| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2005/6/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:37948 Activity:high |
6/2 http://tinyurl.com/cdksf Average Asian boy IQ=118, average Asian girl IQ=110, average Caucasian boy IQ=108, average Caucasian girl IQ=100. What about Blond Caucasian girl IQ and non-Blond Caucasian girl? You know, like, they totally need to redo this test, like, totally! \_ "Did the "liberals" in education [read: jews]..." are you the same guy as below? \_ Standarad Deviation? That's pretty important here. \_ So men are smarter than women? \_ Berkeley ranks top along with MIT! Rejoice! We're all winners!!! FYI some of the Bell Curve reviews at http://Amazon.com are hilarious! "Them damn Asians are spoiling my KKK world order!" http://csua.org/u/c9b \_ If that's the sort of thing you find entertaining, you may find this amusing: http://csua.org/u/c9c Amazon reviews of Wolfram's book. \- helo there is an article about smart ashkanazim in this week's e'ist. \_ All you people who commented, should look at the URL. It is so overtly racist that I find it hard to credit their "facts": I suspect they've been twisted somewhat to suit an agenda. \_ Dude it's so overtly racist that "twisted somewhat" is giving it way more credit than it deserves. To the person who posted this I sure as hell hope you are a troll, which just makes you mostly a pathetic excuse for a person. |
| 5/25 |
|
| tinyurl.com/cdksf -> christianparty.net/iq.htm Standardized Tests When Wechsler was developing his IQ test, he found that out of 105 tests assessing skills in solving maze-puzzles, involving the most heterogeneo us populations throughout the world, 99 showed an incontrovertible male superiority. achieve their goal of establ ishing racial and "gender" "equality" by using only 6% of the "IQ" test questions to measure "IQ", and then widely publicize that "men and wome n have equal IQs"? Gallup's poll on "gender issues" is any indic ation, then it's been a raving success: 29% of men and 43% of women bel ieve women are more intelligent than men, and 40% of both men and women believe they are of "equal intelligence". Are they correct, or are the 28% of men and 14% of women who believe men are more intelligent correct ? It's a major moral dilemma for this putative Christian nation, one that p rides itself on truth, honesty, and Christian charity, that there's no h ard scientific or statistical evidence to support the beliefs of almost three quarters of American men and 6 out of 7 of American women that wom en are "equally" or more intelligent than men. By age 17 years, thou gh, boys outperform girls by a very large margin on NAEP, there are no o ther tests which duplicate the results of the verbal portion of ACT, and boys outperform girls by very wide margins on all the other ACT tests ( math, rhetorical skills, algebra, reading, social studies, arts/literatu re, science reasoning, natural science, and composite). TIMSS test on which girls ever outperformed boys, and the ir scores were so low on TIMSS physics that their responses were statist ically significant on only 45% of the test, and they scored lower than i f they'd just guessed at the answers on the rest. Completely removing women from ownership increases potenti al receipts by $431,400 or 39X relative to a woman owned business where men are not owners. Unless "intelligence" is something that can't be measured, and unless all who believe men aren't more intelligent than women accept as a fact an entity that can't be quantified or measured or proven, then it simply ca nnot be correct that women are more than or equally intelligent to men. Thus, 6 out of 7 American women and three quarters of American men hold a belief that cannot be substantiated by any facts, proof that the brai nwashing of our students has been a remarkable success. The other evidence of the remarkable success of this brainwashing is the fact that this page has been on the internet for more than a decade in o ne form or another--and in all that time not one single woman, even thos e claiming to be PhD's, asked one single logical question about: 1 Why there's a four fold difference between men and women in these ski lls. Instead, virtually every input from a girl or woman has been an emotional tirade which attempted to discredit the messenger rather than understan d that their equality boat has a great big hole in it and has already su nk. The usual charge is "you must really hate women", which belies this author's role in creating and organizing standardized tests, administer ing and funding them, collating the results, and publishing the test sco res. If this author "hates women", then consider how much MORE the fede ral and state governments around the world who paid for, administered, t ested, and publicized the results of so many different tests, must "hate women". All this author has done is peek at the test results and put t hem on a few web pages. Biased jew-controlled businesses like the Gallup Organization present the ir data in such a distorted fashion that it is difficult to sort it all out. Almost all standardized tests (with the exception