Melbourne Cup Day Links: 5 November 2019

Global Macro / Markets / Investing:

Americas:

Europe:

Asia:

Trans-Tasman:

Leith van Onselen

Leith van Onselen is Chief Economist at the MB Fund and MB Super. Leith has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs.

Latest posts by Leith van Onselen (see all)

Comments

  1. Nup to the cup! C’mon you Melbournian losers, Post MORE Chit!

    Ok so how about this? Self indulgent self flagellating GenX/Boomer couple do warehouse conversion in North Melbourne.
    https://iview.abc.net.au/show/restoration-australia/series/2/video/DO1529H006S00

    NB: Contamination problems were found, but they got off lightly (apparently).

    I personally didn’t’ like it, thought it was 1 of those wanky conversions that looks interesting in photos but doesn’t function as a home once in there. It didn’t take me long to discover the Internet agrees. And the Internet is always right!
    https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/home/interiors/fury-over-ugly-heritage-building-renovation/news-story/5c877c055489a5daa6365fd73454ee83

    Giant Goon Bag, Or Tin Man’s Ball Sack.. Gotta love wise cracks on Twitter.

    I recalled seeing the property on the market a few years ago (couldn’t afford it).
    https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-north+melbourne-119935793

    I personally would have done it much more like next door. With the rustic feel and timbers etc..
    https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-north+melbourne-113753671
    Probably wouldn’t have cost $800k either… Indulgent boomers indeed. Where do they get the coin for such indulgence? I wonder if the place will go on the market in future? Vendors won’t want to give it away I suppose.

  2. Some regions in Europe are re-wilding, restoring the natural ecosystem and bringing back species and habitats. – Ponderwall

    Due to a shrinking population. Awesome stuff.

    • We’ve had a few,,,

      https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/indian-student-sues-university-for-3-million-over-fail-grade-in-phd

      https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/04/legal-action-over-failed-dog-homework-thrown-out-of-another-melbourne-court

      A friend of mine working in university health services gets referred cases like this quite often – overseas students failing and suing the uni. The new scam appears to be trying to get support for a medical visa on mental health grounds to remain in the country.

    • Mining BoganMEMBER

      No prospect of success eh. Hey, wanna know how many times I heard words like that? Lots. Every. Bloody. Day.

      He just needs to hear some boomer catchphrases to improve his chances.

    • soon, a diagnosis of being dumb is going to be enough to be granted degree without meeting all the requirements already watered down to nothing

      it’s interesting how neoliberism transformed the entitlement of free education into the entitlement of getting degree after you pay for fees

    • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

      Pakistan and India – Median IQ 84
      http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/average-iq-by-country/
      Here is the average IQ by employment type:

      74–88 Assembler, Food Service
      89–100 Clerk, Teller
      101–111 Police Officer, Machinist
      112–120 Manager, Teacher
      121–125 Manager, Professor (USA Professor)
      126–131 Attorney, Editor
      132–137 Eminent Professor, Editor (IQ 132 Mensa Entry Point)
      138–150 Leading Maths, Physics Professor
      151–200+ Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Goethe etc!

      This the problem in importing a ton of people from low IQ countries, is that while they may still be the smartest cookie in their village, most will be unsuited for any work in complex Western societies beyond working as a clerk or kitchen hand.

      The issue is that these racial groups then become convinced that the reason that they collectively fail to thrive in the West is due to discrimination, as opposed to their innate lack of capability.

      The result then is that a raft of idiot do gooders, who put aside facts to protect their ‘feelings’ (least they appear impolite or racist), refuse to accept that these innate IQ differences exist then set about implementing social justice programs to unfairly increase the representation of such population groups in employment areas beyond their ability.

      “The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.” Crowley

      This results in them either failing or doing a far poorer job, and then creates resentment by users who will avoid their services (falsely being attributed to racism) and other candidates from different population groups who would have otherwise been able to gain productive employment or study in those fields if it weren’t for such affirmative action policies.

      This says nothing about the link between low IQ and the prevalence of a whole raft of social issues and problems that generally accompany low IQ societies.

