UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Already posted

And, because a high percentage of posters are graduates of elite universities, the tone and substance is certainly smarter, in general, than that of the public at large.

Think about that.

Wisdom is gained through struggle, not something that graduates of elite universities are often exposed to.

Intelligence, though, is not.

Think of your high school. The smart people went to college.

Not a single one of them went to college.

Knowledge is not wisdom, you can read a book to gain knowledge, wisdom is earned through experience, typically adverse experience.

Unless of course you believe going to ND detracts from that wisdom, LOL.

Since you broached the subject, how is it distributed in society? How about in terms of gender and race?

BTW, you can dispense witih the obligatory name-calling and just answer the question.

My point was that education level and intelligence are correlated. Not perfectly, but strongly.

Smarter people tend to go to college in higher numbers than less smart ones.

The same does not go for common sense, or cleverness, or basic wisdom. Those are different from intelligence.

Neurological disorders.

I also know how uncomfortable it is to acknowledge this. I even know that simple acknowledgement of this would conceivably get you fired or at least leave you persona non grata in your line of work. Let that sink in for a moment. Sort of like acknowledging that there are only two genders could conceivably result in similar consequences. It's a strange world, isn't it? I know you try to play these things off as right-wing boogeymen and hyperbole, but you and I both understand that if you stated on campus that the mean IQ for Asians differs quite bit from the mean IQ for blacks, or that gender is synonymous with sex, and there are only two genders, you'd be met with great hostility and calls for your termination. End of story, all feigning of ignorance aside.

Your point about the correlation between intelligence and education is correct, of course. What I think you have wrong is the apparent assumption that the rhetoric that bothers you the most emanates from lesser-educated folks in the opposing camp, the Deplorables. I think the people who hatch and generally disseminate the talking points and rhetoric that bother you most are counterparts in the rival tribe who are mostly college-educated. Many with college educations from prestigious universities.

And no, I don’t agree with you or the Murray pseudoscience.

You start with the article of faith that he must be wrong and there cannot be unequal distributions of intelligence across different racial groups and between the genders. Then you hear or read others call it "pseudoscience" and repeat what you have been told. And you're an academic. Do you label your colleagues who believe in "unconscious bias" as believers in pseudoscience? It's exactly that and there are now numerous studies demonstrating this. How about your colleagues who believe there are more than two genders? Pseudoscientists?

This is a an actual example of cognitive dissonance: "Intelligence is not distributed equally." Next breath: "Intelligence is distributed equally across immutable categories of people."

The thing is that the more that people like you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the reality, the more you stoke the fires for the racists that you claim to revile. If you instead offered something intelligent and sober, like: "Yes, there are variations in IQ distribution between racial groups, but there are greater variations among individuals, and, regardless, IQ differences don't render one group 'inferior' in their humanity and ultimate worth than any other group," you would disarm much of the venom from that side. Instead, when you deny something as obvious as the observation that Asians tend to be blessed with more intelligence than other racial groups, which probably explains their overrepresentation in elite universities and more rigorous majors, despite historical discrimination, people on the opposite pole dig in their heels even more and become more strident and hyperbolic in their claims of biological determinism.

(no message)

the idea that discussion of this issue is potentially dangerous, given the history of actual pseudoscience related to race, used as a means of discrimination and oppression. The problem is that by suppressing any discussion, it breeds the very people who would offer up racial pseudoscience. No group in society is more important in articulating the nuances of this issue than academics and, unfortunately, they are just about the most strident, hysterical, and least-nuanced in addressing it.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

They also revealed Laura turned tricks while moonlighting as a USO performer.