Identidad costarricense, migraciones y xenofobia

[Machaca]

totalmente de acuerdo.

 

[URD]

se me olvido mencionar si Nicaragua tienen menos CI, no es por su color de piel..ni nada por el estilo sino porque ahi no se da la misma educacion que aqui, porque sus dirigentes solo piensan en armas y robar

 

[OCP2]

Guiarme?? compa, si gusta le recomiendo algun instituto para que aprenda ingles.


"Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2005) have criticized research into race and intelligence, arguing that:[26]

• "the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis"
• "because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best"
• "race is a social construction with no scientific definition" so that "studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends"
• "no gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time"
• "heritability, a behavior-genetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link"

Heritability of IQ Intelligence, like height, is substantially heritable within populations, with 30–50% of variance in IQ scores in early childhood being attributable to genetic factors, increasing to 75–80% by late adolescence.[1][65] Heritability does not imply that a trait is unchangeable, however, as environmental factors can cause the trait to change—average height and intelligence score increases (Flynn effect) are modern examples—and the heritability of a trait may also change in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environments.[1] Thus the debate is over whether the IQ test differences between racial groups are caused by the same factors that cause IQ variation within populations, including both genetic and environmental factors, or whether they are entirely environmental in origin."




Con todo el respeto que usted se merece, si va a citar un estudio serio, lealo primero.


Si afirma que el coeficiente intelectual es 100% de origen genetico, esta un "poco" equivocado. Los mismos estudios, que de por si son bastante cuestionados por lo debatible de un concepto de inteligencia tan rigido, no logran establecer esa correlacion por que los factores ambientales y los estimulos tienen un peso muy grande.

Anda pésimo en inglés porque esos no son los estudios. Esas son críticas muy pero muy generales de los estudios.

Alguien dijo que no es controvertido? Alguien afirma lo del 100%? Aunque fuera 1%, 15%, o 30% sigue siendo válido.

 

[OCP2]

se me olvido mencionar si Nicaragua tienen menos CI, no es por su color de piel..ni nada por el estilo sino porque ahi no se da la misma educacion que aqui, porque sus dirigentes solo piensan en armas y robar

Eso sería una suposición suya.

Lo válido sería comparar nicas educados allá con nicas educados aquí y con ticos.

 

[OCP2]

sino se notaria demasiado, ademas estamos en costa rica, no en europa o uno de esos paises de gente caucasica, se basan en estadisticas pero no en las personas que vemos y conocemos, seria demasiado notable, en la universidad, escuelas etc...que el negrito(Alan) es un tonto, el blanco(ronald) es un genio...

tb en condiciones fisicas hay blancos que se desempe;an mejor que un moreno...

Un muestreo aleatorio no se viene abajo por algo empírico como las personas que vemos y conocemos, sería al revés más bien.

Y hablamos de tendencias, no absolutos, por lo que pueden haber excepciones sin que ello implique que no hay tendencia.

 

[Me Aguevas]

Eso es verdad aqui somos un sambrote de gustos y colores , pero eso no pasa solo aqui es en todo lado ya, en España entre los migrantes latinos, marroquíes, los españoles del lado sur y los del norte, gitanos y demas estan igual que aqui de todo se ve ya estan todos revueltos.
Y es que una cosa es sentirse identificado con el pais que me ha dado todo lo bueno que tenemos y estar de parte de el y otra es pensar que eso se debe a una cuestion de colores

Lo que no entiendo es a que se debe esta discusion en un primer termino. El mestizaje se ha venido dando por miles de años y el que se diga que es "de sangre pura" esta miando fuera del tarro. Quizas deberian enfocarse en el concepto de identidad nacional, de la cual carecemos por completo. De hecho pienso que muchos de los maecillos de las nuevas generaciones son demasiado poco hombres, vale solo ver el poder que les dan a las viejas, y el miedo que les da decir algo en contra de la farsa esa de la igualdad de generos . Veanlo con esa invasion de los nicas, con el cuento que pais sin ejercito lo que damos la pinta de ser es mas un poco de mamitas que no tienen guevitos para defender su país. Ojala no veamos el día en que caiga EEUU y toda esa vara de la ONU, y empiecen agitadores y células de poder a disputarse regiones, y nos agarren esos nicas y nos invadan, o haya que dejar esas manias y habladito amariconado de esos mocosos aguineados que se ponen camisetitas rosadas, y tengan que demostrar su hombría (si es que les queda un conato de eso). claro las viejas se quedaran en sus chozas esperando ser protegidas, esas no van a ir a poner el pecho en algo así.

