Detroit Real Estate Prices?

[Tactical Bear 3]

yeah, what wang said! (everybody else is an idiot.)

I'm a bit testy today. Apologies to anyone I insulted, demeaned, or patronized without ample reason. There is a good reason very few people can handle being around me with any frequency.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

I'm a bit testy today. Apologies to anyone I insulted, demeaned, or patronized without ample reason. There is a good reason very few people can handle being around me with any frequency.

You wear our expectations like an armoured suit.

[timwakefield 68]

First of all, you're being really annoying. EDIT:

I'm a bit testy today. Apologies to anyone I insulted, demeaned, or patronized without ample reason. There is a good reason very few people can handle being around me with any frequency.

Well I guess I also sort of apologize if this comes off as unnecessarily rude:Second of all,

suggesting, because the chart-makers are racist, either the statistics are bad OR the logic used to draw the conclusions from those statistics is bad.

Are you fucking dense? Maybe speedz argued the former, I only argued the latter.

I'll assume that the chart nonetheless presents accurate census data.

I blatantly said that the statistics in your white-history chart were probably accurate. Now you suggest I bet $1000 against that position? No thanks. You even quoted me saying "I'll assume that the chart nonetheless presents accurate census data" and then suggested that I bet $1000 against that point of view, and that would settle it. wtf

I said I thought the stats were probably accurate

I believe I have now stated about 11 times that I assume the statistics are completely accurate. Nothing could change that they're accurate.

So what fucking part of "I believe the stats are accurate" is not getting through to you?

If you think the statistics are good, then stop talking about where they came from. It's beyond worthless.

I stopped talking about it around 5 pages ago. Seriously, spend a tiny bit more time reading my words than imagining what I probably think.

And, oh my God, that last clause is one of the worst and lamest cases of begging the question I have ever seen.

No it's really not. Human social interaction is not a math equation, or if it is it's incomprehensibly more complicated than could be explained in a chart about crime statistics or even IQ statistics. One has to know how to logically apply their knowledge of very specific statistics to a larger picture. That the context in which you learn something can affect your understanding of that knowledge is not a fallacy. We can agree that the statistics are accurate and disagree about other aspects of racial equality or inequality.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Actually I've made some fairly coherent points. Scram is the one saying things which, in wise, educated, academic circles would be considered embarrassing, and that's hardly arguable.

[El Guapo 8]

I'm embarrassed for you guys.

[ShakeZuma 585]

I'm embarrassed about my penis size, but I'm more excited about wang's imminent response.

[El Guapo 8]

I'm embarrassed for your balls.

[timwakefield 68]

I'm embarrassed about my penis size, but I'm more excited about wang's imminent response.

When he completely ignores my overreaching argument that Scram's conclusion based on his data on black crime and IQ completely ignores much less quantifiable but perhaps more relevant understandings of historical oppression, and instead focuses on some inane "logical" question that actually combines what speedz and I said and then calls me a hypocrite for not being speedz?

[ShakeZuma 585]

no that's not it

[Tactical Bear 3]

I stopped talking about it¹ around 5 pages ago. Seriously, spend a tiny bit more time reading my words than imagining what I probably think.

1 = the source of the statistics

So when that chart is being presented in a certain context (white-history.lol), a certain point of view is clearly the goal. That point of view is that whites are the awesomest, so statistics will be presented in that light. Perhaps one should find a more scholarly, respected station to draw their arguments from.

Just say you're wrong. Say you're wrong. Just say you're wrong. I have to go tell my soon-to-be ex-girlfriend that I have a soon-to-be Baby Mama. I'll have more later. The "more" will be, if my mood is as foul as I expect it to be around 1AM, a line-by-line annotation of your body of work in this thread, perhaps color-coded by type-of-logical-error. If not, I'll just respond to your last post with extreme and violent malice. There Will Be Ad Hominem Attacks.

[timwakefield 68]

Just say you're wrong. Say you're wrong. Just say you're wrong.