      • interested partyMEMBER

        Stewie, IQ plays it’s part.
        My take on the situation is one from a higher vantage point…..meaning that we are in the process of what one could call the Great Homogenisation of humanity. Humans have been on this path since the dawn of time, and it has only accelerated since the harnessing of increasingly dense energy sources. There is a natural defensive response to this process and that is where cultural nationalism comes in. This is why wars have been fought.[ how wars have been sold to the pubic ]. Any society has massive ( generational ) amounts of embedded emotional capital invested in the existing paradigm that a society is enveloped in and operates through and from. The friction we see today comes from the constant erosion of this generational capital, and it seems like a society will tolerate the changes up to a level, then we have a kind of phase shift event. A new paradigm is then set….and the process rolls on.

        If this is accurate…..several questions arise. Is it a political problem? Is it moral issue ( sjw’s )? Is it a natural flow and therefore not to be concerned over? If there is a large influx of low IQ people, does this not represent opportunity for higher IQ people to take advantage of the process?…without de-humanising the process?
        I don’t know where it all ends….but I think the process is something like the above, and is difficult to control over time, let alone even stop or reverse it. Humanities quest to discover is the likely driver (both opportunistically and intellectually).
        My two cents worth…I don’t have an opinion of good/bad….right/wrong, per se.

        • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

          The homogenisation is a deliberate process being encouraged by hateful racists who find the innate differences between different population groups to be an abhorrent concept.

          It is neither inevitable nor imho desirable.

          It lessens true diversity in the world, the sort of diversity that has enabled small locations to form high trust, high IQ societies and which have delivered the majority of all the technical developments and knowledge that make such a difference to our lives.

          It is also immoral, as it removes the freedom of individuals to associate with like minded individuals and work together to perpetuate their own values and culture.

          Quite frankly those who advocate for it are radical social engineers every bit as intent of sculpting society to fit their own twisted version of a ‘perfect’ society as the Nazis.

          • interested partyMEMBER

            Stewie, I have no doubts that there are elements who have weaponised the process. I also agree that diversity loss is an issue that many happily ignore….and note that many of the same crowd who turn a blind eye to the human side will scream all day about environmental diversity loss as a world-ending scenario.
            You have me thinking on the moral side of it…..and the fluidity of economic factors that tend to override this. Concur generally….(do economic factors have a moral foundation at all….or is profit the only value to be measured….ie: is it moral for a high IQ community to profit ( exploit?) from a low IQ country/population…….if segregation/IQ is the deciding factor that separates them?)

      • Nup. Still getting blackholed.

        Short version is the IQ stuff is bullsh1t and not taken seriously by anyone in real academic circles.

        Plenty of links off Richard Lynn’s Wikipedia page detailing this.

        Numbers for most third world countries cherry picked or fabricated to be low.

          • real academic circles……lol.

            Yes. Where they focus on the lack of any credible evidence the darkies are down 30 IQ points and incapable of civilisation because of their genetics.

        • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

          Makes sense that you would read the short version about IQ Professor.

          “not taken seriously by anyone in real academic circles.”

          I suppose that might be true if you only associate with pseudo scientific social science types. In reality differences in IQ between population groups are a well established FACT (sorry, your feelings don’t count), recognised and endorsed by the American Psychological Association (APA):

          http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/IQ_Neisser2.pdf

          The only contentious issue on the difference in population group IQ’s is whether it is innate (ie genetic) or whether it is due to environmental factors.

          The latest research reasonably seems to indicate that it is a mixture of both, around 60% due to genetics and 40% due to environment (culture and society).

          If we look at the population IQ gap between the US 98 and Rwanda 70, the overall gap is 28 points. Many years of IQ testing (the findings of which are replicated in SAT scores) indicates that the average IQ of African Americans is around 85 compared to 100 among White Americans.

          So if you had a fairly egalitarian nation with equal opportunity, such as America, where society and culture is relatively uniform between black and white, you would expect that the gap due “environment” to close – and this is exactly what we find. Where 60% of 28 IQ points is 16 to 17 IQ points, which when you add it to 70 brings it up to 85.

          The Professor is correct, there is some indication that the ridiculously low IQ points of some nations (bordering on mental retardation) is a problem with sampling. However, enough of a gap remains to show the validity of the theory that at least part of the difference in IQ between different population groups is clearly due to genetics.

