammar in your statement, “…liberals are not only more
        intelligent that conservatives,…” to, “more intelligent THAN
        conservatives.” Hasty
        generalizations are fallacies as well, look that up please! Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot you are a liberal! You will now blame everyone else for your problem!

      • Nick Basco

        Thanks for a great laugh! I needed it after a long day of working (you know, that thing us conservatives do to contribute to society and provide for our families)

      • Richard Haley

        And ALL of this research; is it not compiled by so-called liberal thinkers???

        • Susan

          And ALL of this research; is it not compiled by so-called liberal thinkers???

          I have no idea. Do you?

          Did you read the study? Do you see errors with its methodology?

        • Richard Haley

          Is this, or was this a rhetorical question???

          For an interesting set of contradictions to some of the really great statements by the liberal left, pleas try this address.

          http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/04/carr_new_dem_glossary

          And of course let me know your thoughts. I’ll be holding my breath!!!

        • Susan

          Is this, or was this a rhetorical question???

          No. I asked if you’ve read the study and, if so, do you see errors with its methods.

          It’s a straightfoward, reasonable question.

          Please answer it.

      • Smash Islamophobia

        So you would advocate for literacy tests for voters, then? Since you’re so confident that leftists are more intelligent, then that could only help your side, right?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nice rebuttal! That study you pointed to really makes your case.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Just pointing out a bit of an actions vs. words discrepancy there…

      • adopt from your local shelter

        If liberals are more intelligent than those on the Right, why do races with very low average IQs, such as blacks and Mexicans, vote democrat?

        Also, the research you’re citing is very outdated. Here’s the latest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODZ-RUufHgI

        • Amy Wilborn

          LOL…that’s not even a good try, and I feel sorry for you, as I do many cons who try so hard to make others think they are intelligent. There are tons of research out there; there is not enough room to list them all, and no matter the source, people like you are ALWAYS going to say “liberal bias.”
          But, also and very important….the video you provided is someone’s OPINION, and not a good one because there is no research to back it up! And he sounds downright stupid, sorry. he tries so hard to make his values seem..well….valuable, and they are not!
          The garbage that says blacks and Mexicans have low IQs was debunked decades ago..where have you been? There is no matter of opinion about it and it is not debatable. Try working on your self hatred..you may feel better eventually.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good point. I’d forgotten that “the population of group A, on average, measures higher than that of group B” means that every single person in A is higher than every single person in B.

          And where did the “very low average IQs” shit come from? Citation, please. And anything from KKK.com doesn’t count.

    • https://www.facebook.com/david.lloydjones.391 David Lloyd-Jones

      Another example checks in. Thanks, Jim. You can go now.

    • Behr Palomo

      Ahhh, this is irony at a deeper level. Completely unsurprising, however.

  • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

    So what will stupid people do when they realize how stupid they really are? Suffer, that’s what. They won’t raise their intelligence because they can’t. So they avoid suffering by lying to themselves. Simple. High achievers underestimate their intelligence a bit because of modesty. That’s not too hard to understand either. The problem with individual differences is that they are biased only toward the high end and self-evaluations are not accurate because of this bias. When there is a livable and abundant and beautiful world for everyone regardless of their biology nobody will have an inaccurate self-assessment.

    • TheNuszAbides

      They won’t raise their intelligence because they can’t.

      that almost reads like a roleplaying game handbook. intelligence is awareness of relevant information. i’m not saying everyone lacking in this awareness is trying or would necessarily have sufficient motivation to correct the problem, but the question of specific ramifications of “realize how stupid they are” is begged regardless. it seems like your blanket statement could stand to be reworded for accuracy.

      When there is a livable and abundant and beautiful world for everyone regardless of their biology nobody will have an inaccurate self-assessment.

      a worthy vision. i wish i were optimistic about its eventuality.

    • jlothar

      I would say high achievers underestimate their intelligence because they are more aware of the things they do not know.

      • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

        yah..it makes them humble….or “modest”.

        • Behr Palomo

          or just more aware that there’s a lot more to it than it seems. This reminds me of when I was first starting college and feeling like an adult. On/around my birthday, I would reflect back on the year before and usually I would think, “Ha! I was such a dummy back then, I thought I had it all figured out but there was so much I didn’t know. Now I have it all figured out.” Repeat one year later, then again one year later… After a few years of this I started to think, “Wait a second… didn’t I say that LAST year? Hmmmm… maybe I DON’T have it all figured out.”

        • Richard Haley

          I like your reasoning!!!

      • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

        and there is still nothing like the suffering of people who KNOW they are being abused by other people, the universe and bloody GOD HIMSELF only because they have a harder time SURVIVING on their own….and only because of a fluke of “nature”. The ultimate eternal target for a BLIND MATERIALISTIC MANKIND which thrives on mindless animal head-butting “competition”. And nobody despises a “loser” like shaky-ego “average” yokels because it takes all the artificial grace and dignity out of the game itself. There’s simply NO PLACE for those people so of course their entire sorry existence is suffering. Duh. And it ALL STINKS TO HELLLLLL.

  • Danny Danelo

    Thank god I’m an atheist.

    • Richard Haley

      Too bad you are soooo closed minded!!???
      And I would bet that every time you stub your toe you call out to Jesus!~!!!

      • Michael Neville

        I don’t, I call out to random fluctuations of the space-time continuum.

      • T Jensen

        Went right over your head, didn’t it?
        Humor. It’s a great concept that you should explore.

  • https://www.facebook.com/david.lloydjones.391 David Lloyd-Jones

    Related: Sweden has the lowest rate of self-reported Christianity in the industrial world.

    My guess is that a whole lot of Socialists, living out Christian values, take the position “I try, but I’m not good enough at it to call myself a Christian.”

    -dlj.

  • Tim

    Explains Republican smugness.

    • Bobcat

      Ha! I was thinking just the opposite.

      • Paul B. Lot

        You were thinking that it explains Republican humility?

        • Bobcat

          Nah, Democrat pseudo superiority, but I’ll accept all politicians and 90% of bureaucrats.

      • Michael Toso

        Why is the flexible “freedom for everyone” considered a threat to conservatives?

  • adopt from your local shelter

    This explains John Oliver, The Daily Show, The Young Turks and Bill Maher fans. They don’t offer arguments. They crack a couple of jokes and pat their fans on the head. They assure their fans they’re smart. This inflates the Leftists’ egos and causes leads them to act extremely smug. Many Leftists are so deluded that they don’t even believe in IQ or intelligence differences between the races. A lot of them don’t even believe race exists at all. Millions of years of evolution, in their minds, had no effect on cognitive development between the races. The Left is an antiscience mafia.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkBpCWdT3EM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaJeAkikuBE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4bYtNIz0CA

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I sit in awe at your wisdom. Tell us more of what we don’t understand.

      Start with climate change.

      • Smash Islamophobia

        Have you ever noticed that, when leftists know that they cannot support their argument empirically, they often try to change the subject to a completely different topic? Just curious.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Leftists not being able to support their argument empirically? No, I hadn’t noticed that. Give me an example.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          See the race creationists above. Pure , undiluted “moral” posturing and feelz. The other side has empirical support; the blank-slaters have none.

          And of course– still trying to change the subject, I see.

    • Paul B. Lot

      “This inflates the Leftists’ egos and causes leads them to act extremely smug.”

      I heard on the Daily Show that if you pee on it, it’ll stop stinging.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        No, you’re thinking of vinegar. Or something.

        • T Jensen

          Why would you pee on vinegar?

          But seriously, I think we should all thank “Adopt” for providing such a shining example of what the author is saying. Well done, Sir of Madame. Providing a video no one could watch was a touch of genius. :)

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Not sure that smugness and snark, completely devoid of content, does much to support your case…

        • Paul B. Lot

          Not sure that smugness and snark, completely devoid of content, does much to support your case…

          And yet, paradoxically, “completely devoid of content” perfectly describes 80% of your ideology.

        • Carole

          Redox? Urea –> NH3, which neutralises the acetic acid.

    • Kalin

      You’re a special kind of stupid. Race doesn’t exist. Race is a man made word created by slave owners in the 1500’s. IQ does not equate intelligence, IQ is just a measurement of what you have memorized.

      • adopt from your local shelter
      • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

        Of course race exists, how can an anthropologist dig up a ten thousand year old skeleton and determine the race after a cursory examination? You may as well claim that dog breeds don’t exist.

      • Smash Islamophobia

        You are simply regurgitating a faith-based, quasi-religious belief that you have been conditioned to accept as the “fashionable” position for “right-thinking” people. There is no empirical support for your position. If you end up needing a bone marrow transplant, try telling the oncologists that “race doesn’t exist.” They will disagree…

        Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning.
        http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf

        Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.”
        http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

        “Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race.
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000

      • John W

        The idea that race does not exist is so manifestly untrue and absurd that only white people can be stupid enough to believe it.

      • John W

        The idea that IQ tests are a test of memory is complete and utter garbage. Anyone who has ever seen an IQ test will know this. Try to use facts and evidence and try to think seriously about things and not type the first feel good thing that comes into your head.

    • Carole

      Especially that dim bulb Stephen Jay Gould, who was so influenced by leftist claptrap that he had the unmitigated gall to challenge the concept of biological determinism (including the well-respected science of craniometry!) in The Mismeasure of Man. And that imposter Svante Pääbo, who claims that 4% of our DNA is from Neanderthals. Everybody knows that Neanderthals were invented by Satan worshippers to fraudulently cast doubt on the Pentateuch. And those goofball paleoanthropologists who came up with the “Out of Africa” theory that all modern humans migrated out of Africa. How could anyone possibly believe that any White People came out of Africa?

    • phisch99

      Plus, they state a lot of facts. What dummies.

      • adopt from your local shelter

        “state a lot of facts” = give a lot of spin

        • phisch99

          As they say, the facts have a well known liberal bias.

        • adopt from your local shelter
        • Myna A.

          Yes, those rascally IQ-crime correlations. We’ve had some high functioning criminals in the White House and in the Corporate Banking machine. Must be a difference in IQ of white collar as opposed to blue collar. Must mean the higher the IQ of the criminal and the shirt he wears, the more the criminal benefits, yes?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Perhaps some actual facts/ statistics would be of help in constructing a rational argument, rather than pure, undiluted feelz.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Walk the walk. Handwaving without evidence doesn’t help support your claim that someone else handwaved without evidence.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This is your chance to show those useless Leftists how it’s done. When not even you are walking the walk, one questions your initial high and mighty position.

        • Myna A.

          If I do say, I assumed criminal activity occurring in high places among those with substantial IQs was common knowledge…and the criminal mind not a charted predisposition.

          Need we go into Watergate? http://watergate.info/

          With regard to the banking system:

          The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings on the global financial crisis in January 2011 which concluded, in part, “systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels” Read full article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308

          The “Must be” aspect of the comment was a satirical reflection in response to IQ and criminal behavior…or did your own limitation somehow fail to miss it?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Watergate- isn’t that the “scandal” where Nixon deleted 30 seconds of tape, and it was the crime of the century? Yet Lois Lerner deleting 30,000+ emails in an effort to cover up Obama’s use of the IRS to target his political enemies, or Hillary deleting 30,000+ emails in an effort to cover up multiple felonies, is a mere detail, somehow….

          Wouldn’t want to mention inconvenient facts such as, say, that 98% of shootings in NYC in 2014 were committed by nonwhites, either…

        • Greg G.

          The Watergate scandal was when the Republicans broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters and President Nixon was complicit in the cover-up for political purposes. It was far worse than the deletion of a few seconds of tape. You are also ill-informed on more current events.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Way to miss the point…

        • Greg G.