I'll certainly admit that I may have "muddied" my point by saying that the charts came from an unreliable source, although I didn't actually use the word unreliable. But I have since made clear about 4 times that that's not the heart of the issue, and is also not particularly important to me. I almost didn't even attack him for getting his info from white-history, but then I did because it was just too easy. I'm not arguing that the stats are inherently tainted because they came from there. I thought I explained that by saying, 100 times, that they're surely accurate. I said that Scram's conclusions about racial inequality are clearly tainted by prejudice, and that getting his information from a racist platform isn't going to help him find a more rational and logical perspective.The main point is not that the stats came from white-history. That is an extremely minor point to me, but you're acting like it's my main argument. My main argument is simply that the few statistics presented by Scram don't logically lead to the conclusions presented by Scram, unless you're wearing incredibly narrow blinders. Rather than nitpicking every word I've typed for potential fallacies, why not attack my larger arguments, or even offer us an opinion of your own? The idea that I embarrassed myself by explaining why the burden of proof lays on scram was ridiculous. It is widely accepted in this country that "all people are created equal." Obviously the authors of that sentence didn't really believe it themselves, but now it is generally accepted in this country that anybody of any race or creed can succeed if given equal opportunities. When somebody takes a bold, openly racist stand against that, it's up to them to prove their argument. The belief in racial superiority is so preposterous* that I can't believe I'm the one you're going after. Sure I may have made a logical misstep or two, but the people on the other side of the argument fell the fuck out of the logical airplane. Are you sure you don't want to spend your time explaining why a lack of complete black dominance of the quarterback position in the NFL is not proof that whites possess superior intelligence? Because I feel like that's ten times more ridiculous than anything I've said probably ever. *This is why the burden of proof is on Scram.

[timwakefield 68]

1 = the source of the statistics

I mean, I posted a screenshot from the website. That was literally as far as I went to attack it's credibility. I did stop talking about it 5 pages ago, but everybody else is bringing it back up. My whole point was that the data doesn't prove the conclusion. That is all I'm trying to say. As a cheap shot I also pointed out that the statistics came from a site that's down with Nazis. The idea that Scram may have read some of their undoubtedly biased essays is not tremendously far-fetched. I didn't think I needed to spell out precisely why we should avoid getting data from places like that, but now I have, and it remains a very minor point. If you want to spend half an hour proving that I'm wrong, it'll still be a very minor part of my argument, and pales in comparison to the much larger pseudo-intellectual leaps and bounds being taken by people on the other side of the argument.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Rather than nitpicking every word I've typed for potential fallacies, why not attack my larger arguments, or even offer us an opinion of your own?

be it Resolved: that wouldn't revolutionize debate. which side you want?

I mean, I posted a screenshot from the website. That was literally as far as I went to attack it's credibility. I did stop talking about it 5 pages ago, but everybody else is bringing it back up. My whole point was that the data doesn't prove the conclusion. That is all I'm trying to say. As a cheap shot I also pointed out that the statistics came from a site that's down with Nazis. The idea that Scram may have read some of their undoubtedly biased essays is not tremendously far-fetched. I didn't think I needed to spell out precisely why we should avoid getting data from places like that, but now I have, and it remains a very minor point. If you want to spend half an hour proving that I'm wrong, it'll still be a very minor part of my argument, and pales in comparison to the much larger pseudo-intellectual leaps and bounds being taken by people on the other side of the argument.

are you pointing out that it's a fallacy to assume that because you included a cheap-shot about Nazi-lovin' the rest of your argument is invalid? because that would be rad.

[mrdannyg 274]

There should be a way to permanently and irreversibly ignore someone. Sometimes I'll see you posted something, and even though I know I shouldn't, I'll click the ViewThisPost option. I'm just... I'm weak.And, since I'm already here:You're embarrassing yourself.

Surprise, the cool kid can't take a joke at his expense, even from the class loser.

a line-by-line annotation of your body of work in this thread, perhaps color-coded by type-of-logical-error.

This is why you are awesome. Though I hope it is to the level of discourse we're used to from you and we've had from Scram and Tim have had so far, and not just more Philosophy 1000.

[brvheart 1,752]

BOOM!MrDannyG just made Wang look STUPID!!!*high five Danny*

[mrdannyg 274]

BOOM!MrDannyG just made Wang look STUPID!!!*high five Danny*

Thanks Brv! I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but I'll take it either way.Sadly, Wang almost certainly would not have otherwise read my post. Now I can look forward to having my face thoroughly melted when I wake up in the morning.

[timwakefield 68]

because that would be rad.

Then that's definitely exactly what I meant, and in far fewer words.

[vbnautilus 48]

I agree with Tactical Bear. - Dr. Science

[timwakefield 68]

I agree with Tactical Bear. - Dr. Science

I don't get it.