of TIMSS which d id report Israel's scores separately) exclude jews as a separate race. Feminazis would not view it as "sexist" or "racist" or "anti-semitic" to merely note the significant differences in intelligence by race and sex , and particularly by race and sex of jews, had this brainwashing not be en a raving success. TIMSS, where Israel (which is mostly if not all jews) scored a mere 466 i n TIMSS math, provides an excellent opportunity to fill in the gaps caus ed by Wechsler's distortion of his "IQ tests", Gallup's biased polling s trategy, and the failure of almost all news sources to separate the data by race and sex. SAT math scores by race and sex are correlated with T IMSS math scores by race and sex to establish that jew boys score 458 in SAT Math, jew girls score 438, and in TIMSS, Asian boys in the US score 614, Asian girls in the US score 580, Caucasian boys score 573, Caucasi an girls score 538, etc. Miami-Dade, Florida which has such a high population of jews t hat the main boulevard is now called "Yitzahk Rabin Blvd". All of these scores su ggest that nigger boys should have a brain capacity of 1,210 rather than 1,319, suggesting that the actual brain size measurement might be 9% to o high. The following is what the chart would look like if the cranial capacity of nigger boys were presumed to be 1210 rather than 1,319. gif (27715 bytes) Race & Sex Actual IQ Lynn, Wechsler IQ Asian Boys 118 106 Caucasian Boys 108 102 Asian Girls 110 106 Nigger Boys 78 70 Indian Boys 95 95 Mexican Boys 90 92 Caucasian Girls 100 102 jew boys 85 115 Mexican Girls 80 92 jew girls 80 115 Indian Girls 87 95 Nigger Girls 75 70 Where Lynn and Wechsler estimate the IQ of both jew boys and jew girls to be 115, their performance in TIMSS puts jew boys at 85 and jew girls at 80, and where they put Asian boys at 106, TIMSS puts them at 118. Sim ilarly, they overestimate Mexican boys by 2 points, Mexican girls by 12 points, Caucasian girls by 2 points, Indian girls by 8 points, and they underestimate Caucasian boys by 6 points, nigger boys by 8 points, and n igger girls by 5 points. As this chart shows, there are groups with average or bett er performance out there. However almost every conventional race based i ntervention in education does not result in equal performance. Only prog rams based on rigorous academics such as Barclay, and not race such as; conventional desegregation, busing students to expensive surburbs or aff irmative action in hiring and multiculturalism in curriculum have been s hown to result in superior performance." Arthur Hu The following IQ Spectrum has not yet been corrected for the erroneous IQ data reported by jews like Wechsler and one of the authors of The Bell Curve, but it has been enhanced with data from the SAT and NAEP, by stat e, sex, and race to demonstrate the relationship between IQs and standar dized test scores. This enables the following cross-state, cross-sex, a nd cross-race comparison to be made between IQ, SAT Math scores, SAT Ver bal scores, and NAEP Math scores. Ethnic Group IQ Source 1990 SAT Verbal 1990 SAT Math NAEP Math Borderline Retarded 70-75 IQ - Seligman p151 ? pdf 605 301 Blacks in Math Program 116 Barclay school Baltimore MD ? Koreans adopted by Americans, Winick, Meyer and Harris 1975 American men = Asian women at visiospatial tasks (math) (Lynn / Seligm an) Blacks in New York and Boston are equal to grade level in some grades , equal to 100 IQ by definition. Some schools that are mostly black in C hicago also perform at the 50th percentile. AHu Converted 1995 CLAS distribution to IQ with white=100 National Assessment of Educational Progress given to national cross-s ection of students, 1990 "A better idea" The Economist Dec 2, 1995 p 23 Barclay public school in Baltimore Md emulates a tough private school to achieve 85 percenti le math scores with 90% black students, 82% free lunch who previously we re scoring 20-30 percentile. Superintendent was fired who had opposed "r ich black man's curriculum" inappropriate for poor students. Flynn looked at studies that put Asian IQ higher and concluded that a fter you accounted for increases in IQ since the tests were "normalized" , Asian IQs were actually no higher than whites might expected to be at the same time. However, he does not dispute that Asians still have super ior academic performance in school, which is just as useful as having a high IQ. com/arthurhu/ 12422 107th Pl NE Kirkland WA 98034 Note that blacks are, as... |