          Your weakness in evidence is not compensated by your proclivity for exaggeration. The topic of the main article is Dunning-Kruger Effect. You seem to be a prime example.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Way to miss the point…

          The [name of the scandal] IS the [name of the hotel that housed the DNC headquarters.]

          [Watergate scandal] = [Watergate hotel]

          No, I don’t think he is the one shooting off-target.

          Nice try though.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This isn’t a political blog.

        • phisch99

          Now you’re being absurd.

        • adopt from your local shelter

          I’m guessing you’re one of those on the left side of this chart. You can’t run from science forever. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d345a9b00586a67c6f0ec71836b6b49623b18492f803525b619227ddb56007c1.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Here’s a chart of body weight by region that correlates fairly well with your chart.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight#By_region

          Looks like brain size correlates closely with body size.

        • adopt from your local shelter

          No it doesn’t, your link proves the opposite.

          > East Asians have the largest brains on average, yet they weigh less than Africans.

          > Africans weigh more than East Asians on average (as your wiki-link shows), yet Africans have smaller brains than East Asians.

          The two upvotes you got from your friends shows you’re not actually interested in what’s true.

        • Greg G.

          Your bias is showing. Neither the chart I linked to nor your graphic mention East Asians.

          The lower table on the Wikipedia page has South Korea’s average size by gender. If we let that represent East Asians, then notice that the average weight of South Korean women are nearly as heavy as the average Asian. So the Asians with the largest brains are also large people.

          Remember that the brain doesn’t gain weight or volume as a person becomes overweight, so it would be more accurate to eliminate the percentage of those who are overweight.

          But that is just my interest in what is true.

          Your upvotes have come from avatars who have no history here yet appear in a thread that is more than a year old. Are they your friends or your sock-puppets?

        • Susan

          You can’t run from science forever.

          No.

          Now, blue whales for brain size in cubic centimeters outranks your standard for every single human.

          Also, what are your IQ standards and how do they correlate with intelligence?

          Show us your science.

        • adopt from your local shelter
        • Paul B. Lot

          You’re failing to take the brain-to-body-size ratio into consideration.

          She’s not “failing to take [it] into consideration” so much as you failed to mention it before your buddy @smash_islamophobia:disqus rode in to save you.

        • adopt from your local shelter

          No. Its argument was ‘whales have bigger brains, therefore brain size is meaningless’, and that argument is flawed because humans have the largest brains relative to their body size — and all the different races have different average brain sizes — and it just so happens that the humans with the largest brains have the Highest IQs, and the humans who have the smallest brains have the Lowst IQs. But I’m sure that’s due to White racism and bigotry…

        • Paul B. Lot

          Its argument was ‘whales have bigger brains, therefore brain size is meaningless’, and that argument is flawed

          That argument is, indeed, flawed. It is so very flawed that I beg your leave to doubt that @disqus_xYWVllyPLU:disqus was attempting to make it.

          Here’s the deal, old chap: Susan is smart. She’s a great deal smarter than you, and she is not the type of person to make things up or put argumentative horses ahead of their logical carts.

          YOU used, have used several times now, a chart which merely graphs the dependent variable of [brain size in cubic centimeters] against [ethnicity]. ****

          YOU did this.

          Susan then presented an example of an animal with a larger brain than [any ethnicity] – an animal which should, based on the simplistic relationship [intelligence is absolutely proportional to brain-size], be more intelligent than any and all humans.

          I doubt very much that any of us would agree to the conclusion “blue whales are smarter than any and all humans”. Therefore, this one example debunks the simplistic relationship [intelligence is absolutely proportional to brain-size].

          THAT is what Susan did. She destroyed that relationship. (And she only needed to use one example to do so! Such parsimony.)

          The argument you are pretending she made is, indeed, flawed – but she didn’t make it. You’re constructing a “straw man”.

          Do you know what a “straw man” argument is, @ak2976:disqus ? I can help explain that to you later as well, if you like.


          humans have the largest brains relative to their body size — and all the different races have different average brain sizes — and it just so happens that the humans with the largest brains have the Highest IQs, and the humans who have the smallest brains have the Lowst IQs

          Let’s take a look at your statement here, closely.

          A) First, you talk about [brain size] to [body size] ratios. (Body mass?)

          Next, you talk about average [brain size] for different [ethnicities].

          Next up, we’re told that [large brain size] is (causally?) linked to [higher IQ].

          Finally, the shoe drops and we learn that [smallest brains] have [the Lowst IQs] (sic – oh, the irony).

          You didn’t tie [relative brain/body ratios], which you start talking about, to the rest of your rambling, which was about [absolute brain size].

          So while you doth protest much that [relative brain/body ratios] are the important metric (to get away from the importance of the Blue Whale counter example)….you never USE that metric.

          B) So I’m goint to talk about the “encephalization quotient”, since you forgot to.

          Let’s pretend like the graph you used was comprised of valid data, and let’s also pretend that it’s recent valid data. ***

          The data from your

          http://imgur.com/7KBeP2z

          …erhm…graph looks like this in a spreadsheet:

          http://imgur.com/w1olxE7

          No doubt it paints you a picture that you are quite happy to see, caucasian as I assume you are.

          But what happens if we introduce that other variable you were talking about. After all, if pure brain size were the only metric, the Blue Whale would be relevant…and you’ve already assured us it was definitely not relevant…

          http://imgur.com/oaGKox9

          Uh oh. Now that we’re introduce body mass and “EQ”, the picture’s not looking so good. But maybe you don’t realize how not good it looks. I’m guessing you’re not very smart, nor very skilled at reading data. Let me re-order it for you, from highest to lowest “EQ”:

          http://imgur.com/fT0elwo

          Ooooph. That doesn’t look like the picture you want to believe in, anymore, does it?

          It gets worse if we add in North American average weight, and assume similar brain size to European (a WAG):

          http://imgur.com/k8OAaPD

          The absolute lowest “EQ”.

          :)

          Sources:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d345a9b00586a67c6f0ec71836b6b49623b18492f803525b619227ddb56007c1.jpg
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia
          http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/22/2/289.full.pdf
          http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/apjcn/4/1/69.htm

          * “Amerindians” was a tough group to get data on, this body mass was a WAG.
          ** adopt’s …. graph….didn’t have an entry for NA
          *** I don’t believe this data for a second, but EVEN IF we assume it’s true, the story it tells is not the one these dumbfucks are telling themselves.@smash_islamophobia:disqus @augur mayson @Vanita5:disqus

          **** Or purports to – I have seen no source data, nor even an attribution

        • Greg G.

          I think it is true that there is a correlation between larger brains and higher capabilities. It is also likely from genetic drift or selection pressures that some populations will have different ratios of traits. But Individuals can be smarter than their ancestry so they should be judged according to their own abilities, if you feel the need to judge people.

          So, yes, it is racism and bigotry to judge individuals according to the averages of their racial background.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Brain folding
          Neuronal density
          Blood flow
          Nutrient content
          Electrical signaling speed
          Trauma/plaque/clotting

          Behavior? Stimuli? Differential growth/development periods?

          There’s so many god damn variables at play, when we try to talk about “intelligence”, that these jokers have no interest in, or ability to, discussing.

          Better to play their own stupid little games, imho, and show how even when they set up their own rules of evidence, they lose.

        • Susan

          You’re failing to take the brain-to-body-size ratio into consideration.

          That would have meant me attacking a strawman. You failed to introduce the brain-to-body-size ration into your graph.

          The brain isn’t just for thinking.

          That’s for sure.

          it also runs your heart, kidneys, liver etc.

          Do you have any idea how it does that?

          Or do you think you can just gather your friends, show some graphs for which you provide no context, link some quotes for which you can provide no context and accuse everyone who doesn’t take you seriously of being a dirty liberal?

          Why do you assume there are nothing but dirty liberals at a site that questions the claims of christianity?

        • adopt from your local shelter

          I shouldn’t have to mention the brain-to-body-size ratio. I was only talking about humans. An argument was introduced claiming that brain size doesn’t matter “because whales”. That argument was refuted.

          I accuse people of being “Liberals” because they deny IQ differences between the races. Liberals deny IQ differences between the races because it’s hostile to the Left’s “secret racist White supremacist conspiracy against minorities” narrative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzmnjg6AC6U

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The ethnic mix of the United States is changing, as it always has. People don’t like change, so people push back against this change, as they always have.

          There–it’s not a secret anymore.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I shouldn’t have to mention the brain-to-body-size ratio.

          If something is important for your point, and you leave it out, you have no one to blame but yourself.

          Grow a pair, admit that you left something out, and stop being a whining child.


          I was only talking about humans.

          And? Humans vary pretty dramatically in size and shape.

          If we plug in the body masses for the groups in your chart, the brain-to-body-size ratio comes out like this:
          http://imgur.com/k8OAaPD

          Bushmen have the highest ratio, you chump.


          An argument was introduced claiming that brain size doesn’t matter “because whales”.

          No such argument was introduced. Blue whales (and all other mammals with larger brains than we) were introduced to cast doubt on the [brain-size] to [intelligence] causal relationship you tried to establish.

          FYI, I don’t expect you to respond to my posts any more. I imagine they are too scary for you to tackle.

          Hell, I’m impressed that you’ve managed to both breath and type simultaneously for long enough stretches to put these idiotic posts together.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          This is why sociology majors shouldn’t try to babble about actual science. Do a search for “encephalization quotient.” You’re welcome.

        • Greg G.

          Searching for “encephalization quotient” shows that it is used to compare species. What I find about the encephalization quotient within the human species is anecdotal evidence that it doesn’t apply. Anatole France won a Nobel Prize with a rather small brain.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Read the post I was responding to. Note the pointless “blue whale” reference. I’m not going to bother responding to the typically-feeble leftist “special snowflake” attempt at a rejoinder.

        • Greg G.

          I see you are also running from her question: “Also, what are your IQ standards and how do they correlate with intelligence?”

        • Susan

          Note the pointless blue whale reference

          It was not a pointless response to a graph depicting cubic centimetres.

          I am aware of the encephelization quotient but that was introduced after the fact.

          I am also aware that there are many things correlated with crime rates and many factors that affect brain development.

          You’re not interested in science, as far as I can tell.

          I agree with MNb.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Read the post I was responding to. Note the pointless “blue whale” reference.

          Pointless because…..?

          She directly responded to @ak2976:disqus ‘s cubic-centimeter chart.

          Now you’ve shifted the goal-posts – a feeble-minded tactic if ever there was one. Grow a pair and learn to focus on one topic at a time.

          But, instead of having balls or taking your ADHD meds, you pivot away from “cubic centimeters” to talk about another metric, “encephalization quotient”.

          So now you’ve got an e-peen hard-on for a hypothetical rough estimate of the expected brain-mass to body-mass ratio?

          Wiki:Even so, it is noteworthy that Neanderthals, which became extinct about 40,000 years ago, had larger brains than modern Homo sapiens.Not all investigators are happy with the amount of attention that has been paid to brain size. Roth and Dicke, for example, have argued that factors other than size are more highly correlated with intelligence, such as the number of cortical neurons and the speed of their connections.[42] Moreover, they point out that intelligence depends not just on the amount of brain tissue, but on the details of how it is structured. It is also well known that crows, ravens, and African gray parrots are quite intelligent even though they have small brains.

        • Myna A.

          Maybe even beyond absurd. Some place deeply fractured. Who argues for the right to denigrate fellow human beings for the shade of their skin?