[Theraflu 1,035]

I don't get it.

You are defensive cat.

[timwakefield 68]

everyone: DUR DUR DUR LEARN HOW TO ARGUE TARD

[AmScray 355]

When he completely ignores my overreaching argument that Scram's conclusion based on his data on black crime and IQ completely ignores much less quantifiable but perhaps more relevant understandings of historical oppression, and instead focuses on some inane "logical" question...

I'm fascinated by mania and crowd behavior. For most of my life, I've been a complete cast-off, for a number of different reasons. This has its pros and cons. I definitely lack social graces. I don't know how to 'get along' with people in that intuitive, immediately-executable way that most folks do subconsciously. I'll die lonely. This framework definitely has its drawbacks. One of the gigantic silver linings, though, is it's afforded me a keen insight into objectively understanding what motivates people; usually, I'm able to see things they themselves are completely oblivious to, as they're doing them. It's an intelligence type that is enormously useful, but comes at a cost. When you view the world in this detached fashion, it causes a lot of problems in terms of social skills, relationships, interactions. You come off as a complete oddball, which only recently have I come to accept that I am, but, you do get to look down on most everyone, albeit from a three legged perch. Having a bit of an aspie-bend and being interested in the markets, I've read most of the standard works in the field of market-mania, because it conflates my love for facts and my interest in human behavior. One of my favorites works in this genre is a newer one called "Irrational Exuberance" by Robert Schiller. In it, he had a tremendously insightful quote about logical process that I immediately recalled when I read your post, right there. You actually inspired me to go dig out the book, find that quote and type it here.

Some of the attraction to gambling, despite odds that are often openly stacked against gamblers, apparently has to do with narrative based thinking. When gamblers are heard talking, they are usually telling stories, not evaluating probabilities and the possibilities suggested by the stories often seem to have more substantive reality than any quantitative concepts. In these stories, gamblers use a different vocabulary than do probability theorists, preferring words like "luck" or "lucky day" and rarely uttering the words "probability" or "likelihood".

That's the headshot term that I've been looking for to describe what it is that you people do, in this discussion... "Narrative based thinking". Narration is the basis of your entire position. The facts, figures and standard precepts of logic that can be drawn from them are discarded for a comfortable narrative, rooted in theories, good intentions and shiny, new rainbows. "Yes, the statistics might be as they may and your conclusion might be in line with the logic as presented by those statistics, but let me tell you a little story about Guns, Germs and Steel...."When you really meditate on this, you soon realize that this methodology could be employed to rationalize any position, no matter how absurd. There's *always* a narrative that can be concocted to raise one hypothetical or another. So, I guess it all boils down to what we're willing to accept in terms of logic, when drawing our own conclusions. Some of us prefer data and from that, extrapolating a position. Others prefer to invent narratives, usually rooted in whatever idealistic baggage they carried with them at the starting gate. Neither of us will be able to convince the other of who's right and who's wrong, but I'm much, much happier basing my conclusion on the data I employ, as opposed to concluding as you've concluded, for the reasons you have.

[SilentSnow 1]

A few random points--Good luck distinguishing between "extrapolating a position" and "inventing narratives". Unless you are able to prove every step of the way, then someone could just as easily turn your inventing narratives argument against you. -It's not enough to show that Blacks have lower IQ scores and higher crime rates. You also have to be able to eliminate any confounding variables such as poverty, correlation of IQ tests with education, cultural learning, etc. My guess is that these properly scientific studies either A) haven't reached a consensus, or B)do not show any significant IQ differences that can only be assigned to genetic variablity within groups. If you have some decent studies showing this to be incorrect then feel free to post them. -It is not generally accepted within the scientific community that race is a valid concept to distinguish individuals. But even if you could pull off a miracle and prove that the "races" were significantly genetically different in meaningful ways you would still have to prove the next point that--If races were separate and there was a real difference in hereditable IQs then mixed race tests should reveal a statistically significant IQ gradiant. As far as I am aware these studies have been done and they indicated that there was no measurable difference in IQs.-But even if you could prove all this, would it matter? Let's suppose you could provide ironclad proof that "blacks" had a genetically caused IQ deficit of 10 points. The IQ differences within the group would still dwarf that difference. Ie, you would still have to judge every black person you met on an individual basis if you were going to be objective about it. Also, a lower IQ hardly means that you are doomed to lead a lousy life, even if it does result in a higher correlation with some negative factors.

