Re: Could anyone explain this please?

From: James Michael Howard (jmhoward_at_anthropogeny.com)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:30:35 GMT

On 29 Jul 2004 21:35:55 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote:

>"P.Comm" <tjsrno@spampost.com> wrote in message news:<5beOc.2305$cK.1887@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> > > Shockley
>> >
>> > was a physicist, well out of his field.
>>
>> The only people I'd really consider to be "IN" the field would be
>> neurologists. Over the years, I found a few tid bits - but they were in
>> studies that had NOTHING to do with race!
>
>Well, I'd agree that neurologists are the only ones in the
>field, but there are degrees of out. I consider working on
>the Manhattan Project and inventing the transistor WAY out
>of the field.
>
>Right now, Shockley's theory has been disproven; since
>1970, the mean black IQ has increased two or three points
>every decade.
>
>> Looking at results of IQ tests, even looking at the overwhelming "black"
>> crime stats, the higher testosterone levels, etc etc etc - really doesn't
>> tell us anything except the RESULT.
>
>Yeah, well, JMH was too reductionist anyway; I mean, I would
>figure from what you've said that Tatars would have higher
>testosterone levels. Either that, or genes which react more
>to testosterone.
>
>Ultimately, black crimes aren't even that big of a deal
>compared to the kind of *** white criminals get away with,
>as Enron and Halliburton show.
>
>> Anyone can then get stats, Shockly
>> included. Next we have tons of people speculating on the CAUSE of the
>> visible result. Next you get the PC gang refuting it and blaming poverty.
>
>What did I say about the phrase "politically correct"? It's
>generally used by NON-scientific ideologues. I've NEVER
>encountered the phrase in any peer-reviewed journal, and I
>can't see it in any except linguistics. Typically it's used
>by think tanks, which are the equivalent of a group of
>astrophysicists who don't believe in gravity.
>
>> That's easily proven to be rubbish! The result is real. It's visible, no
>> one can deny it. But the cause is NOT visible, in my opinion. Not yet.
>>
>> I have my theory on all of it - and I said it. Extreme Self hate. RAGE
>> against anyone that is obviously NOT them. Jealousy and self hate. Heh,
>> jealousy IS self hate, if you ask me. That's my theory. I have that theory
>> because I've seen this kind of behavior in one person that's like that,
>> families that are like that, and lots of blacks that are like that. I see
>> blacks that are NOT like that - don't fit the picture at all. They are the
>> ones that get talked about as "very nice person...." Until neurology can
>> give HARD data on any of this - it's all theory as to cause. Point is,
>> Mib - the RESULT is very real - and yeah, people want to keep as far away
>> from them as possible based on repeated, consistent experiences.
>
>I'd agree that there's quite a bit of self-hate. I mean,
>even the big "black pride" types never talk about the
>western coast of Africa.

The simplest explanation should be considered first.

Loading