        • phisch99

          This is something out of the 19th century, and we liberals are supposedly at war with these “facts.”

        • adopt from your local shelter

          How are 2010 crime stats from the 19th century?

        • Myna A.

          From The American Association of Physical Anthropologists:

          AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race:

          “Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying
          skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits
          can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination.”

          Read full statement here: http://physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/

        • 90Lew90

          Are you able to walk and talk at the same time?

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          Now hold on, the races are biologically different, I mean, it;s something you can see with your own eyes. I don’t think the difference is substantial, but we’re not close minded here. Let’s not just shut off our brains and avert our eyes to information we don’t like.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Now hold on, the races are biologically different, I mean, it;s [sic] something you can see with your own eyes.

          I am biologically different from both my mother….AND my father.

          DUHN DUHN DUHN

          I mean, it’s something you can see with your own eyes.

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          Are you saying that artist are not heritable and you don;’t share more DNA with your parents than an African or an Asian? Are you seriously denying racial differences?

        • Paul B. Lot

          I am seriously stating that there are “biological” and “genetic” differences between even the two-most-closely-related-humans-possibly-imaginable: “identical” twins.

          http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/random_noise_in_biology_why_genetically_identical_twins_aren_t_identical.html

          I am seriously stating that there are “biological” and “genetic” differences within individual human beings.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD6h-wDj7bw

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

          https://threecatyard.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/venuscat.jpg

          Wow, right?

          It’s almost as if science and biology and genetics are really complicated.

          Maybe sociology and politics and government and pedagogy are too?

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          That’s a false equivalency has has no bearing on the existence of race.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Do, please, elaborate.

          What is the criterion, or are the criteria, which render(s) [the genetic differences between “identical twins”, and even within women and chimeras] NOT a suitable comparison for [the genetic differences between ethnic groups]?

          Come on, bruh. You’re all about reason and logic and evidence: here’s your chance!

          Take these scales from off mine eyes – show me THE TRUTH.

        • MNb

          It seems to me he is more vanity than reason.

        • Carole

          X-inactivation! Explains why my mother-in-law is functionally colourblind and hemophilic, when she his heterozygous for those traits.

          Epigenetics! Explains why my mother, an identical twin, is phenotypically different from her twin sister.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Who denies reality in order to demonstrate their allegiance t the progressive establishment?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          “The facts are on my side!”
          Facts that refute your position are presented.
          “Facts are absurd!”
          Who says leftists are comical?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Wiki:The largest brains are those of sperm whales, weighing about 8 kg (18 lb). An elephant’s brain weighs just over 5 kg (11 lb), a bottlenose dolphin’s 1.5 to 1.7 kg (3.3 to 3.7 lb), whereas a human brain is around 1.3 to 1.5 kg (2.9 to 3.3 lb).

          Wiki:Even so, it is noteworthy that Neanderthals, which became extinct about 40,000 years ago, had larger brains than modern Homo sapiens.Not all investigators are happy with the amount of attention that has been paid to brain size. Roth and Dicke, for example, have argued that factors other than size are more highly correlated with intelligence, such as the number of cortical neurons and the speed of their connections.[42] Moreover, they point out that intelligence depends not just on the amount of brain tissue, but on the details of how it is structured. It is also well known that crows, ravens, and African gray parrots are quite intelligent even though they have small brains.

    • Myna A.

      Many Leftists are so deluded that they don’t even believe in IQ or intelligence differences between the races.

      WTF????

      “Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their
      race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of
      alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have
      distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles
      have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice to explain the
      difference between races. The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies. The overwhelming
      verdict of the genome is to declare the basic unity of humankind.”

      http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

      • adopt from your local shelter

        Your reply has nothing to do with intelligence differences between the races, so you’re off topic. But to your point: Humans are closely related to chimps too, but we’re completely different species > http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html

        Small genetic variations make completely different species, so your plea that “we’re genetically similar to other humans therefore there are no differences” is beyond ridiculous.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1fd4c595c8dc754ac5171e064cb4675268296bed393f53fd177838783d4fbd0.jpg

        • Myna A.

          My plea?? You really ARE beyond absurd. It is clear you did not read the link provided at the end of the article’s excerpt.

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          He has a point, the races do differ biologically. Maybe we shouldn’t be so closed minded. Belief contrary to evidence is tantamount to faith, aren’t we better than those that believe in magic sky fairies?

        • Myna A.

          I offered a link to greater information, which, it appears, you have also opted against both reading and comprehending in favor of fostering ignorance.

          As it is, this interaction has become an exercise in futility and having entered into it a grave error in judgement. My bad.

          Any may feel free to throw the final dung from the cage built around themselves. I’ll let it hit the door on my way out to breathe the fresh Summer air.

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          I am aware of all the outrageous propaganda surrounding this, but I will not deny the evidence of my own eyes in favour of ideological nonsense. Traits are heritable, race is common ancestry., human populations have been separated for long enough that obvious differences have evolved. Denying this is tantamount to insanity. Further, this position is held ONLY in the West, Chinese, Korean and Japanese scientist and geneticists all acknowledge race. Denial of race is nothing more than propaganda to excuse mass immigration and multiculturalism, the secular religion of the West.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Relevance to religion?

        • Susan

          Relevance to religion?

          None.

          Their commenting histories are easy to check.

        • Paul B. Lot

          [some/many/most*] Chinese, Korean and Japanese scientist [sic] and geneticists all acknowledge race

          Racism exists elsewhere? I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked.

          It’s almost as if “[some/many/most?] Chinese, Korean, and Japanese scientist [sic] and geneticists” are also human, and thus also prey to the same cognitive biases and logical fallacies which plague your brain.

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          Acknowledging race is racist?

          Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA:

          “We need to get rid of our liberal preconceptions. Men are not born equal, this is something which has not yet got through to the politicians, and it is by no means clear that all races are equally gifted.”

          Forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, in 2000:

          “The idea that race is ‘only skin deep’ is simply not true.”

          Whites and blacks evolved separately for 60K+ years and there are major genetic/biological differences between them throughout the body and mind.

          Body proportions. Whites have longer torsos, wider waists, and shorter arms and legs than blacks.

          Bone density. Whites have lower bone density, greater incidence of osteoporotic fractures, and more bone regrowth than blacks.

          Muscularity. Whites have a lower ratio of fast switch to slow twitch muscles than blacks, and a lower frequency of ACTN3 “speed gene”.

          Metabolic rate. Whites have a lower resting metabolism than blacks, in both sexes and regardless of obesity.

          Fat storage. Whites have a higher proportion of visceral (internal) fat and lower subcutaneous (skin) fat than blacks. Blacks also tend to have Steatopygia: large butt fat.

          Disease susceptibility. Some diseases (Cystic Fibrosis) affect mostly whites; others mostly blacks (Sickle Cell). Many illnesses and treatments have disparate effects on whites/blacks.

          Birth rate. Whites have a lower rate of fraternal (two egg) twin births than blacks, only half as high prior to fertility drugs. Lower birthrates are biologically correlated with higher parental investment.

          Pregnancy. Whites normally have a longer gestation period (40 to 39 weeks) and a lower preterm birth rate than blacks; black fetuses mature quicker.

          Maturation rate. White youths mature slower than blacks across all developmental indices, including infant motor skills, pubertal growth, and menstruation. Slower maturation is biologically correlated with higher intelligence.

          Hormones. White young men have lower free testosterone than blacks, and white men and women have lower estrogen than blacks. Whites are less hormone-driven.

          Aggression. Blacks have over 10x higher frequency of the violence-linked gene allele MAOA-2R than whites.

          Skull shape. Whites’ skulls typically differ from blacks’ in many respects: no sagittal ridge keeling, eye sockets more angular, nasal cavity narrower, palate more triangular, jaw less prognathic, etc.

          Brain size and structure. Whites’ brains are typically 6-8% larger than blacks’. Larger brains are correlated with higher intelligence. Whites’ brains also have differing structure, with more protruding frontal and occipital regions.

          IQ and genes. Whites consistently score 15 points (1SD) higher than Black Americans and 20+ points higher than Africans on IQ tests; this gap being genetically based. Gene alleles linked to intelligence have higher frequency in Whites than blacks.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Your point? If you’re saying that in your opinion “race” remains an important concept, then state that and let it go.

        • Myna A.

          A part of me wishes I hadn’t noted the recent comment section, because it compels a quick drive-by to say:

          Gill’s argument has always been untenable. Atwood Gaines dismantles any notion of scientific race in: A Companion to Psychological Anthropology: Modernity and Psychocultural Change.

          And a prestigious award does not equal personal honor.
          Both Crick and James Watson (co-discoverers of the structure of DNA along with Maurice Wilkins) were denounced for going beyond molecular biology into the realm of their own racist ideologies. It was also discovered Crick and Watson took the key evidence, Photo 51, produced by Ray Gosling under supervision of Rosalind Franklin, without Franklin’s knowledge.

          It is still debated whether Franklin would have made the discovery on her own, but it is known that Crick and Watson helped themselves to her and Gosling’s evidence. Franklin had died of cancer four years before the award was given.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_51

        • MNb

          “Body proportions.”
          This is plain stupid.
          The Dutch and Swiss are the longest people in the world.
          White Americans are fatter than Dutch and Swiss – they suffer far more from obesitas.
          Hence white Americans according to you belong to a different race than the Dutch and the Swiss, because they have different body proportions.
          That (which makes the concept of race meaningless, as always) or you’re simply cherry picking empirical data (which makes your argument invalid).

          Also, like every single racist who pretends to be scientific, you don’t even try to make clear that eventual average differences between two races (whatever those races are) are more significant than differences between two individual members of the same race. This equally applies to men who enjoy to ponder about the differences between men and women. As long as you can’t do that you produce nothing but baked air.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Acknowledging race is racist?

          It certainly can be, given a set of circumstances.

          On the other hand, I would say that if one is having a discussion where the appropriate definitions are set, and care is taken to be precise and unambiguous, and rules of evidence and logic are followed, then once could have a productive discussion about “race” without being “a racist”.

          (I don’t think that you have any of those requisite skills, by the way, but I don’t state that it can not be done.)

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          You’re a puritanical zealot.

        • Paul B. Lot

          You’re a puritanical zealot.

          Doubtful.

          I was raised Catholic, and I’m an atheist now.

          I drink, I eat too much, I smoke, I dance, I have extra-marital relations…

          Puritanical“….doesn’t seem to fit.

          What seems more likely is that you don’t much like it when people point out exactly to what degree you are a fucking imbecile.

          You seem like an idiot who doesn’t know he’s an idiot – who gets flustered when other people use big words and sound logic to counter what he knows to be true.

          The kind of idiot who, in a sad attempt at insult, would misuse a word like “puritanical.”

          :)

        • melonhead

          Vanitas – some appeal from authority:

        • John W

          MRI scans have revealed that Oriental brains (East Asians) are on average 15 cubic centimetres larger than white brains. Orientals average about 105 on IQ tests, whereas whites average around 100.

          Orientals do all those things we associate with populations with a high IQ: relative to whites, they have low rates of crime, they have low rates of illegitimacy, they do well at school, have stable families, acquire professional and academic qualifications, and are generally more accomplished.

          Darwin’s theory of evolution, which all intelligent and educated people are supposed to accept, predicts that populations, once they become divided, through migration or accident, will, as a result of differing environmental pressures, begin to diverge in their physical characteristics. (If this goes on long enough a completely new species might evolve.) So it is entirely in line with the theory of evolution that Orientals should have, on average, a higher IQ than whites, since whites and Orientals were indeed separated for tens of thousands of years, and the brain is an organ of the body just like any other. Indeed it would require a miracle for whites and Orientals to be precisely the same in every characteristic, which I suppose would prove the existence of God.