          The reality is sub-Saharan Africans were genetically isolated from the rest of the world for 70,000 years, or over 2000 generations. This was 40,000 years before Neanderthals became extinct. Europeans are closer genetically speaking to North American Indians, than they are Africans.

          Wild foxes can be behaviourly modified and effectively domesticated in as little as 4 or 5 generations:

          http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world

          Consequently it makes sense that 2000 generations is more than sufficient time for the feedback between Environment, Genetics and Culture to result in different distributions of key physical, behavioural and mental capabilities between different population groups.

          Occam’s razor suggests that the same forces of evolution have been at work in regards to different human population groups as has been observed in countless other species around the world. There is nothing special or divine about humanity to suggest otherwise.

          • So if you had a fairly egalitarian nation with equal opportunity, such as America, […]

            LOL.

            Occam’s razor suggests that the same forces of evolution have been at work in regards to different human population groups as has been observed in countless other species around the world. There is nothing special or divine about humanity to suggest

            Occam’s razor suggests that when IQ scores are observed to be increasing by 10s of points in a few generations (less dramatic changes in developed countries, but relative scores are converging), alongside dramatic improvements in health, education, social structures, political stability, opportunity and the persistent encroachment of western culture across the world, any genetic component that might be in play is essentially irrelevant.

            I imagine it is quite dismaying to people doing genuine research in this field with good intentions, to see it used as a justification for discrimination rather than assistance.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Keep trying Professor – your outright denials and obfuscations are amusingly predictable.

            I would never expect you to concede, you are far too proud to ever admit you were wrong. Never-the-less the doubt in your own convictions are hidden in your attempts to put me down.

            Search your ‘feelings’ Professor – you know these things to be true.

        • Lmmao … drsmithy ….

          You made all the heraldic [superior race and gender] groupies mad ….

          Hay whignuts …. decadel studies show that the first 5 years in a humans life is the dominate determinate in all other things long term. That means poor people suffer a disadvantage from day one regardless of any innate genetic potential, regardless of ethnic origin.

          Heck just to watch you all devolve to branch waving and gnashing of teeth is reason enough to bring more immigration on, watch as your precious bodily fluids are corrupted as your protege get a taste for the exotic.

          Do you all get together once a week and watch old Archie Bunker ‘All in the Family’ reruns … chortle …

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Hey Dummy (that’s you roadkill) – twin studies have shown that the impact of the first 5 years i.e. environment have nearly completely faded in terms of academic performance by the end of school and are virtually non-existent by middle age.

            Yawn – I have some shoes that you can polish later.

            https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study/

            (Hey Professor – it uses the phrase “In short…” which means you can probably read and comprehend it)

          • interested partyMEMBER

            yeah…sure. Bring it on. More immigration, lets all swim in it.
            And when it all goes pear shaped, and your “”theories”, baked up by smiths “real academic circles”, are proven to be wrong…..what country do you plan to skip of to next?

          • Hey Dummy (that’s you roadkill) – twin studies have shown that the impact of the first 5 years i.e. environment have nearly completely faded in terms of academic performance by the end of school and are virtually non-existent by middle age.

            The link does not support this claim. It is suggesting IQ is heritable, which I don’t think anyone seriously disputes.

            Studies of identical twins reared apart have shown IQ differences in excess of 20 points, which is why the genetic aspect of that heritability remains rather questionable.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            “decadel studies show that the first 5 years in a humans life is the dominate determinate in all other things long term”

            The twin studies show exactly that – heritability plays a larger role in determining long term characteristics over environment, short of extreme childhood abuse the impacts of differences in environment fade as you get older, to the point where they are virtually insignificant by middle age.

            The contrast with fraternal and non-fraternal siblings and then again adopted children are both orders of magnitude different. Good environments encourage children to flourish, but the pre-determinism as a result of genetic factors is ultimately overwhelming.

            Just as we are who we are individually because of genetic influence, so to are our societies as they are because of the genetic influence contained within.

            There is a constant feedback loop between Genes, Environment and Culture. Honestly that you deny it, as a supposed man of science and fact, is as outrageous as anything I have ever heard from a Christian about evolution.