| csua.org/u/c9b -> www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029146739/qid=1117953272/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9280448-8519312?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 DVD Editorial Reviews Book Description The ability to manipulate information has become the single most importan t element of success. High intelligence is an increasingly precious raw material. But despite decades of fashionable denial, the overriding and insistent truth about intellectual ability is that it is endowed unequal ly. In this audio presentation of The Bell Curve, author Charles Murray explores the ways that low intelligence, independent of social, economic , or ethnic background, lies at the root of many of our social problems. He also discusses another taboo subject: that intelligence levels diffe r among ethnic groups. According to the authors, only by facing up to th ese differences can we accurately assess the nation's problems and make realistic plans to address them. Simon & Schuster The ability to manipulate information has become the single most importan t element of success. High intelligence is an increasingly precious raw material. But despite decades of fashionable denial, the overriding and insistent truth about intellectual ability is that it is endowed unequal ly. In this audio presentation of The Bell Curve, author Charles Murray explores the ways that low intelligence, independent of social, economic , or ethnic background, lies at the root of many of our social problems. He also discusses another taboo subject: that intelligence levels diffe r among ethnic groups. According to the authors, only by facing up to th ese differences can we accurately assess the nation's problems and make realistic plans to address them. See all Editorial Reviews Product Details * Hardcover: 912 pages * Publisher: Free Press (September 1, 1994) * Language: English * ISBN: 0029146739 * Product Dimensions: 20 x 68 x 95 inches * Shipping Weight: 28 pounds. The authors have bent over backwards to try to avoid any hint of racism i n their studies; the only place the issue even arises is when they repor t that blacks and Latinos have historically scored lower in IQ tests tha n have whites, and that Asians have scored higher, and that the claims o f "cultural bias" are ! These deta ils alone are enough to inflame the politically correct among us, unfort unately. To portray this book as some type of white supremecist manifesto, you wou ld have to have a strong agenda of your own, and totally disregard the c ontent of the book. It's about intelligence, and how measured intelligence profoundly affects the lives of individuals in America. More than socioeconomic background, parents' marital status or anything e lse, intelligence correlates with education, income, employment, crimina l behavior, disability, likelihood of being in automobile accidents, and just about everything else. The highly intelligen t largely work and associate with other highly intelligent people. They marry each other, and have highly intelligent kids. Murry and Herrnstein argue that an intelligence-derived class system is developing in Americ a Of course, it has even more ominous implications for people whose politic al credos rest upon the assumption that everything about an individual i s socially conditioned and can therefore be improved by enlightened tink ering. These people, predictably, respond with wild accusations of "Nazi science!" This, of course, is a blatant and somewhat pathetic effort to taint the book so that no one will touch it. See all my reviews I chanced upon this book years ago in the library when I was in college. Back then, I was unaware of the uproar over this book, nor was I particu larly interested racial issues. But after living in the US for more than a decade, I am now fully convers ant with the unceasing undercurrents of racial hatred that permeate this society. Sure, people are quite outwardly civil, but that's only becaus e Americans have been conditioned to keep certain dark feelings to thems elves. Although "Bell Curve" does make some explicit statements about the IQ dif ferences among the major races, I don't recall them being an extensive p art of the book. But the couple of chapters that do deal with this point are big enough to serve as a flashpoint. If even if the racial differences are real, they a re still only averages. Any given black person can out-smart plenty of d im-witted whites. People are individuals, not motifs of a larger pattern , and should be treated on an individual basis. From this point of view, the thesis of these "racial chapters" is really a null one -- what is a society to do about some numerical averages that do nothing for the dai ly reality of dealing with individuals? As an aside, I find it amusing that while the white supremacists are rush ing to endorse this book, which supposedly in turn endorses their world view, something about this book sticks out like a sore thumb for them -- the Asians. As you can see in the reviews written by white racists below, they are stra ining to dismiss what they perceive as "false Asian positives" while try ing to maintain white supremacy. To this I say: Sorry fellas, you can't have it both ways. It is true that in the last century Europeans have fa red better than the Asians. But let's not forget that for millenia East Asians had been far ahead of Europeans, and it's possible that they are about to surpass Europeans once again in the near future. Any small amount of research will reveal that the history of testing int elligence in America stems from racism. The reason other races other tha n rich white people do poorly on IQ tests and standardized tests is cul tural not due to genitics. The tests in America are written to exclude p