          This is why people who pretend to believe that whites and Orientals have the same average IQ, in the face of the veritable mountain of evidence that shows that orientals are more intelligent, are called “liberal Creationists”.

        • Paul B. Lot

          He has a point, the races do differ biologically.

          My brother and I differ biologically as well.

        • melonhead

          Sure – but you differ a lot less than you and some South Indian. Who differs less than that, from his neighboring South Indian.

          Here’s Richard Dawkins, from “The Extended Phenotype” (somewhere – a page number would be nice, I know. Anyway: ) “The fact that human races aren’t categorized as separate subspecies is an insult to me and the objective work of evolutionary biologists. There is more than enough evidence out there to conclude that we’re separate subspecies with different ways of functioning neurologically.”

          and:

          “This new age of modern progressives refusing evidence that contradicts their worldview is alarming. We as a society need to rethink our ways of biased thinking”.

          But on the other side, when, about 2 months ago he was asked on Twitter whether race was biological he affirmed it vigorously (I just don’t remember his words). “But”, he went on, “it doesn’t matter, we are all human.”

          So he’s not an evil racist, but – /subspecies/, yo.

        • MNb

          You don’t have to be an evil racist to recognize that in any given human society several distinguishable ethnic groups coexist.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surinamese_people

          The question is about biological relevance. Just a quote is not enough. I’d like to see that neurological evidence first. So I googled a bit and found exactly nothing.

        • melonhead

          They’re working on it – personality and intelligence properties are polygenic, which is why our IQ bell curve is so smooth. Bruce Lahn found one a while ago that was racially non-uniformly distributed:

          (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lahn):

          “””His research on the microcephaly-associated gene, MCPH1, led to the hypothesis that an archaic Homo sapiens lineage such as the Neanderthals might have contributed to the recent development of the human brain.[2] His research also suggested that newly arisen variants of two brain size genes, ASPM and MCPH1, might have been favored by positive natural selection in the recent human history.[3] This research provoked controversy due to the finding that the positively selected variants of these genes had spread to higher frequencies in some parts of the world than in others (for ASPM, it is higher in Europe and surrounding regions than other parts of the world; for MCPH1, it is higher outside sub-Saharan Africa than inside).[4] He has advocated the moral position that human genetic diversity should be embraced and celebrated as among humanity’s great assets.[5]”””

          They’re working on sorting out more genes for IQ, we’ll see how they’re distributed racially. But, there are natural experiments, of different-raced people bring brought up in similar environments, achieving differently. Did you know that poor US whites do better than much better off blacks, eg? Anyway if you want to know which genes to point to it’ll be a few years yet, especially as no-one wants to fund anything that could uncover race differences. Like Lahn above – he lost his funding and had to change research areas over it.

        • MNb

          “Did you know that poor US whites do better than much better off blacks”
          Like the most of your comment this has exactly nothing to do with neuro(bio)logy.

          “They’re working on it”
          Then I’ll await the results. And if you’d care as much about science as you claim you would too. You’re not a “race realist” – you only care about realism as long as it confirms your political views or you would have omitted stuff like “We want to knock down the hard insistence on the ideology of equality.” Thus far I fail to see any difference between your position and the nazi search for evidence for white supremacy – which had exactly the same purpose.

        • melonhead

          No, I want truth, or what is most likely, and not be led around by what would be nice to be true. I came out of Christianity, another ‘ideology’ that’s nice but bullshit. Science is done by statistics (all of psychologyeg ) as well as knowing the mechanism – it’s just an earlier phase. FWIW I’ve heard of the Nigerian Ibo / Igbo who are (at least) as smart as whites – good for them – North East Asians are the largest group smarter than whites, European Jews at or near the top, Indian Parsis (I think). So not a supremacist, though we did invent the modern world and everyone wants to live in our countries so we’ve got /something/ going for us.

          But you take your time in denial, if you’re a truth seeker you’ll get there.

        • MNb

          “take your time in denial”
          is not nearly the same as

          “Then I’ll await the results.”
          So much for you wanthing truth.

        • melonhead

          I bet you’re a person of color – I don’t expect you to ever accept something that your self-esteem hinges on not accepting. It’s not so bad though – I know whites aren’t the top, yet I survive. You no doubt have smarter and dumber relatives, friends, and co-workers, yet you survive. We’re all afraid of letting the Nazi cat out of the bag, I think.

        • MNb

          “I bet …”
          You lost. I’m Himmler’s dream: blond hair, greyblue eyes.
          The fact that you were willing to make this bet confirms that you don’t want truth but are the one in denial. You’re just a lying racist who’s only interested in confirming your prejudices, incapable of imagining an Aryan stereotype being anti racist.

          “no doubt have smarter and dumber relatives, friends, and co-workers.”
          No doubt. Here are some coloured guys smarter than me:

          https://mustafazadehrashid.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/abdussalam_m_0730.jpg

          http://bydonnashana.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/maurice-ashley2.jpg
          http://www.newscientist.nl/assets/Tyson_-_Apollo_40th_anniversary_2009-283×300.jpg

          You may have shred off christianity, you’re still full of the stupidity that tends to come with it. So instead of admitting “I’ll wait for the results”, what I actually wrote, is not the same as “take my time in denial”, what you tried to accuse me of, you now fall back on the old racist trick: insulting me for having a skin colour. Except that I’m white of, in nazi terms, pure Germanic blood going back at least seven generations. Ain’t that a pity for you?

        • melonhead

          I bet you live in a rich, all-white area (as your wealth no doubt provides). I doubt that this bet is wrong, but even if it is, you seized on my personal overreach and ignored my arguments. I did make it personal, but only after I presented arguments. I’d like to see /your/ data, /for/ equality, not just hear your objections based on the admitted unpleasantness of what it means to see the ugly reality, that whites + with us, our white civilization + values are slowly dying. Don’t believe it? You know about white birthrates + see the migrant influx into Europe and the US, surely. It may not happen quickly but I do predict that as the area around you darkens up and you /feel/ the difference in people, you’ll regain interest in the question, be open to the data, start looking into it again, and come around. That’s a common story, a liberal with ideals moving into a mixed neighborhood and wising up. But data is better, sure. On your side are: Richard Nisbett and (James?) Flynn. On ‘my’ side are: Helmuth Nyborg, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen. I think Nyborg has a recent interview up with Stefan Molyneux. Feel free to investigate the arguments + data on both sides. I claim that the data is pretty largely on the side of genetics (50-80+%!), you’d be crazy to say that characteristics don’t run in families (I’m sure you don’t) – well, races are large, extended, partly-inbred families, separated by continents or distance, who evolved under different conditions + faced different selection pressures. Africans for disease resistance (probably), whites + Asians for long-term thinking + planning, because of the cold. (though I admit, why eskimos aren’t the world’s smartest people by that logic, I can’t explain. Maybe their culturally-found solutions saved them. Maybe whites + Asians just had larger, more social (increases complexity of the environment), or battle-prone populations – don’t know).

          Oh I’m not sure who I’m replying to anymore, but, as far as individual smart people of color, sure, I too know smarter POC than I (not too much of a feat in my case). But we’re talking about populations, where statistics and evolution apply.

        • Greg G.

          I bet you live in a rich, all-white area (as your wealth no doubt provides). I doubt that this bet is wrong,

          Can I get a piece of that action?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          😀

        • MNb

          “I doubt that this bet is wrong”

          Of course you are – like every single racist you’re a loser. I live here.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moengo

        • melonhead

          > pictures of three non-white guys who obviously are smarter than me

          Meh – that’s anecdotes – it takes large samples, ie statistics, to draw any conclusions about populations. You need to understand statistics to even think right about this.

          I enjoyed the third world myself, good on you. I don’t see why you call me a loser though, how you’re so sure. I earn many many many times what you do (though anyone in the West would earn a couple of ‘many’s), though I wouldn’t mind your life, teaching. I considered doing it for a while when I was young.

          Though, now I get why you’re so testy about it all – you don’t have children that look like you, your line is gone. You have an existential reason not to believe in racial difference. Just to rub it in because I’m evil, did you know that any pure white child is more closely genetically related to you than your own children (because a white couple, of course, already have most genes in common, Javanese (any non-white) have way fewer). Peace out.

        • MNb

          “that’s anecdotes …..”
          Really? Abdus Salam getting the Nobel Price is an anecdote? Rather you are too stupid to get the point. Granted, I’m mean that I don’t tell you the point, but that’s because you’re stupidity is the only funny thing about you.

          “I don’t see why you call me a loser though, how you’re so sure.”

          OK, here is a list.

          Reason 1: you claim you want the truth and almost immediately show the opposite.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/02/the-dunning-kruger-effect-are-the-stupid-too-stupid-to-realize-theyre-stupid/#comment-2762494028
          2. You demanded me to give evidence for something (equality) I did not claim.
          3. You jumped to the wrong conclusion that I’m coloured.
          4. You jumped to the wrong conclusion that I live in a wealthy rich neighbourhood.
          5. Forgotten to mention: you jumped to the wrong conclusion that I’m a liberal. I’m not, not even in the American meaning of the word.
          6a. You think you can read my mind. No, I don’t think you’re a skinhead with a swastika tattooed on your fore-head. I know such guys.
          6b. You think that alt-right is new to me. Again wrong, you have brought up nothing new.
          6c. You think I don’t realize that educated guys can be racist. Wrong.
          7. You wrongly think your income is relevant for my evaluation that you’re a loser.
          8. You’re too stupid to understand what I write, again with your “not to believe in racial difference”. I have told you repeatedly that I observe differences between ethnicities. I observe it every single day. Everyone in Suriname does.
          I just maintain that these differences are biologically totally irrelevant.
          That’s why I call you a loser. With all your money and education you’re not capable of writing a comment not chockfull of stupidities. The only thing that saves you is that your stupidities are funny. And even that is temporary.

        • melonhead

          Hey, I say something, and I was on to something. I gauged that your resistance was more than rational, and it was.

          ‘biologically totally irrelevant’: crime and achievement stats. If you allow those, my case is made. If you don’t, you’re nuts. If you mean something else entirely, I sure can’t tell what you’re saying.

        • MNb

          Sure my resistance is more than rational.
          At the other hand I yet have to find the first rationality in any of your comments. You are still as irrational as when you were a Christian, if not more.
          Since when are crime and achievement stats biological issues, stupid loser? Find me a biological textbook that explains those stats.
          You can’t.
          There aren’t.
          I allow those stats.
          You don’t have a case.
          Race is biologically totally irrelevant.
          Crime and achievement stats are social issues, not biological ones.
          You don’t want truth.
          You aren’t capable of rationality anymore now than when you still were a christian.
          Whenever you try to make an argument you refute it yourself.
          Loser, are you stupid.

        • melonhead
        • MNb

          Your stupidity is unlimited. That doesn’t contradict in the least what I wrote.

          Find me a biological textbook that explains those stats.
          You can’t.
          There aren’t.
          I allow those stats.
          You don’t have a case.
          Race is biologically totally irrelevant.
          Crime and achievement stats are social issues, not biological ones.
          You don’t want truth.
          You aren’t capable of rationality anymore now than when you still were a christian.
          Whenever you try to make an argument you refute it yourself.
          Loser, are you stupid.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Holy shit–who let the Aryan Nations guys in?

        • Paul B. Lot

          You?