          • Firstly you don’t even have the acumen to parse any study, secondly environmental effects can have a compounding result, hence long term environmental conditions can skew long term results.

            All that said funny how the brightest in you book are imploding as we speak …

          • You missed the part with age, brown shirt, building on thingy … matters not as you and yours are go down the serwerler and there is nothing you can do to stop it … whats your IQ again
            – ???? … snicker

          • The twin studies show exactly that – heritability plays a larger role in determining long term characteristics over environment, short of extreme childhood abuse the impacts of differences in environment fade as you get older, to the point where they are virtually insignificant by middle age.

            Assuming a comfortable socio-economic position.

            In lower socio-economic groups the effect is reversed (environment plays a much larger part).

            Ie: when nurture is largely taken out of the equation by being more than sufficient, nature is the most significant factor. When nurture is a significant factor (poor, abusive households, etc), it’s a quite significant factor.

            (This seems fairly intuitive to me.)

            There is a constant feedback loop between Genes, Environment and Culture. Honestly that you deny it, as a supposed man of science and fact, is as outrageous as anything I have ever heard from a Christian about evolution.

            As usual, pretty much everything you assert I think and believe bears little resemblance to reality.

            The Flynn Effect clearly shows that IQ scores can change substantially absent any genetic changes (over only a generation or two), which means the genetic – ie: “racial” – component of absolute IQ scores is not significant, if it exists at all.

            This suggests the largest factor in that discrepancy is environmental, something also reflected in data from high socio-economic groups where the difference between “races” is relatively quite small (and, per the Flynn effect, apparently converging over time).

            As I said, it’s a shame some people look at this data and conclude that we must look at the “wrong races” as being fundamentally incapable, rather than trying to figure out why the numbers are so different (and where possible, address the causes).

            The intuitively obvious answer to me is that the IQ score discrepancies and Flynn Effect are almost entirely the result of environmental factors and testing bias. This is a simple explanation and consistent with the data.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            “In lower socio-economic groups the effect is reversed (environment plays a much larger part).

            Ie: when nurture is largely taken out of the equation by being more than sufficient, nature is the most significant factor. When nurture is a significant factor (poor, abusive households, etc), it’s a quite significant factor.”

            Do you ever get tired of opening your mouth and finding out that you are wrong Professor?

            Studies show that the SAT results of children from High Income Black households earning more than $70k per year are on average about the same as the children from very LOWEST income earners from White households.

            (MB spam bot won’t let me include the link, but googling “SAT results demographics income” will bring up plenty of reading material)

            The results are pretty clear and not just contained to White/Black, but also holds across other racial groups in the sterotypical ordering of population group by Intelligence, Asian, White, Hispanic, Black – that is poor Asians are do better in SATs than high income whites, poor whites do better in SATs than high income hispanics, and poor hispanics do better than low high blacks.

            Clearly environment i.e. access to money IS NOT a significant factor impacting IQ of offspring – I have no doubt that there is some small relationship when controlling for other factors, such as population group, but the assertion that environment is of primary importance is wrong.

          • You have moved the goalposts and changed the metric.

            As I am sure you have discovered during your “research”, there are twin studies showing that in low socio-economic groups, environment is the main influence – essentially reversed results from high socio-economic groups.

            As I already pointed out, clearly environment must be the main factor in Flynn Effect results, because genetics cannot be.

            Your conclusions are dependent on an assumption of no bias anywhere within the entire system, which is laughable.

          • drsmithy …

            I have a comment in mod, suffice to say this group using IQ as a cornerstone to their argument fails due to the lack of scientific rigor in IQ itself.

            Because all IQ tests have error of measurement in the test-taker’s IQ score, a test-giver should always inform the test-taker of the confidence interval around the score obtained on a given occasion of taking each test.[17] IQ scores are ordinal scores and are not expressed in an interval measurement unit.[18] Besides the inherent error band around any IQ test score because tests are a “sample of learned behavior”, IQ scores can also be misleading because test-givers fail to follow standardized administration and scoring procedures. In cases of test-giver mistakes, the usual result is that tests are scored too leniently, giving the test-taker a higher IQ score than the test-taker’s performance justifies. Some test-givers err by showing a “halo effect”, with low-IQ individuals receiving IQ scores even lower than if standardized procedures were followed, while high-IQ individuals receive inflated IQ scores.[19]

