Quote from Ricter:
IQ is malleable. But nice essay!
Quote from 1prometheus:
If you take out factors such as malnutrition and extreme neglect, Intelligence is malleable only to a very limited degree.
Why do you think it is that most every man who has cracked the 10 second barrier in the 100 meter dash is a west African black? Look it up. I think only one white man has done it in the history of the world.
The only real way to raise long term group IQ (or any other characteristic) is through differential reproduction. In other words, a society where the most intelligent reproduce the most, and the least intelligent reproduce less often. (the opposite of what we now have). If blacks (or any other group) where serious about raising their group IQ, this is what they would look into.
Naive liberals (and conservative liberals) somehow think the rules that apply to the rest of the animal kingdom do not apply to us. If you want faster horses u don't train a nag to run faster, you breed them.
As I have stated before, Intelligent people shape their environment and enhance their (and their children's) natural advantage. Dumb people shape their environment in a way that harms both their success and the success of their children.
Intelligent people create, "civilization" less intelligent people create squalor.
The enormous weight of evidence is all on my side. On your side is liberal rhetoric and ideology.
Quote from pspr:
New name for the Dayton Police Department should be painted on squad cars.
F-TROOP![]()

Quote from Ricter:
IQ is very malleable. You could raise yours today by practicing the tests--assuming someone who is WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) made the test, otherwise you might not do so well. Is it completely malleable? No. For perfection we'll have to look elsewhere.
I'm aware there are genetic differences. But they are not differences that, of themselves, make a difference. Not for population studies.
If you're right, then no black man could be smarter than you. If there is but one such then we must begin using statistics and probabilities. Come back to me when these populations are starting the race (no pun) on the same line.
Quote from 1prometheus:
Every single statement you make above is flat out wrong.
Not simply are your statements on IQ, Intelligence, group differences, individual differences, etc wrong, but your statement "...then no black man..." demonstrates you fail to understand even simple statistical concepts. I can't see the point in arguing with that. Get informed.
Quote from Ricter:
Like I said, we're compelled to come to statistics, as you've just done. So now your pronouncements about "blacks" are going to have to be more qualified, aren't they?
Quote from Ricter:
Ok, going back and rereading most of this from the several threads. One question from the beginning, why is Dayton "desperate" to replace retiring officers, is it because there are not enough applicants altogether, or because there's a lengthy delay caused by the DOJ? Along the lines indicated by AAA (and one other), is it desireable that a police force represent the population it patrols, or more desireable that the few we employ be fully qualified? Also, do those numbers really mean 'F' and 'D' if the grading is on a curve. I mean, reality intrudes on our best intentions to either be pure scientific reductionists and hire based on IQ (indirectly) alone, or consider larger, ethical considerations as well. It is not so simple in my view that the smarter will always be better in this line of work. After all, we deride "eggheads" in other sectors.