          :)

        • Carole

          A Salon article on Dunning-Kruger effect and Donald Trump. Supporters of the latter never heard of the former, so they googled it and came here. Not surprisingly, many of them prefer the goose step to the two-step. White supremacy arguments predictably ensued.

        • melonhead

          hey, wait a minute:

          > lying racist

          Racist yes, lying – fuck right off.

          But:

          > 7 generations of Himmler-quality Germanic blood:

          Do the race a favor and have + raise lots of babies, won’t you? :)

        • MNb

          “it would be a shame to lose them”
          And once again you’re wrong – I’m a blood traitor. Isn’t nazi terminology lovely? There is no picture of me on internet, though if you google Nieuweboer you’ll find lots of “Edelgermanen”.

          But here is a picture of my son.

          https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwLQFzu1q5p_vjJC0BYOFBQ

          Also smarter than me. Who knows? His mother is Javanese.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What is your obsession with ranking races by intelligence? Do you rank them on other useful traits as well–endurance, perseverance, compassion, etc.?

          And since claims from this field are so likely to be tainted by wishful thinking, politics, or whatever, why not move on?

        • melonhead

          Because it matters. Are you in the US? Blacks and Hispanics get preferential treatment, in jobs, in universities. It takes a huge amount of of the national attention. There’s constant hand-wringing about How to Equalize the Underserved, Underprivileged. Loans, radio, TV. Moaning about the state of our schools. /Constant/ expenditure of huge amounts of money and time trying first one thing then another to Close the Gap, it all fails. We waste all of this, greatly distorting our attention and politics, because of the hard ideological and legal constant that Every Race is Equal, and any distortions must be whites’ fault, somehow. Really, really, really – it’s called ‘disparate impact’, and the reason given is ‘systemic racism’, meaning, /racism we can’t put our finger on/. Even sheerest data-based algorithms aren’t safe – their makers are white or Asian, privileged, so they must have put racism in somehow. It distorts everything it touches.

          It matters.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Political correctness gone amok bothers me as well. What I see is the fact that we’re just human, and we do our imperfect best to correct our problems.

          But race isn’t the topic of this blog or even this post. Let’s return to critique Christianity.

        • Paul B. Lot

          How to Equalize the Underserved, Underprivileged. Loans, radio, TV. Moaning about the state of our schools. /Constant/ expenditure of huge amounts of money and time trying first one thing then another to Close the Gap

          That’s because these things matter, statistically.


          it all fails

          Nope.


          ‘systemic racism’, meaning, /racism we can’t put our finger on/

          Oh boy, you’re just all turned around, aren’t you? “Systemic racism” does not mean “racism we can’t put out finger on”.

          Jesus, man, you’re not doing a very good job of show casing the “superior intelligence” of the “white” race. :-/

        • melonhead

          Feh dude – you make assertions, and nothing to back them up. buye.

        • MNb

          No. He draws a conclusion from observing your comments. The quotes in his comments are the evidence.
          So you don’t know what assertions are either. Well, that’s what you are a stupid loser for.
          It’s time for me making a bet. When you still were a christian you also were a Young Earth Creationist.

        • melonhead

          It sure would be nice if he’d pay attention to the stats + arguments in front of him instead. But I waste my time.

        • MNb

          As long as you don’t understand the difference between biological and social topics you yourself are the waste of time.
          Dutch expression: who remains silent concurs. So apparently you were a YEC indeed.

          Also

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/02/the-dunning-kruger-effect-are-the-stupid-too-stupid-to-realize-theyre-stupid/#comment-2769851605

        • melonhead

          Human intelligence up to 75% inheritible
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

          Human intelligence is highly heritable.
          http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

          Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

          Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
          http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

          Privately, intelligence experts hold more hereditarian views than they express in public.
          http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994egalitarianfiction.pdf

          Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
          http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

          The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

          The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
          http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

          The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
          http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

          Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
          http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636

          Intelligence has at least a 40-50% genetic basis.
          http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809

          IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
          http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

          IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
          http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

          France’s IQ drops 4 points per decade because of African immigration
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001221

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Read up on the Flynn effect before you compare IQ scores between societies.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

        • melonhead

          American blacks are /within/ the US society and score and do worse than whites. They’ve watched TV, pressed elevator buttons, driven cars, whatever, for as long as whites have. And still a standard deviation of difference.

        • adam

          So you are saying the only desirable trait in human beings is based on skewed IQ tests?

          So you are saying the only desirable trait in human beings is IQ?

        • melonhead

          IQ correlates with impulse control which would be handy right now in the US. And, inversely proportional to crime (sure Bernie Madoff etc, but the break-in kind), and academic achievement and income, all nice things to have in your country.

        • adam

          Even IF that were all true, which you havent demonstrated, you havent demonstrated that insures long term viability of the species, not to mention other genetic advantages of biodiversity.

          Impulse control?
          You mean revolutionary resistance to generations of injustice?

          The very biggest and worst crimes, like banking and wars are not generated by the low IQ,….

          So your racism is misplaced, misinformed and your assumptions incorrect.

        • melonhead

          I bet you’re black – that was the biggest blast of word salad I’ve seen recently.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve lost me. Are you heading toward something?

          With your arguments about IQ variation, I thought you were going to advance policy changes like improved education in disadvantaged areas. Is it something like that?

        • adam

          I understand you are probably used to very short, very simple sentences

          didnt mean to speak so far over your head.

        • melonhead

          ‘k fine but you changed the subject. We were talking about race + IQ, you shifted to ‘IQ isn’t important’, in many different directions, like you wanted to flee the topic.

          Speaking of diversity, you can’t use it as code for ‘brown people’ anymore – real diversity requires more whites:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82f8cc501f9b6349988d9bb97e29e64b946f16010d8c7fa74a543e70e39b724a.jpg

        • adam

          ” We were talking about race + IQ, you shifted to ‘IQ isn’t https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9f690a989287e8421064bee3064f3705e28a4f0c0752010dfd4f09cf2032197a.png important’, ”

          Nope, so I am guessing you are a low IQ person.

          It is YOU who are playing the IQ card, without justifying how high IQ people cant seem to control their impulses to fight and command mass murder.

          Diversity in the US:

        • adam
        • MNb

          “but you changed the subject.”
          No, you did. You started, without any justification, to talk about Adam’s race.
          Like you did with me.
          Which shows you are not capable of learning from your mistakes.
          You may have rejected creationism, you still think have the stupid mind of a creationist.

        • adam

          So where was the impulse control for owning slaves?
          For abusing human human beings, for carrying on wars?

          By your ‘reasoning’ America should have controlled their impulses to fight England, hell to invade Iraq.

          And you somehow imply that this is the result of minority low IQ people?

        • Carole

          Yeah, whatever happened to emotional intelligence? A person (like me) could get straight As in university and be a complete idiot about people. Soft skills are helpful in one’s career, too. My daughter has lower test scores but a much better personality. I bet she will do better than I did.

        • MNb

          Good job cherry picking.
          Also thanks for confirming that you don’t understand the difference between social and biological issues. One example.

          http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

          “Sharp differences in family incomes are a major factor.”

          “one of the main factors in explaining the SAT racial gap is that black students almost across the board are not being adequately schooled to perform well on the SAT and similar tests. Public schools in many neighborhoods with large black populations are underfunded, inadequately staffed, and ill equipped to provide the same quality of secondary education that is offered in predominantly white suburban school districts.”

          No biology involved here.
          You are as stupid as the average (white) Young Earth Creationist. I still bet you were one when you still were a christian.

        • melonhead

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d16be3c65e15fce5ff44dfdb0af5fffe8a0805998b0125c90fa309f6b649ac1.gif

          You’re saying that going down along this chart helps. Sure! But look across. Notice that the lowest white income group scores about the same as the highest black one.

        • MNb

          Anyone can make up a random chart. As a former YECer you are still used to accept anything put on paper that confirms you predetermined views. You are not even capable of wondering how the methods used may influence the outcomes. That’s something YECers never do either and you obviously haven’t learned it.
          Also you’re too stupid to understand that a SAT score is not the same as an IQ score and that IQ doesn’t necessarily measure intelligence.
          And above all you still haven’t shown that the differences in those scores have biological causes instead of social ones. To do so you have to indentify a biological factor that’s typical for the black race and absent in the white race (or the other way round) that has a causal relation with the outcomes on such tests.
          Thus far you haven’t even tried.
          Follow a course methodology at a good psychology faculty at a good university.

        • melonhead

          > SAT score is not the same as an IQ score

          It correlates well, despite the seller’s claim to the contrary. IQ correlates with /lots/ of crazy things, even accuracy in artillery, the US army found (no cite – it was on slate.com, but haven’t found it for a while).

          > IQ score and that IQ doesn’t necessarily measure intelligence.

          It’s the best anyone knows how to do. If you know a better way, sell it and make millions. But you don’t have to have an accurate measure of ‘true’ intelligence, whatever that is – IQ itself (your score on an IQ test) predicts academic achievement, income, your odds of ending up in jail or otherwise crashing your life.

          > you still haven’t shown that the differences in those scores have biological causes instead of social ones.

          That table was not made up however you might wish it were. It shows that eg trailer park white kids score about as well as the children of successful black businessmen who can presumably put their kids into private schools, give them a richer environment etc.

          > To do so you have to identify a biological factor that’s typical for the black race and absent in the white race (or the other way round) that has a causal relation with the outcomes on such tests.

          We’re getting there. There’s a gene related to microcephaly that was found by Lahn that I mentioned. We’ll have concrete genes in ~5 years, maybe fewer. But you don’t need genes to know – statistics can tell you that something is going on, even if you don’t yet know the mechanism.

          > “A lot of critics point out that IQ tests don’t measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence.”

          And street smarts – don’t forget street smarts.

          Sure, those are all nice, but high IQ nations are richer than poorer ones:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsh_b70NSFQ

          (The stats relevant to this post are early on.)

          In case you’re waiting for a textbook to tell you, fine. But know that there’s active resistance to these ideas, as people fear they’ll open a can of worms (they may well). See:

          https://handlehaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

          for a list of people who lost their jobs or gigs for race realism. Including James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA. (other people are in the list, too, but the race realists are there. Start from the bottom, where the more recent ones are.) This is why this won’t be wrapped up tidily into a textbook any time soon.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Are you heading toward something?

          With your arguments about IQ variation, I thought you were going to push for policy changes like improved education in disadvantaged areas. Is it something like that?

        • MNb

          You’re only repeating your errors over and over again and I’m bored. You still think like a stupid Young Earth Creationist. You just have replaced “goddiddid” by “race does it”. It’s exactly as crappy.
          Just one example, for the last time.

          “statistics can tell you that something is going on”
          I never denied that something is going on. I maintain that it’s something social, not something biological. You have produced nothing to show the latter. You just make another famous stupid creacrap error.

          “We’ll have concrete genes in ~5 years”
          Yeah – and 35 years ago creacrappers predicted that Evolution Theory would crumble within five years. That didn’t happen either.

          As this is my last reply to you I’ll tell you how you should do your work as you’re obviously not capable of figuring it out yourself. It’s quite obvious that you’re the result of disastrous creationist schooling; for that you are excused. You are not excused for being incapable to unlearn it – for not even trying.
          Here you goes.

          1. Define race.
          2. Identify some characteristics for each race.
          3. If necessary go back to step 1.

          You haven’t even begun to try with step 1.