articular cultures, to claim otherwise is ignorant. The reviews praising this book and comparing it to Darwin, are pathetic. These people probably think George W Bush is an outsta nding citizen, and not a trigger happy racist with an adgenda. See all my reviews Other reviewers have written better than I can about this wonderful book; History will judge the authors to be nearly as important as Charles Dar win. It claims that the av erage white of European ancestry has an IQ of 100. A l arge percentage of blacks, Indians and Latinos are uneducable. This is d etermined by heredity, and there is nothing can be done about it. Educat ion makes smart kids smarter, but it over-taxes dumb kids, and actually makes them dumber... Suggestion Box Your comments can help make our site better for everyone. If you've found something incorrect, broken, or frustrating on this page, let us know s o that we can improve it. Please note that we are unable to respond dire ctly to suggestions made via this form. |
| csua.org/u/c9c -> www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579550088/qid=1117979236/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-4631298-8616625?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Mathematic a computer language launched a multimillion-dollar company, now sets his sights on a more daunting goal: understanding the universe. Wolfram let s the world see his work in A New Kind of Science, a gorgeous, 1,280-pag e tome more than a decade in the making. With patience, insight, and sel f-confidence to spare, Wolfram outlines a fundamental new way of modelin g complex systems. On the frontier of complexity science since he was a boy, Wolfram is a ch ampion of cellular automata--256 "programs" governed by simple nonmathem atical rules. He points out that even the most complex equations fail to accurately model biological systems, but the simplest cellular automata can produce results straight out of nature--tree branches, stream eddie s, and leopard spots, for instance. The graphics in A New Kind of Scienc e show striking resemblance to the patterns we see in nature every day. Wolfram wrote the book in a distinct style meant to make it easy to read, even for nontechies; a basic familiarity with logic is helpful but not essential. Readers will find themselves swept away by the elegant simpli city of Wolfram's ideas and the accidental artistry of the cellular auto maton models. Whether or not Wolfram's revolution ultimately gives us th e keys to the universe, his new science is absolutely awe-inspiring. A scientific prodigy who earned a doctorate from Caltech at age 20, Wolfram became a Nobel-caliber researc her in the emerging field of complexity shortly thereafter only to absco nd from academe and establish his own software company (which published this book). In secrecy, for over ten years, he experimented with compute r graphics called cellular automata, which produce shaded images on grid patterns according to programmatic rules (973 images are reproduced her e). Wolfram went on to discover that the same vastly complex images coul d be produced by even very simple sets of rules and argues here that dyn amic and complex systems throughout nature are triggered by simple progr ams. Mathematical science can describe and in some cases predict phenome na but cannot truly explain why what happens happens. Underscoring his p oint that simplicity begets complexity, Wolfram wrote this book in mostl y nontechnical language. Any informed, motivated reader can, with some e ffort, follow from chapter to chapter, but the work as a whole and its i mplications are probably understood fully by the author alone. Had this been written by a lesser scientist, many academics might have dismissed it as the work of a crank. Given its source, though, it will merit discu ssion for years to come. See all Editorial Reviews Product Details * Hardcover: 1192 pages * Publisher: Wolfram Media (May, 2002) * Language: English * ISBN: 1579550088 * Product Dimensions: 97 x 81 x 25 inches * Shipping Weight: 55 pounds. com's "most helpful" feature) I read all 1197 pages includin g notes. Just to make sure I won't miss the odd novel insight hidden amo ng a million trivial platitudes. On page 27 Wolfram explains "probably the single most surprising discover y I have ever made:" a simple program can produce output that seems irre gular and complex. Every computer science (CS) student knows the dovetailer, a very simple 2 line program that systematically l ists and executes all possible programs for a universal computersuch as a Turing machine (TM) It computes all computable patterns, including al l those in Wolfram's book, embodies the well-known limits of computabili ty, and is basis of uncountable CS exercises. Wolfram does know (page 1119) Minsky's very simple universal TMs from the 1960s. Using extensive simulations, he finds a slightly simpler one. On page 675 we find a particul arly simple cellular automaton (CA) and Matthew Cook's universality proo f This might be the most interesting chapter. It reflects that today 's PCs are more powerful systematic searchers for simple rules than thos e of 