            IQ classifications for individuals also vary because category labels for IQ score ranges are specific to each brand of test. The test publishers do not have a uniform practice of labeling IQ score ranges, nor do they have a consistent practice of dividing up IQ score ranges into categories of the same size or with the same boundary scores.[20] Thus psychologists should specify which test was given when reporting a test-taker’s IQ.[21] Psychologists and IQ test authors recommend that psychologists adopt the terminology of each test publisher when reporting IQ score ranges.[22][23]

            IQ classifications from IQ testing are not the last word on how a test-taker will do in life, nor are they the only information to be considered for placement in school or job-training programs. There is still a dearth of information about how behavior differs between persons with differing IQ scores.[24] For placement in school programs, for medical diagnosis, and for career advising, factors other than IQ must also be part of an individual assessment.

            The lesson here is that classification systems are necessarily arbitrary and change at the whim of test authors, government bodies, or professional organizations. They are statistical concepts and do not correspond in any real sense to the specific capabilities of any particular person with a given IQ. The classification systems provide descriptive labels that may be useful for communication purposes in a case report or conference, and nothing more.[25] — Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence (2006)

          • drsmithy …

            I have a comment in mod, suffice to say this group using IQ as a cornerstone to their argument fails due to the lack of scientific rigor in IQ itself.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            As I am sure you have discovered during your “research”, there are twin studies showing that in low socio-economic groups, environment is the main influence – essentially reversed results from high socio-economic groups.

            No – the twins studies have shown that effects of environment, while a significant influence at the start of life fades as you get older, especially in regards to intelligence.

            https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F/core-reader

            If you are not aware of the reason why Twin studies are so important in terms of destroying the fallacy of the importance in environment over life outcomes it is because of this, the most important twin studies are those where the twins are raised separately – genetically identical, different environment. It is these studies that have consistently shown environment is of less importance.

            Environment is also less of an influence at explaining racial differences as my example on SAT results of low income white households vs high income black households. Interestingly a similar relationship is present in statistics on the level of violence and criminal offense by the same break down.

            Now, while I am saying environment is not as important as genetics that is not the same as saying it is of no importance, so please stop trying it on with the false binary.

            Deep down you know there probably are differences in life outcomes between different population groups due to innate genetic differences – this is neither a good thing or a bad thing, it is a factual thing. The real argument is no longer about denying these facts and truths, but how they should be interpreted and used.

            I’d happily accept that as your position and as a valid argument.

            Skippy – please stop trying to keep up, you are only embarrassing yourself.

          • Stewie…

            The only embarrassment is those making broad brush arguments about ethic groups and some notion of superiority based on a wonky metric like IQ. Its as bad as classifications like Boomers, but then again it is a fundamental cornerstone to neoliberal thinking.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            As an aside I will say that during this conversation compared to other occasions these discussions have taken place, I have noticed that it is increasingly difficult to find Twin data studies and indeed any scientific or news articles on genetics and HBD data using standard search approachs.

            “The heritability of general cognitive ability increases significantly and linearly from 41% in childhood (9 years) to 55% in adolescence (12 years) and to 66% in young adulthood (17 years) in a sample of 11 000 pairs of twins”

            https://www.nature.com/articles/mp200955

            Take from that observation what you will.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Phuck you are worse than a blow fly Skippy.

            I’ll say it again, I’d take the Professors moralising over your idiocy any day.

            Go away – I don’t care.

          • Coming from your camp that only knows how to cast pejoratives and has a long track record of failure in promoting its bias, I’ll take that as a compliment. You still seem to refuse to acknowledge your case is built on rubbish to start with – IQ – and compound it by extenuation. Then some wonder why neoliberalism has failed so miserably as a tool for policy formation and that is exactly what your tiring to do, advance a political agenda under the guise of science. You know the same way some decided to call economics a science to advance an ideological agenda.

            It would not be so bad if some would just argue without all the pettifoggery and stop diminishing the field of science at the same time. Everything your banging on about I saw in America decades ago and its all driven by corporatist machinations – Calif and Texas love heaps of immigration. So maybe before you start banging on about immigration you might want to address the agency behind it.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Yes skippy of course – why didn’t I see the light before. You are 100% correct and oh so smart as well, not that that is an IQ thing.