          4. Make sure your definition is consistent with Evolution Theory and especially cladistics.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
          So you have to show common ancestry as well. Of course for an ex-creationist like you that’s an alien concept. See, it means that white guys like you and me are black – our ancestors lived in Africa. Some of them decided to go northward, let’s say along the Nile.
          Now that can be done; migration patterns are roughly known.
          Then and only then you can begin to think about causal biological relations (in terms of genes) between race (because only then you have an idea what race actually is) and things like criminal behaviour and intelligence.
          As the good creationist you were you prefer to start with your conclusion. You may not be a creationist anymore, the result remains exactly as crappy.

          Oh – and only someone who remained as stupid as a creationist after abandoning creationism brings up microcephaly in a discussion about race. What that has to do with anything can only be understood who wallows in his own stupidity.
          You have lost the only thing that made you worth replying: entertainment value. You may have the last word, but I won’t read it.
          Bye.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          35 years ago creacrappers predicted that Evolution Theory would crumble within five years. That didn’t happen either.

          You may be thinking of Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

          They issued a new edition. It was called Whoops! I guess we called that one wrong. Kidding–it was called Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis!

          This is a slow-moving crisis.

        • Carole

          I know these are mean scores, but NONE of them seem particularly high. If this chart is true, the average white kid whose parents make over $200K can’t get into a decent university.

        • melonhead

          > young earth creationist

          ? .. of course I was a young-Earth creationist – I grew up fundamentalist Christian. Evolution was part of what ‘red-pilled’ me as the saying goes.

          What kind of believer in evolution are you, where you think that populations being isolated on different continents for tens of thousands of years (obviously) changes bodies, but nothing above the neck? Ah – someone who has emotional reasons not to.

        • MNb

          Of course you were a YEC. You’re still as stupid, use similar stupid arguments and believe similar stupid lies. You only apply them to another subject since you deconverted.

          And lo and behold! You produce another stupidity to illustrate this.

          “What kind of believer in evolution are you”
          I’m not a believer in evolution. I accept it as the best theory that describes all relevant empirical data.

          “but nothing above the neck?”
          Yeah. In every single comment I maintain that the average IQ of Homo Sapiens is the same as the average IQ of for instance Homo Erectus. That or you’re still as stupd as before your deconversion.

          Here is how creationists do science:

          1. Chose a conclusion you want to be true.
          2. Find yourself some empirical data that seem to confirm that pre-determined conclusion.
          3. Ignore the rest.
          4. That’s it.

          Here is how you do science:

          1. Chose a conclusion you want to be true.
          2. Find yourself some empirical data that seem to confirm that pre-determined conclusion.
          3. Ignore the rest.
          4. That’s it.

        • Carole

          Growing up is hard enough without being exposed to rigid, intractable religious belief systems. They cause irrevocable changes in neural pathways, and possibly permanent damage. I wish people like whoever indoctrinated you with that crap (Christians like the Duggars, and only marginally better than ISIS!) should be arrested for child abuse.

        • melonhead

          No, I like truth, especially if people are trying to hide it – that’s dishonorable and disorderly and it makes me mad. Then, too, my race is slowly dying and people are /acting to hasten it/, wtf! I grew up in the 3rd world, where a white person was someone you almost should know – ‘but in America, almost everyone is white’. Now I live in a majority brown town, and it viscerally pisses me off that we’re being colonized.

          What I’m obsessed by here, though, is getting through to people who won’t get their monkey hand out of the gourd(*) of the ideology of equality. That’s what makes me obsessive, overcoming resistance. Too, I’m a guy – territory is man’s business, randomly directed compassion, women’s.

          (*) http://godlessinamerica.com/monkeytrap.html

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Social change is difficult. I agree. Is that your point?

        • MNb

          No. His point is that biology proves the superiority of the white race over the black race.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I was wondering if there was something on which we could agree.

        • MNb

          “I like truth”
          You don’t. Not as long as you refuse to understand the difference between biological and social issues.
          Also if you liked truth you would have learned not to bet whether commenters are black.

        • melonhead

          I’ve been meaning to get back to you on your “it’s social” / environmental claim. James Flynn is an honorable, smart IQ-studier who still /holds out hope that there’s some crack of possibility/ that IQ differences are enough environmental that those with lower can be raised. However, his battle is uphill. He supposedly wrote a paper with 2 co-authors about the state of knowledge about IQ vs race 20 years after ‘The Bell Curve’ but I can’t find it. You can browse his wikipedia page though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Flynn_(academic) )- also there’s this 20-years-later piece: http://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2014/10/06/the_bell_curve_turns_20_87.html

          But my point is that it’s uphill for the IQ-is-not-genetic, which is a dumb idea to start with, because 50% or more of /everything/ is genetic – Flynn is just a nice guy for holding out hope. Sufficient iodine, being disease-free, poking at your cellphone etc (the Flynn Effect) all help, but, eg, American blacks have had about the same environment as the rest of America, and they’re still a std deviation down. While Asians kick even whites’ butts. So while I can’t seal the deal against you, if you’d actually read some of the stuff I put in front of you you absolutely would lose your pleasant-ideology-based idea that the races, who were separated for 40K years and have different size brains ffs, are all really the same intelligence, except when someone is mean to them or when their moms yell at them as kids.

        • Paul B. Lot
        • Carole

          First of all, I agree that the persons who raised him did him a disservice. They were almost certainly white fundamentalist Protestant missionaries who insisted on indoctrinating the child with their inane beliefs, never mind that they flew in the face of Carbon 14 dating and every other scientific process upon which people of sense and intelligence agree. That having been said, I don’t think one can entirely shield children from “adult beliefs” – whether you talk to them about it or not, they will find out about it on Instagram or some other site, and will make up their minds accordingly. But I doubt the people we’re talking about would give their kids a long enough leash to figure these things out for themselves.

        • Paul B. Lot

          you absolutely would lose your pleasant-ideology-based idea that the races, who were separated for 40K years and have different size brains ffs

          Brain size?

          Again?

          Really?

          I already explained this to your idiot friend @ak2976:disqus last month.

          If you’re basing your metric on *absolute brain size*, then h. sapiens sapiens is waaay down the list of animals. Therefore your metric is irrelevant.

          If you’re basing your metric on *relative brain size*, then by your own admissions and graphs, Europeans/North Americans are at the lowest end of your own calculations.

          Indeed, Americans are almost 100% lower on your data.

          So you’ve proven yourself wrong on that metric, as well.

          You are a fucking imbecile.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So your point is that white people need to get over themselves because they’re not at the top of the intelligence heap?

        • MNb

          “if you’d actually read some of the stuff I put in front of you”
          I actually did.
          They convinced me that you refuse to understand the difference between biological and social issues. There is nothing in your comment that could change that conclusion. Especially this gem:

          “have different size brains ffs”
          If fucking would increase the size of the human brain and that would increase intelligence the only sex you’ve experienced is solosex.
          There is not correlation between brain size and IQ.
          Also you have become a plain liar.
          You don’t like truth at all.

        • melonhead

          You argue in bad faith. Because I don’t like to lose, where lose is to fail to convince you, I went the extra mile. But I’m done. (There /is/ a correlation between brain size and IQ by the way – go back and watch the first 3, 5, 10 minutes of the Garrett Jones video with Molyneux.)

        • Paul B. Lot

          There /is/ a correlation between brain size and IQ by the way

          You clearly want your readers to make the (unwarranted?) jump from accepting the correlation* you point out to determining that there is a causal relationship.

          But if there is a causal relationship between [brain size] and [IQ], then why aren’t Blue Whales pioneering fusion reactor research?

          * http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

        • melonhead

          Brain encephalization coefficient. Ie, brain mass per body mas. Higher in Asians and Whites and Jews, roughly, than in the rest. I can’t believe this thread is alive after all this time.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I can’t believe this thread is alive after all this time.

          Nor I. You’ve stated your racial hierarchy already. That’s not the topic of this blog. Either discuss an interesting topic or leave.

        • MNb

          I thought you were done?
          Good job not answering PBL’s question, stupid racist loser.

        • melonhead

          Done with you. You can redeem yourself in my eyes though if you knock up a nice, white, do-gooder intern with your Himmler-white genes.

        • MNb

          “You can redeem yourself in my eyes”
          Why would I want to? I cannot think of any sensible answer. At the other hand I can think of several good reasons why I wouldn’t want to – the rest of that sentence being one of them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Bye. You had your chance to be constructive.

        • Dys

          Damn it Bob…how dare you be intolerant of racist douchebags.

          Reading melonhead’s garbage, I was reminded of the racists who did the same thing with phrenology.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Brain encephalization coefficient.”

          Okay.

          1) So you made a mistake when you mentioned “brain size”.

          You meant to say something like “brain size relative to body mass”.

          2) The term you’re looking for is currently known as encephalization “quotient” not “coefficient“. I know that it can be hard for someone of your mental capacity to keep these multisyllabic words straight, especially when one is trying desperately to sound smarter than one is, but please do try to keep up. *

          3) I already explained the problems with your chosen ratio. To summarize: you are fucking imbecile.

          4) Point #3 is reinforced by the conclusion of this paper:

          The brain changes with practice. Everything indicates that experience makes the great difference, and therefore, we contend that the gene-environment interplay is what defines the IQ of an individual.

          * I see you corrected this minor mistake below.

          Well done!

          Now lets move on to your other mistakes.

        • melonhead

          … should have said /quotient/, not coefficient. Here’s a sample of some facts + discussion:

          “The races differ in average brain size and this shows up at birth.
          Rushton (1997) analyzed the enormous US data set known as the
          Collaborative Perinatal Project. It recorded head circumference
          measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children followed from birth to
          age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). The results
          showed that at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, the East Asian
          children in the study averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White
          children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black
          children. Within each race, the children with the larger head sizes had
          the higher IQ scores and by age 7, the East Asian children averaged an
          IQ of 110, White children an IQ of 102, and Black children an IQ of 90.
          Moreover, the East Asian children, who averaged the largest craniums,
          were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight, whereas the
          Black children, who averaged the smallest craniums, were the tallest in
          stature and the heaviest in weight. Therefore, the race differences in
          brain size were not due to body size.”

          from:

          https://menghublog.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/brain-size-iq-and-racial-group-differences-evidence-from-musculoskeletal-traits/

        • Paul B. Lot

          Sigh.

          You’re going to keep doing this, aren’t you?

          1) Correlation does not equal Causation.

          2) IF you were correct, and IF [brain size/body mass] WERE the most important causal factor in determining intelligence….North Americans would be at the bottom of the food chain. While they have slightly larger cranial capacities, they are enormously heavier.

          Allow me to quote myself from earlier:

          If you’re basing your metric on *relative brain size*, then by your own admissions and graphs, Europeans/North Americans are at the lowest end of your own calculations.

          Indeed, Americans are almost 100% lower on your data.

          So you’ve proven yourself wrong on that metric, as well.

          You are a fucking imbecile.

          From this paper:

          The brain changes with practice. Everything indicates that experience makes the great difference, and therefore, we contend that the gene-environment interplay is what defines the IQ of an individual.

        • MNb

          “You’re going to keep doing this, aren’t you?”
          Yes. That’s why I call him a loser.

        • adam

          Let’s ‘assume’ that your claim ‘races differ in average brain size and this shows up at birth”

          So what?

          How is this the MOST IMPORTANT factor in the survival of the human species?

        • Andre B

          Tried a find a pic of Scientist Whales…failed.

        • Paul B. Lot
        • Susan

          No lab coat?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Do I want to disclose the amount of time I expended searching for various combinations of “whale” “science” “scientist” and “lab coat” before I settled on this pic?

          No I do not.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I did notice a pocket protector.

