How America’s Obsession with DEI Is Sabotaging Our Medical Schools

I appreciate your embrace of eugenics. The consensus of researchers is that IQ differences between ethnic groups are due to environmental factors, not genetics.
Why People Keep Misunderstanding the ‘Connection’ between Race and IQ
Why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely
The unwelcome revival of ‘race science’

You again show an impressive amount of historical illiteracy. The Nazis' discrimination wasn't centered around skin color. It was centered around their theories of genetic superiority and inferiority. They couched it in racial terms, but it didn't turn on skin color. Jews like me are white. That didn't protect us from the Holocaust. Same thing is true of white disabled folks and LGBTQ people.

The Nazis were not seeking diversity. They were not seeking to help people they discriminated against. They were seeking to harm people they considered inferior. You only expose yourself as an unserious, ignorant person when you invoke the Nazis and Jim Crow to attack affirmative action.

In other words, you're anti-Black. Thanks for the confirmation.

Why would I "touch" your point that supports my argument? If educated, skilled immigrants from African countries are doing well, it would only support the points I've made in this thread and the idea that our issues of inequality (tied to our society's past and present systemic discrimination) in America are what's causing the massive opportunity gaps between races. That, of course, means we can significantly narrow those gaps with policy, resources, and effort. But hey, keep right on going with your embrace of eugenics and anti-Blackness, pal.

 

Damn, this thread is embarrassing.

 

I stated biological facts about differences between different ethniticity's physical and mental traits. I did not say or imply I supported eugenics, which is evil.

The definition of eugenics is "the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population's genetic composition". Where in my post did you get that I support that?? Don't you get tired of the typical liberal tactic of lying and falsely claiming that someone said or supports something when they in fact did not?

"Everyone that disagrees with me is a racist, sexist, nazi, and white supremacist" describes debating with most liberals today sadly.

IQ differences are not caused by environmental differences. They are biological differences just like physical traits. There is a multitude of research behind that. On any continent and in any culture the same thing will arise. For example: in no culture or continent will the average IQ of black people come anywhere close to the average IQ of East Asians. It doesn't matter the lifestyle, culture, geographical location etc. It's always the same result. It's no different than how the average athleticism, height, and size of black people will always be greater than that of Asians. Also it is not just limited to IQ. Asians and whites also have higher test scores and are on the top in every single academic category, which is just more evidence. Also they are the richest races with the most academic success.

Tell me, in which culture or continent can I find Asians that can develop into NFL cornerbacks?
First, you do acknowledge the biological fact that there are physical differences between ethnicity like average height, athleticism etc?

Are Asian people genetically shorter on average than black and white people? Answer this question for me

Wrong. Nazi discrimation was centered around skin color. Jews were the main exception to this rule, but Hitler clearly wrote about the darker races and his hierarchy was clearly based on skin color, with the darker races being lower and the lighter races being higher. Even among white people Hitler viewed the ligher skinned white people like Nordics above the more tanned White races like the Mediterraneans. Hitler wrote extensively on his views on race and to say his policies weren't based on skin color is pure ignorance.

The skilled immigrants from Africa prove that this country is not racist and that the broken African American culture is to blame for their problems. It refutes your point about this country being racist and that African Americans need help. They only need to help themselves.
Also while the African immigrants are doing much better compared to African Americans, they are still doing a lot worse than South Asians and East Asians, which further proves my point.

"present systemic discrimination" you say? But you support those racist bigoted anti-asian and anti-white policies. Those policies benefit blacks, yet Asians still run circles over them. Asians are the minority that liberals dislike because it refutes their non-sensical views.

 

Not gonna go too much into Dr. Goldfarb's statements, but I'll say that I'm rather appalled by the general lack of tolerance of opposing opinions in society today. It's really unbelievable how so many people who are so well educated, especially those whose trainings are so deeply rooted in empiricism (e.g. physicians), can be so, so damn sure that their viewpoint is correct that any opposing view needs to be attacked and silenced. It's not like there are troves of RCTs proving these social views, they're all based on data that we would never accept for the efficacy of a new medication, yet so many believe the prescribed cures to be nothing less than the absolute truth.

I happen to disagree with most of Dr. Goldfarb's views, but I can't rule out the possibility that in some decades or centuries that he may be proven right and that that I'd be proven an idiot. I'll base my actions on what I believe to be right, but I'll also respect his right to have his views and his right to voice them.

 

Great anecdata response

 

IQ as most commonly used in debate as a group metric is BS. Never reverse validate to a Bell Curve. Big general believer in the Flynn effect

 

Is it a general lack of tolerance for opposing opinions or a general lack of tolerance for certain opposing opinions?

It's debunked race "science." That sort of awful race "science" formed the foundations of the destructive eugenics movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is disgusting to see people launder that crap on this forum.
Eugenics and Scientific Racism

 

There is no "consensus" among experts, because there is no real debate. For the most part, biological scientists have stayed out of this discussion. James Flynn, for example, is a philosopher/social scientist.

Up until very recently, intelligence research could be presumed to have two motivations:

(1) To provide a justification for African Americans remaining in a permanent subordinate socioeconomic position relative to whites.

(2) To provide a justification for restricting immigration from non-white, third world countries.

Neither of these things are very appealing to most scientists.

When whites were 80% of the US population and 75% of class at Harvard did you really need a scientific explanation why that is?

But we are in a different era now. Minorities, Asians, will very soon be the majority of the class at Harvard, and other elite schools, if we don't discriminate to keep their numbers down. People will want an explanation why, and if they don't get it, they will invent one. And as I said, it's naive to think genes don't play some role.

 

The Flynn effect has also ground to a halt in the first world. I believe "intelligence" research should be perfomed with the upmost delicacy in order to avoid broad conclusions. Because controlled studies on large populations can never be performed, there will always be more to learn about this horrifically complex topic. Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve" is exactly the opposite of that. And I wish that book had never been published. Unfortunately, people view IQ as a proxy for worth, and that is terrible. On the other hand, I don't think the role of environment is any less nebulous than the role of genes. And at least to the extent I can understand, it's genes in an environment, not genes or environment. And sorting that out is, like I said, horrifically complicated.

 

I don't really feel like getting into this, but I don't believe you can make any population wide conclusions on any of this. I think the test is very limited in what it can show, and can be used with some effective pedagogy at the individual or maybe even very small group level. It has no appropriate public policy role and borders towards phrenology in that context.