            I have no idea how I could have possibly thought smarts and IQ and genes were in any way related, or that it was bestowed on anyone via any means other than being randomly tapped on the top of their heads with IQ fairy’s magical wand, while they’re on their way to school in their first 5 years.

            Please keep going and fill me with more of your wisdom, while I play with these knots and rope.

          • Did you miss this part of the study you used [bastardize] to advance your political agenda Stewie:

            “The samples were drawn almost exclusively from Western industrial democracies. These settings have characteristic environments. Only a few of the participants were raised in real poverty or by illiterate parents, and all study participants had access to the contemporary educational programs typical of those societies.”

            So after all the time and effort you have put in to craft your narrative you overlooked the narrow baseline the study was founded on, but extenuated it far beyond its authors intent. Something you have in common with mainstream economists IMO.

            BTW if you check out my comment on IQ itself and follow that through I don’t think you understand the meaning of IQ to start with, no its not intelligence as a superior human being, its about an “individuals” capacity for a skill set largely on market based placement or educational performance to the needs of the latter.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Dumb, Dumb, I have said and conceded many times that environment plays a role and that extreme outcomes in terms of parenting or poverty probably do influence, but what your tiny, tiny, tiny brain can’t seem to comprehend is that these exceptions ARE AT THE MARGINS, genetics are far bigger influences for the majority. This false binary that you are pushing is so friggin tiring.

            Do you know that Dunning Kruger syndrome isn’t really in respect of smart people vs dumb people? I’ve generally found people of low IQs to be reasonably cognisant of the fact that they don’t know everything and generally quite patient and open to well put and well evidenced statements.

            The people who really suffer from Dunning-Kruger are people of middling to slightly above average IQ, people like yourself. They know just enough to realise they’re smarter than most people, but then completely over estimate their own faculties. Generally this is because they are incredibly insecure and dislike genuinely smart people because they threaten their own sense of superiority.

            Now run along – you’re word games and hair splitting aren’t going to trap me, they just bore me.

          • You comment has little to do with the topic or the drama with your take on the study regardless of its baseline Stewie and more about distracting from your political agenda.

            You also seemed to have not read the two links I gave E.g. your way over your skis here but are leaning out so far to push your ideological position. Something noted over a considerable period of time by the same sorts again and again.

            Its like Spencer never died but is constantly channeled by his proponents.

            You go get a study that uses more than IQ, is global in sample size, and encompasses vast swaths of time. That might be a good unbiased ‘starting point’.

            I mean just look at your camp on this tread, its actually creepy.

          • No – the twins studies have shown that effects of environment, while a significant influence at the start of life fades as you get older, especially in regards to intelligence.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Heritability_and_socioeconomic_status

            If you are not aware of the reason why Twin studies are so important in terms of destroying the fallacy of the importance in environment over life outcomes it is because of this, the most important twin studies are those where the twins are raised separately – genetically identical, different environment. It is these studies that have consistently shown environment is of less importance.

            Separating twins and then raising them in different families in similar socio economic situations is not doing this.

            Raising them in significant different socio economic situations is, where it is found that environment (for the low side) is a much larger factor.

            Environment is also less of an influence at explaining racial differences as my example on SAT results of low income white households vs high income black households. Interestingly a similar relationship is present in statistics on the level of violence and criminal offense by the same break down.

            Again, there is an underlying assumption that no bias exists anywhere in the system that might have an impact.

            Some research has found simply asking people about their race or gender before taking a test has been shown to impact results.

            Deep down you know there probably are differences in life outcomes between different population groups due to innate genetic differences – this is neither a good thing or a bad thing, it is a factual thing. The real argument is no longer about denying these facts and truths, but how they should be interpreted and used.

            You are extrapolating results identifying high correclation of IQ within families, across entire countries (or religious groups spread across multiple countries). Ie: basically a roundabout way of saying “they’re all the same”.

            You are ignoring the impact of environment on absolute IQ scores (though acknowledge and dismiss it as irrelevant – eg: “abusive families”). Again, this (alongside the Flynn effect) works directly against your belief that a major factor in actual IQ scores is genetic.