        • MNb

          “You argue in bad faith.”
          Writes the guy who accuses everyone who rejects his racism of being black and/or emotionally involved – while explicitly writing himself that he’s pissed of because his town is colonized by blacks.

          “Because I don’t like to lose”
          I already understood that it sucks to be you, exactly because you’re an incurable stupid loser. Or you would have referred to an actual peer reviewed scientific magazine for your supposed correlation iso some random video.
          Btw I don’t argue at all anymore. Arguments are a waste on stupid losers like you. All that remains is mockery.

          “But I’m done.”
          Not too soon – in fact you should not have come back at all. This blog is a better place without you. So would be the world.

        • melonhead

          > whether commenters are black.

          You are rightly butthurt at being thought black – please forgive me :)

        • Greg G.

          You are rightly butthurt at being thought black

          I doubt that.

        • Paul B. Lot

          ….my race is slowly dying… it viscerally pisses me off that we’re being colonized.

          “Your” “race” will die. And the world will be better off for it. A wide and deep gene pool is healthy for the species.

          If only it were as easy to get rid of people like you as it is to globalize/mix ethnicities. :-/

          Alas, the problems that reside in your grey matter are likely irrevocable, and the only way to prevent your disease from reappearing in future generations is education.

          And education is hard.


          Too, I’m a guy – territory is man’s business, randomly directed compassion, women’s.

          A pathetic blend of impotent online machismo and mental incapacity. If you’re not a troll, then you are a sad little man.

        • adam

          ” If you’re not a troll, then you are a sad little man.”

          Even if he is a troll, he is still a sad little man

        • melonhead

          > globalize/mix ethnicities. :-/

          Ah – a person of color I see.

          > “Your” “race” will die. And the world will be better off for it.

          If you’re so ready for us to be gone, why not move to Africa? We’ll be ‘gone’ in an instant. But look how well that’s turned out, within living memory. Rhodesia was the ‘breadbasket of Africa’, then Mugabe won his war, and it took a few decades, but now:

          http://qz.com/458137/mugabe-is-asking-back-the-white-farmers-he-chased-away/

          South Africa is going / will go the same way.

          Whites made the modern world you enjoy. You’re not welcome.

          http://www.unz.com/isteve/rep-steve-king-exposes-the-emperors-new-clothes/

        • Paul B. Lot

          Ah – a person of color I see.

          Nope.


          If you’re so ready for us to be gone

          I’m not rooting for “us” to be gone. There is no “us”. The thing you have chosen to cling to as your new simple/shallow minded rubric to understand the world … is a fiction. You’ve organized your thoughts around nonsense. “We” don’t exist as a “race.”

          There are only loose [Caucasian ethnic boundaries].

          About those, I’m a realist. Humanity is becoming too interconnected for the minor variations between geographic locations/phenotypes to persist indefinitely.

          The mixing will happen. Is happening.

          There is nothing you can do to stop it. (And that’s a good thing, imo.)

          Now shut up and go away, you silly person.

          Your idiocy was novel for a while, but now you have shown us that you are impervious to reason, you are repeating yourself, and, worst of all, you are boring.

        • melonhead

          … oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2d252c601a14bfe4f037a50209f6b3bc50957597d7eb7997a22fbdbb8b57b86.jpg

          image search for ‘asians skinning animals alive’ if this gives you a sick fascination like it does me. And it’s not only skinning, they don’t show much consideration for their food animals in general.

        • adam

          “.. oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:”

          Like christianity has any compassion:

        • adam

          “.. oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:”

          Like christianity has any compassion:.

        • adam

          “.. oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:”

          Like christianity has any compassion:..

        • adam

          “.. oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:”

          Like christianity has any compassion:…

        • Paul B. Lot

          Uh, wut?

          You want to place over-under bets on whether or not I can find “white” animal cruelty?

          All of “asians” lack both “christianity” AND “compassion”?

          Lol.

          What a goofy person you are. (Or are pretending to be. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be as simple as you seem….but, then again, I might be subject to the Dunning-Kruger corollary.)

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          My ex-wife and current partner both have grandparents coming from Java, then Dutch East Indies. They and their relatives have more compassion than (ex-)christians like you have ever shown.

        • Carole

          It’s not “colonization,” when someone with an economic motive brings people here, against their will. Perhaps you should, with your superior Aryan intelligence, invent a time machine and single-handedly stop the slave trade. 19th century plantation owners from SC, LA and GA would curse your name, but at least 21st century whites wouldn’t have to cope with affirmative action and diversity training.

          If you’re talking about a different kind of “colonization,” I’d be eager to know why you’ve so far focused on Americans of African descent. Also, to what race do Meso-Americans belong? Because I don’t think the affirmative action people have figured it out yet (the term “Hispanic” was invented during the Nixon administration and refers to a language group, not a racial group).

        • melonhead

          +1 for engaging in the argument. No, I don’t think African Americans are colonizing the US, I’m more worried about the rest of the world, Mexicans, and then people who have absolutely no historical connection to us, have justification by no guilt – subcontinental Indians, and middle easterners. African Americans I focus on for other purposes because the differences are so stark.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Sure – but you differ a lot less than you and some South Indian. Who differs less than that, from his neighboring South Indian.

          I probably differ genetically more from a South Indian than I do from my brother. Correct.

          Two questions:

          1) Would you say the same if I were talking about having had a sister? Surely many of the non-sex chromosomes will still differ more in the South Indian, but the 23rd chromosome is very influential in human development, and a sister would differ 100% from me on that one.

          http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask456

          2) You admit that both individuals who are from different ethnic groups and individuals who are siblings “differ biologically”. That is good. But you still seem, to me anyway, inclined to accept the importance of racial distinctions. What is your threshold for [percentage of genetic difference] to make those differences important?


          So he’s not an evil racist, but – /subspecies/, yo.

          It seems clear to me that Dawkins is a) FOR studying the science of genetic differences between different populations, while b) being AWARE that idiots will take that research and twist it into political/social/memetic constructions which are inappropriate, harmful, and anti-science.

          https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/678519868166152192

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq13SvXIw58

        • melonhead

          Bless your research! 2 months, hah!

          Yeah, so, he’s a nice guy, and / or wants to protect his legacy (cf what happened to Watson, Nobel Prize winner though he was). We race realists also think all humans are human, but we are not out to be nice or protect social order or spare non-white feelings. We want to knock down the hard insistence on the ideology of equality, which has lots of bad effects on the white population (black crime, the idea that you can import every random population into a white one and within a generation or so they’ll be white on the inside – this idea comes from egocentrism imo – just as productive, cooperative and law abiding, which eg one Harvard (economist?) Borjas has found is not so for Hispanics – they don’t rise much in income or academic accomplishment even after 3 generations).

          > What is your threshold for [percentage of genetic difference] to make those differences important?

          People seem to have trouble with the lack of well-defined, hard edges in race. Race is clinal. But just because you can’t define sharply where a hill starts, doesn’t mean that ‘hill’ isn’t a useful concept and that hills can’t be distinguished from each other and from non-hills.

        • Greg G.
        • Paul B. Lot

          I went to a friend’s house party last year where I only knew about 15% of the other attendees.

          To break the ice and attempt conversation with people, I drunkenly thought that discussing the Chimp/Bonobo juxtaposition was a good idea.

          Did I mention the booze?

          Since then, whenever I go over to that friend’s house and one of those other merrymakers are there, I am “that monkey guy.”

        • Greg G.

          I am “that monkey guy.”

          It is probably best to pass on the opportunity to point out that chimpanzees are not monkeys, except in a cladistic sense.

    • MNb

      “A lot of them don’t even believe race exists at all.”
      Then biologists belong to the antiscientific mafia as well.
      https://source.wustl.edu/2003/05/evolutionary-biologist-race-in-humans-a-social-not-biological-concept/
      That or you simply don’t make sense.

    • Smash Islamophobia

      To expand upon your point, which the leftists below are responding to with the usual fact-free virtue signaling competition, each attempting to demonstrate that they have the strongest allegiance to their irrational belief in race creationism:

      On the scientific validity of race:

      Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races.
      http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

      Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.”
      http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

      “Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000

      Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

      Race can be determined via brain scans (i.e. brain structure differs at the macro level between races):
      http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00671-5

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        All right–who left the door open?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          How about a multicultural source? Should be good for your feelings…

          96-97% of whites have no African ancestry.
          http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And? Does this mean that they didn’t come from Africa?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          lol. That’s an argument? All terrestrial vertebrates are descended from marine animals. Fish are our brothers!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wait–I thought it was just those godamn leftists that changed the subject when pressed on their argument. Et tu, Smash?

        • Paul B. Lot

          That’s an argument? All terrestrial vertebrates are descended from marine animals. Fish are our brothers!

          It’s a shame that you (or your persona) don’t think through the implications of your own arguments.

        • Greg G.

          96-97% of whites have no African ancestry

          Your link does not support this claim. The link equivocates genetics and ancestry which isn’t so important going back a few centuries.

          If you go back 10 generations, you would have up to 1024 ancestors that far back. Each of those would have up to 1024 ancestors which means you have over a million ancestors that far back. But humans don’t have that many genes, so you may have no genes from most of your ancestors from beyond 16 generations, even though they are still your ancestors.

          It has been said that if a person from about 6000 years ago has any living descendants today, that person is an ancestor to everybody alive today. The number of ancestors grows exponentially per generation while the population tends to be smaller the further back you go. At some point, it is no longer a question of whether a person is an ancestor but how many millions of times that person is your ancestor.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Careful, now. Don’t be mean. Smash is a special snowflake.

      • Carole

        The Genome Wide Association Studies have always categorized people according to historical ethnicity (what you refer to as “race”) and current geographical location (e.g. Han Chinese living in Houston, Texas). That doesn’t support your white separatist agenda. Sorry/Not Sorry.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          You seem very proud of your nearly-complete statistical ignorance. Let me endeavor to explain your very basic error in terms that you are able to comprehend:
          The tallest woman is far taller than the shortest man. Yet “Men are taller than women” is indisputably a true statement, nonetheless.

          “…all humans migrated from Africa”
          And all terrestrial vertebrates are descended from marine animals. Fish are our brothers, you bigot!

        • Joseph Martin

          I want to congratulate and thank you for your excellent posts. I’ve been learning a lot and enjoying them. Great sense of humor too!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Smash is indeed a kidder, isn’t he! He has a gentle touch when introducing new material into the conversation. I bet he’s an elementary school teacher.

        • MNb

          Brrrr. Poor kids.

        • MNb

          That poor attempt at irony equally applies to fellow white guy Smash.
          If fish aren’t my bros because common descent you’re not either, no matter how white and blonde you are.

        • Carole

          Here’s another irony. . . the so-called “ancient Germanic” Y-DNA haplogroup (I-M253 – commonly found in Scandinavia) is separated by tens of thousands of years from the haplogroup of the so-called German “Aryans” (R1-b). The idiots at Stormfront are still trying to figure out what the real “Aryan” haplogroup is.

        • MNb

          Thanks, I didn’t know that, mainly because genetics usually bores my pants off. But this is a useful piece of information, if only because the Stormfront idiots see me as an ancient Germanic Aryan stereotype with my blonde hair, grey blue eyes and 1 m 92 plus blood pure descent for at least seven generations. Fortunately I otherwise don’t fit in the stereotype at all as I’m also a bloodtraitor and proud of it.