[AmScray 355]

A few random responses1) Extrapolation of fact and 'inventing a narrative' would be two, entirely different things. For example: Argentina produces a lot of cattle. A lot of this is sold to the fast food industry... From this, I extrapolate forward the possibility that some of it winds up with McDonalds, based on McDonalds relative position in the fast food world as a buyer of beef and the probability that they would be involved in that market. Here's inventing a narrative. Argentina produces a lot of cattle. Those cattle *may* have come from Spain. You know who else came from Spain? Inigo Montoya. And who was Inigo Montoya chasing after? The man who killed his father. That man had six fingers on one hand, which is pretty unusual. How did he get six fingers? PROBABLY FROM EATING TAINTED BEEF, THAT'S HOW!2) What you classify as a 'confounding variable' isn't. It's a rationale. There's a pretty apparent correlative between low IQ and the frequency of certain behaviors, and there seems to be about the same as far as low IQ and poverty. When you control for race, the results are undeniable... and you seem to be in that group of people who need a reminder that "IQ" and "knowledge" are two different things. IQ is culture and education neutral, although I think we can all agree there's a hereditary basis for it, which in turn manifests itself in race. 3) "It is not generally accepted within the scientific community that race is a valid concept to distinguish individuals."As long as we aren't distinguishing people by IQ, then I guess not.4) "Also, a lower IQ hardly means that you are doomed to lead a lousy life, even if it does result in a higher correlation with some negative factors."Correct. I never said a lower IQ dooms one to a lousy life, but place a race of people with an inherently lower IQ into an urban environment and yes, they seem to be pretty damn doomed as far as upping their own lot, without colossal intervention from the 'white' outsiders. Yes, to be sure, there are 'great individuals' and 'bad individuals' in any race. No one is making the case that there aren't. The Elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is the macro stuff, which people like yourself are fast to fritter away in a fanciful poof of glittery hypothetical possibilities, usually rooted in some historical event that cannot be legitimately correlated to present-day factors without a blind leap of faith. And please, for the love of Pete, who is that in your avatar?

[timwakefield 68]

So, I guess it all boils down to what we're willing to accept in terms of logic, when drawing our own conclusions. Some of us prefer data and from that, extrapolating a position.

Please point me to the scientific, biological data that proves that intelligence is inextricably linked to the amount of melanin present in one's skin. You keep pretending that this data exists.I mean, your argument started to lose water around the time of Frederick Douglass. It's tough for me to fill in what you've missed in the last hundred and fifty years, because we've come so far in so many areas (scientific, ethical, moral, logical, political, social, industrial, the list goes on) that I have a hard time summing up modern advances in human intellect in a sentence or three. But your argument is about as ridiculous and logically sound as Intelligent Design. Just because the data leads you to conclude something doesn't mean you've drawn the correct conclusion. Reality is apparently a lot more complicated than you understand it to be, which is why I'm likening your racial arguments to the ID argument.

[timwakefield 68]

Let me put it this way: perhaps the amount of melanin present in one's skin is in fact a major genetic factor in determining intelligence. Unfortunately, that has yet to be proven and is a ridiculous conclusion to draw without scientific knowledge. IQ test results are not science. The reason it's unproven is because other factors are at play. Whites built a country where blacks were subservient. A black man in the south in 1848 had as many rights as a dog - approximately none. If his owner murdered him he might have to pay a fine, that was about it. A black man could not go to the courts or militias or politicians and demand a fair shake. He was property. The notion that he was lesser because of his skin color very slowly came to be understood as untrue. Many people today still think it's true, because it's been ingrained in them through their ancestors, grandparents, parents, racist thinkers and politicians, etc etc. It's important to understand the depth of racism and social defilement that has gone on in this country for the last 300 to 400 years. That has only changed extremely recently, and the idea we should expect black Americans to be on equal footing with whites now that they have "equal opportunities" is ludicrous. Whites have had 400 years to figure out how to live and prosper in this society. Blacks have had about 40 years, and before that they were actively denied opportunities, to say nothing of government representation. Active defilement, denigration, humiliation, and institutionalized racism are not fantasies, and their effects should be deeply examined in a discussion of racial differences, not written off as unimportant or "in the past."