40 years ago. Was Wolfram at least first to view programs as potential explanations of everything? Zuse's 1967 paper suggested the universe is DISCRETELY computable, possibly on a DISCRETE CA just like Wolfram's. Wolfram's causal networks (CA's with variable toplogy, chapte r 9) will run on any universal CA a la Ulam & von Neumann & Conway & Zus e Page 715 explains Wolfram's "key unifying idea" of the "principle of computational equivalence:" all processes can be viewed as computations. Chapter 9 (2nd law of thermodynamics) elaborates (without reference)on Zu se's old insight that entropy cannot really increase in deterministicall y computed systems, although it often SEEMS to increase. Wolfram extends Zuse's work by a tiny margin, using today's more powerful computers to perform experiments as suggested in Zuse's 1969 book. I find it embarass ing how Wolfram tries to suggest it was him who shifted a paradigm, not the legendary Zuse. Some reviews cite Wolfram's previous reputation as a physicist and softwa re entrepreneur, giving him the benefit of the doubt instead of immediat ely dismissing him as just another plagiator. Zuse's reputation is in a different league though: He built world's very first general purpose com puters (1935-1941), while Wolfram is just one of many creators of useful software (Mathematica). Remarkably, in his history of computing (page 1 107) Wolfram appears to try to diminuish Zuse's contributions by only me ntioning Aiken's later 1944 machine. On page 465 ff (and 505 ff on multiway systems) Wolfram asks whether ther e is a simple program that computes the universe. Here he sounds like Sc hmidhuber in his 1997 paper "A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Un iverse, and Everything." Schmidhuber applied the above-mentioned simple dovetailer to all computable universes. His widely known writings come o ut on top when you google for "computable universes" etc, so Wolfram mus t have known them too, for he read an "immense number of articles books and web sites" (page xii) and executed "more than a hundred thousand mou se miles" (page xiv). He endorses Schmidhuber's "no-CA-but-TM approach" (page 486, no reference) but not his suggestion of using Levin's asympto tically optimal program searcher (1973) to find our universe's code. On page 469 we are told that the simplest program for the data is the mos t probable one. No mention of the very science based on this ancient pri nciple: Solomonoff's inductive inference theory (1960-1978); Following Schmidhuber's "algo rithmic theories of everything" (2000), short world-explaining programs are necessarily more likely, provided the world is sampled from a limit- computable prior distribution. Compare Li & Vitanyi's excellent 1997 tex tbook on Kolmogorov complexity. On page 628 ff we find a lot of words on human thinking and short program s As if this was novel! Wolfram seems totally unaware of Hutter's optim al universal rational agents (2001) based on simple programs a la Solomo noff & Kolmogorov & Levin & Chaitin. Wolfram suggests his simple program s will contribute to fine arts (page 11), neither mentioning existing, w idely used, very short, fractal-based programs for computing realistic i mages of mountains and plants, nor the only existing art form explicitly based on simple programs: Schmidhuber's low-complexity art. Wolfram talks a lot about reversible CAs but little about Edward Fredkin & Tom Toffoli who pioneered this field. He ignores Wheeler's "it from bi t," Tegmark & Greenspan & Petrov & Marchal's papers, Moravec & Kurzweil' s somewhat related books, and Greg Egan's fun SF on CA-based universes ( Permutation City, 1995). When the book came out some non-expert journalists hyped it without knowi ng its contents. Then cognoscenti had a look at it and recognized it as a rehash of old ideas, plus pretty pictures. As far as I can judge, positive reviews were written only by p eople without basic CS education and little knowledge of CS history. Som e biologists and even a few physicists initially were impressed because to them it really seemed new. Maybe Wolfram's switch from physics to CS explains why he believes his thoughts are radical, not just reinventions of the wheel. When I read Wolf... |
| Amazon.com -> www.amazon.com:80/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html Black and Decker PD600 Pivot Plus 6-Volt High Performance Screwdriver It's a drill, screwdriver, tape measure, light, and more in one cordless tool. Cetaphil Daily Facial Moisturizer, SPF 15, Fragrance Free - 4 fl oz Replenishes moisture and nourishes sensitive skin. Slim Fast Succeed Snack Bar, Cookies N' Cream (12 Bars) Lose weight with the luscious taste of cookies and cream. Caldrea Laundry Detergent, Sweet Pea - 68 fl oz Leaves your baby's clothes clean and smelling like sweet peas. Nature Made SAM-e Mood Plus 200mg, (30 Enteric Coated Tablets) Designed to enhance your mood and promote healthy joints. We take up to 50% off standard retail prices and deliver right to your door--no club fees, no hassle, no parking lot. Check back every day at noon (central time) for all-new Bottom of the Page^TM Deals. |