        • Carole

          It is widely accepted by geneticists that all modern humans have their ancestral origins in West Central Africa, since we are all descendants of Y Chromosomal Adam. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png. Modern Europeans are descended from 8 distinct Y-DNA haplogroups. The most widespread haplogroup among “Aryan” Europeans in western Europe is more closely related to the most widespread haplogroups among west and central Asians, and even Meso-Americans, than it is to a very common haplogroup among “Germanic” Europeans in Scandinavia. The most widespread haplogroup in western Europe descended from the haplogroup found in modern Australian aborigines and Melanesians (which also gave rise to the haplogroups found in south Asians, northern Eurasians, east Asians and southeast Asians.) Modern Africans belong to six different haplogroups. 70% of the population of Cameroon belongs to the very same haplogroup as most “Aryan” Europeans, but it is rare elsewhere in Africa. The terms “African,” “Asian” and “European” are ambiguous, from a genetic standpoint.

          Furthermore, genetic differences, by themselves, are mostly meaningless and will continue to be until we have
          a better understanding of the specific ways in which genes are expressed. First, only 2% of the 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides in human DNA is actually expressed as genes. Secondly, genes are simply codes for 20 different amino acids, each represented by codons of 3 nucleotides, which assemble to form millions of different proteins. As yet, geneticists and clinicians have a very limited understanding of how these proteins cause different phenotypic traits, even for monogenic diseases caused by the mutation of a single gene.

          You probably picked a bad person with whom to argue about genetics. But by all means, insult me if that makes you feel superior.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Cute map. See “Fish are our brothers,” above. The rest is mere pilpul, and weak pilpul at that.

        • Carole

          Oh, what an incisive argument! I was hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you’re more than a match for me. Looks like you’ve single-handedly disproven the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    • Philmonomer

      Good job trolling! You are getting a lot of responses.

    • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

      great username though ;=)
      remember we are not the only ones our philosophies affect….all my rescue-cats know that!

  • Ben Magno

    This explains errybuddy who dun’t vote lahk me!!!

    I love how people are more than glad to unironically demonstrate the effect in the comments of the article. Very zen.

  • Carole

    This explains the Donald Trump phenomenon, too. “I’m going to fix everything wrong with the U.S. in my first 100 days in office. I don’t know the particulars yet, but trust me, I’m a very smart guy! Sorry, losers and fakers, you just aren’t smart enough to understand me.”

    • Nigel McPhearson

      Absolutely. I propose an empirically based peer reviewed plan like Hope n change. That’s a Good clear plan.

      • Carole

        Yeah, that was a shit plan as well, as I said at the time. Clinton had more of a plan, Romney probably had more of a plan. We should be so lucky to have Romney now.

  • Smash Islamophobia

    This is commonly seen among leftists, who judge “intelligence,” not by how well a person can construct an empirically-supported argument, but by how well they can demonstrate their blind faith in the progressive establishment narrative.

    • Vtsaxon

      Sounds like dribble from your local Marxist Jew professor.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      So much for an empirically supported argument, eh? Yeah–who needs it?

    • epeeist

      This is commonly seen among leftists…

      Attack of the 50 foot straw man.

    • Paul B. Lot

      “This is commonly seen”

      Given the appropriate bias/mental illness, one “commonly” see whatever one chooses. Eg. Flying Saucers.

      You have been blessed with the gift to see what you were expecting to see: I congratulate you.

  • John W

    MRI scans have revealed that Oriental brains (East Asians) are on average 15 cubic centimetres larger than white brains. Orientals average about 105 on IQ tests, whereas whites average around 100.

    Orientals do all those things we associate with populations with a high IQ: relative to whites, they have low rates of crime, they have low rates of illegitimacy, they do well at school, have stable families, acquire professional and academic qualifications, and are generally more accomplished.

    Darwin’s theory of evolution, which all intelligent and educated people are supposed to accept, predicts that populations, once they become divided, through migration or accident, will, as a result of differing environmental pressures, begin to diverge in their physical characteristics. (If this goes on long enough a completely new species might evolve.) So it is entirely in line with the theory of evolution that Orientals should have, on average, a higher IQ than whites, since whites and Orientals were indeed separated for tens of thousands of years, and the brain is an organ of the body just like any other. Indeed it would require a miracle for whites and Orientals to be precisely the same in every characteristic, which I suppose would prove the existence of God.

    This is why people who pretend to believe that whites and Orientals have the same average IQ, in the face of the veritable mountain of evidence that shows that orientals are more intelligent, are called “liberal Creationists”.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      How is this relevant to a blog about Christianity and atheism?

      • Carole

        Hi Bob,
        This particular article doesn’t mention Christianity and atheism. I think there was a recent article in a major publication about the Dunning-Kruger effect, and Google searches drew people here. But you are quite right to be concerned when the “white power” people start jumping on your blog.
        Carole

        • MNb

          They are all gone now with the exception of Melonhead. I’m done with him (don’t enjoy it anymore) but as I like your comments I hope you will address him as well. You’ll find him on this very page.

        • Carole

          I did. But I think that his Cro-Magnon mindset is not entirely his fault. I often wonder how I would have developed socially and intellectually if I had been raised by two open-minded and sane parents. I can only imagine then what it would have been like being raised by fundamentalists who believed the world was 4000 years old. Your pupils are very lucky to have you.

        • MNb

          Thanks a lot for the compliment.
          It’s also the other way round. I am very lucky to have my pupils. They give my life meaning in a way that was not likely to happen in my native country.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks. Race is an important conversation, assuming there’s a willingness to learn by all parties. Members of men’s rights groups who simply want a platform to expound don’t have anything to add to the conversation here.

    • Breitbart2

      I mainly agree with you, but I you’ve got it backwards:
      “Morton assigned the highest brain capacity to Europeans—with the English highest of all. Second was the Chinese, third was Southeast Asians and Polynesians, fourth was American Indians, and the smallest brain capacity was assigned to Africans and Australian aborigines.”
      http://www.understandingrace.org/history/science/one_race.html

      Part of the reason Asians are perceived as having the characteristics you described, is because of selection bias: smarter Asians are generally more likely to immigrate.

      Also, an even more major reason is not related to genetic intelligence, it is related to temperament. In comparison to whites, Asians tend to be more docile and respectful of authority. This is for cultural reasons, and also probably genetic reasons as well. This connects to lower crime, more career accomplishments, and stable families, as well as intelligence. For example, a lot of why Asians test better isn’t innate intelligence, it’s because they spend more time in studies (learned intelligence).

      • Hugo Fitch

        The average IQ score of Ashkenazi Jews has been calculated to be 112–115 (Cochran et al.) and 107–115 (Murray; Entine).

        • Carole

          The alt.right people don’t care. To them, the only relevant IQ difference is between European-Americans and African-Americans (who are, on average, something like 30% European). They would probably say Ashkenazi Jews cheated on the test or something.

        • MNb

          Even before African-Americans on the alt.right list come muslims. Given Israel the alt.right crowd at the moment is totally ok with jews. Dutch alt.right politician Geert Wilders even gets financed by conservative American jews and in return is a staunch supporter of Israel’s fight against the Arabs. So my guess is that alt.right is generally very happy with the high average score of Ashkenazi jews.
          Dutch jews and I suspect European jews in general don’t buy it though. Out of necessity they have developed a very good memory. Some of their Dutch spokesmen have made explicitly clear that the way alt.right treats muslims reminds them of the gruesome decade immediately before the Holocaust.

        • Carole

          Well,it’s good to know that they aren’t mistreating Jews, at least. I wonder if the European alt.right is as full of faux-military poseurs as the American alt.right. (See, e.g. Smash). 1/2 the people I know who served in Afghanistan are African-American and generally veterans have enough esprit de corps to not be racist.

        • MNb

          Warning: I’m going to link to a couple of disgusting sites.
          From a Dutch alt.right site:

          http://cult.tpo.nl/2014/09/17/beeld-jan-roos-pownews-nazi-uniform/

          Even they smell something fishy, so this guy is probably an exception. Still he was hailed by Dutch alt.right when he sucked a story out of his thumb how he held off an attacking muslim horde of a few Maroccan teens with a baseball bat.
          It’s more tough language. A “highlight” from Geert Wilders:

          http://www.barenakedislam.com/2010/10/27/geert-wilders-deport-lazy-muslim-immigrants/

          “statements Mr Wilders had made on Danish TV, when he had called for millions of Muslims who had committed a criminal offence to be deported from Europe.”
          You can watch the interview here.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMk6F_oHiCM

          Plus Dutch alt.right “fights the good fight” with heroic actions like painting swastika’s on mosques and throwing pig’s heads over their walls.

        • Breitbart2

          Carole, I did not mean to cherry-pick, as I was not aware of the data which you made note of. Thank you for sharing it.

          I thought the cultural factor didn’t require a study, as it seems evident by simply observing Asian communities, if you live around them as I do.

          Further, I agree that Jews are the most intelligent of any race. In fact, when I mentioned Europeans as being overall the most intelligent, I was not referring only to Anglos, but to all Europeans, of which Ashkenazi Jews are a subset.

        • Carole

          You’re welcome. But I don’t see how any of this proves that Europeans are the most intelligent, unless you’re going by brain mass, which is correlated with overall body mass. I had some misgivings about linking to the IQ study, as it will undoubtedly add fuel to the debate about Africa. The authors of the study apparently hoped to link national IQ with national wealth. I don’t know if they succeeded or not.

        • Michael

          I learned (accurately I believe) from Robert Heinlein many decades ago the best and brightest migrate to make a better life for themselves. Problem today is there isn’t anywhere to go. We really need a star drive.

        • funkenstein

          The average person who thinks IQ is a real thing is a moron. Intelligence or the ability to solve problems and learn skills is in no way a scalar quantity.

      • Carole

        Way to cherry-pick! In fact, IQ scores by country show that citizens of east Asian countries have the highest IQs. https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country I notice that you didn’t cite any authority for the last 2 paragraphs of your comment, which are rank speculation. You “race realists” (essentially everyone on Breitbart) can’t have it both ways.

    • funkenstein
  • Grandma Susan

    One of my favorite topics, Dunning-Kroger ‘s initial study.As an Engineering Manager for years in a highly complex technology testing environment, I got to see the Dunning-Kroger curve in action years before I knew of it’s existence. Hiring entry level graduates and assigning them to an experienced engineer to break them in, we ran a very predictable curve. Young men, arrogant and certain of their superior skills, would chaff at the advice of the calmer engineers, the younger guys certain that they were better and smarter. They would try to launch into their preferred corrective actions, and if it wouldn’t screw things up too much, we’d let them. A few months of this usually resulted in them reluctantly approaching for help, which was calmly and cheerful given. Some time later, I would receive praise for how wonderful and smart the older engineer was from the apprentice. We referred to it as ‘dragging him over the hump’.

    Delighted to read the study when it was released,and particularly enjoyed the graphs, describing the now famous Mt. Stupid. My youngest kid is in his mid-20’s, and only recently began his descent down Mt. Stupid. We were worried because he had planted a flag at the summit and we feared he’d stay there.

    • Michael Neville

      That sort of thing happens in other fields besides engineering. As an accountant with recent college graduates working for me I’ve watched trainees climb Mt. Stupid many times. Often it’s the intricacies of the tax laws or the GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) that cause problems.

      • Grandma Susan

        Since I first read the study, I have believed it to be a universal truth!

      • MNb

        I’m afraid that when I started to teach in 1989 that I was such a young man, arrogant and certain of my skills (though I already had recognized that there were other excellent teachers). Fortunately my pupils did a good job curing me from this idea and indeed I had a mentor who taught me a few things.

  • funkenstein

    Thanks, and great find with the Russell quote :)
    You might enjoy this post:
    http://frass.woodcoin.org/navigating-the-post-dunning-kruger-era/


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X