            You are trying to present your beliefs as truth despite substantial disagreement within the field.

            Ultimately, evidence does not support your desire to segregate people by race/religion/nationality and then judge them based on a statistically derived IQ score.

          • I have a comment in mod, suffice to say this group using IQ as a cornerstone to their argument fails due to the lack of scientific rigor in IQ itself.

            Even ignoring the problems with IQ, the rationale being presented is that it’s OK to use IQ to discriminate after segregating along racial/religious/national lines, but not _within_ those groups (eg: judging all the low-IQ white folks as being incapable of participating in complex society).

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            “Even ignoring the problems with IQ, the rationale being presented is that it’s OK to use IQ to discriminate after segregating along racial/religious/national lines, but not _within_ those groups (eg: judging all the low-IQ white folks as being incapable of participating in complex society).”

            Because it is OUR society – an AngloCeltic society. We have the fundamental right, like any other society or culture, to associate with people who are intent on sharing our values – AngloCeltic Christian values, and we have the right to refuse association with population groups that refuse, threaten or compete with our own.

            Conditions of immigration into Australia
            Australia’s immigration policy is directed towards the maintenance of a socially cohesive and homogeneous nation. It seeks to avoid the creation of permanent minority groups resistant to integration even through successive generations. The policy does not exclude persons of any ethnic origin; but it does exercise prudent caution in the matter of accepting large numbers of people with substantially different backgrounds, characteristics and customs who may resist general integration even in the long term.

            That is a phucking right of any society in the world, you pair of culturally gelded Unichs – race exists, culture exists and I’ll be damned it some progressive nihilistic mind cult will give it all away because in their fantasy these differences between them don’t exist or don’t matter.

            If we can’t control the people, the composition and the culture of our nation and society, then that is the end of us as a Nation and we really will be the Economic Zone Formally Known as Australia.

          • You really are a creepy little fellow Stewie, you have no authority to back your views, pound sand. I could ignore the loud breathing stuff but screwing with science to advance your beliefs is another thing. Stick to the breather method and leave everyone and thing else out of it.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Pound sand? How about I pound your face instead you parasitical half-wit yank – that would be far more satisfying.

            My opinions are rooted in hard science, not your emotional, confused, progressive fundamentalist drivel.

            I have the right to say these thing as an informed natural born Australian of Colonial decent, which is more than I would expect of a gormless Sepo whose abandoned his family, society and Nation to come and parasite off another’s on the other side of the world to be ever able to understand.

            Tape works like you have more in common with other cultureless flotsam and jetsam inhabiting any other generic global city in the West, parasiting off the host society, than any natural born ethnic colonial Australian or Americans. You should introduce yourself as a Globalist rather than as a citizen of any nation.

            Even your ancestors, grubs that they must have been to have spawn you, would be embarrassed. One can only hope that you are the end of the road for 3 billion years of evolution.

            Get cancer and die.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Separating twins and then raising them in different families in similar socio economic situations is not doing this.

            Raising them in significant different socio economic situations is, where it is found that environment (for the low side) is a much larger factor.

            Wikipedia ROFLMGDAO – multiple twin studies have shown heredibility to trumps environment in all but the most extreme socio-economic differences. 90% of African Americans are not in extreme socio-economic differences, they have virtually exactly the same opportunity as any other American (even more after you factor in policies like Affirmative action). The reason they fail to thrive is the same reason members of any other race fail to thrive, including white people, IQ.

            Some research has found simply asking people about their race or gender before taking a test has been shown to impact results.

            I’m sure they do – snowflakes wilt with the slightest hot air breathed on them. FFS pussies like yourself are demanding ‘safe spaces’ at Universities nowadays, simply to avoid dealing with the harsh facts of life.

            You are extrapolating results identifying high correlation of IQ within families, across entire countries (or religious groups spread across multiple countries). Ie: basically a roundabout way of saying “they’re all the same”.

            Race basically IS a large extended family, slightly more inbred than other adjacent families. Your argument is akin to saying the existence of Hills disproves the existence of Mountains.

            FFS Africans were genetically isolated from ALL other population groups for 70,000 years or over 2,000 generations – that is more than enough time to produce a MOUNTAIN of genetic differences in terms of all human traits…. anything less is ideological wishful thinking.

            The Flynn effect is one single aspect around IQ that has shown some divergence from the many, many, many other forms of evidence that suggest there is some genetic basis for IQ differences between population groups. Clinging onto it isn’t going to save you from drowning – there can be any number of possible reasons for it to exist.

            Rather than using it as a reason to discount any genetic influence, people with a more open mind than your own should be investigating the reason for the difference before settling on it as proof in the face of mountains of opposing evidence.

            Ultimately my evidence DOES support my suggestions that the differences in life outcomes between different population groups is at least partially (mainly) influenced by genetics. These differences are real and should be considered in the context of limited mass migration of population groups that refuse to assimilate or will burden large segments of OUR existing community with additional social problems.

            FFS – what is your view on evolution? That it is responsible for all forms of human characteristics other than mental capabilities?

            The default explanation for all the life differences between population groups if you refuse to accept genes as playing any role in determining life outcomes is that it is all societies fault – ergo our society is fundamentally flawed, oppressive and rac!st.

            That is something I and many others are rightfully entitled to disagree with on the basis of a mountains of evidence to the contrary, which pathetic moralisers like your reject simply because it is not in accordance with what you believe.

            My position has never been to outright ban people, but limit the negative impacts of mass migration of large difficult to intergrate population groups. It is the type of absolutism promoted by yourself and those who share your views which ultimately cause societies to splinter, and racial violence to arise as people are forced to deal with the consequences of behaviours and relationships that ideological twats like yourself refuse to believe exist.

            You aren’t enlighten, you are a hateful close minded bigot helping to facilitate irreversible harm on our society, and will in due course have the blood of thousands of victims on your hands, simply for trying to Lord your advanced virtue and morality over everyone else.

            Pathetic.

      • Well then you’re also opening up another can of worms, and it is feminism which is the source of all regressive do-good sentiment. You would also know that when it comes to IQ, male representation is ‘fatter’ at both ends of the distribution curve.

        So while more men are also winning more Darwin awards, more are going to be, by merit….

        “126–131 Attorney, Editor
        132–137 Eminent Professor, Editor (IQ 132 Mensa Entry Point)
        138–150 Leading Maths, Physics Professor
        151–200+ Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Goethe etc!”

        • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

          Similar findings re sex differences in observed “funniness”

          https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-50221046

          Doesn’t mean male comedians are necessarily funnier (although without a doubt its true in respect of Hannah Gadsby) but it does mean that you will probably find more funny men than funny women.

          The perils of a flatter/wider distribution curve.

  3. Apparently recent betting was down 25% so far. Will be interesting to see how much it changes today.

    What’re peoples thoughts RE: the ABC expose on thoroughbreds? TBH – raising them to race and selling them off to meat is fine to me, provided they’re treated well at the abattoir, and they’re transparent. It’s no different to raising beef or chicken for meat.

  4. “‘Region’ of Perth not so cheerful about increased migration”:
    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/region-of-perth-not-so-cheerful-about-increased-migration-,13278

    “We were allowing people into the country to reside a long way from their support structures, taking significant amounts of money from them by way of fees and providing nothing to address their emotional and mental health needs. This resulted in a number of suicide deaths and behaviour that was generally unacceptable in any society.”

    “Cladding list kept secret amid demands for action on ‘construction crisis'”
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/cladding-list-kept-secret-amid-demands-for-action-on-construction-crisis-20191104-p537dg.html

    “The People’s Republic of China: 70 Years of Economic History”
    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/china-economic-growth-history/

    • I just don’t understand how these projects cost so much….and then rarely meet budgets. But it’s the public teet and it must be sucked dry.

      • interested partyMEMBER

        Yep. I can’t wait.
        Trumps twitter feed will be something to behold.

        And on Trumps twitter feed; If I am right here……things are going to get seriously interesting.
        On his Twitter feed, look for exactly this phrasing….. “My fellow Americans, the Storm is upon us…….”.
        I understand it to be about the coming arrests of many…..clinton likely amongst them….that’s why I find the link to the Fox poll amusing.
        I don’t know the when….but I do know the why.
        https://youtu.be/VrF7alkwdHw