 

[Me Aguevas]

Exacto, nos estamos poniendo de acuerdo en algo Machaca. Si tratamos de explicar la razon de esa correlacion, podriamos decir que el ambiente y el estimulo que recibe una persona en Holanda es diferente al de una persona en Angola.

O una persona en Kenia, o en Costa Rica!!!! Si como lo oye, mucho mae aqui cree que los ticos somos muy educados y que hasta no somos "tanto del primer mundo como los paises africanos". Pero la mentalidad de la mayoría de la gente no demuestra eso. Vea lo que salio en la BBC para que vea que CR no es la pomada canaria, sino que las estupideces en manos de este gobierno ineficiente y su poblacion acanallada constantemente es el hazmereir del mundo:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/cc/cc_20101118-1125a.mp3

Mucho tico se cree que puede subsanar este retraso de actitud y sentido de inferioridad copiando como un mono todo lo de afuera. Lo unico curioso es que lo que se copia es solo lo malo!!!

 

[Maleante.]

Los estudios que trae a colación OCP2 se basan en la famosa curva de Bell, un método refutado hace más de 15 años, aquí se muestran unos cuantos comunicados de las autoridades científcas emitidos en aquel entonces:

The Bell Curve is a top-level work of science.

Myth: The Bell Curve is a top-level work of science.

Fact: Most psychologists and geneticists regard it as crank science.


Summary

The science behind The Bell Curve has been denounced by both the American Psychological Association and the Human Genome Project. Its authors were unqualified to speak on either genetics or intelligence, since their expertise lay in other fields. Their project did not rise through the usual system of academic publishing, and in fact the authors ducked the process of peer review. The Bell Curve was ultimately funded by the wealthy, far-right Bradley Foundation, which used its media connections to launch a massive national publicity campaign. And The Bell Curve relies heavily on studies that were financed by the Pioneer Fund, a neo-Nazi organization that promotes eugenicist research.



Argument

"The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent." (1)

With those words, the American Psychological Association denounced The Bell Curve, the controversial book that claims that blacks generally have IQs 15 points lower than whites. The authors assert that because IQ is mostly genetic and unchangeable, programs promoting equality (affirmative action, welfare, Head Start, etc.) are a waste of money. For those unfamiliar with the American Psychological Association, it is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, and includes over 142,000 members.

The story of how a scientifically unsound book like The Bell Curve bypassed the usual checks and balances of the scientific community reveals a great deal about how wealthy conservative businessmen are trying to create their own alternate academia.

To begin with, the authors of The Bell Curve were largely unqualified to write a book about genetics and IQ. Charles Murray is a political scientist, whose specialty lies in welfare and affirmative action issues. Richard Herrnstein (who died shortly before publication) was indeed a psychologist, but he spent his career studying pigeons and rats, not genetics and IQ. In fact, Herrnstein never published anything in peer-reviewed journals about genetics and IQ during his entire 36-year career. (He did publish a few articles in popular magazines.) The most that can be said for either of them is that they were familiar with the scientific method and were experts in fields that were distantly related to the topic.

The writing of the book was shrouded in secrecy, but it was launched directly to the American public in a magnificently funded and organized media campaign, one that included cover stories in Newsweek, The New Republic and The New York Times Book Review. Early articles and editorials appeared in Time, The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and The National Review, before eventually swamping the rest of the national media. Some of these early articles were critical of the book, but that was beside the point -- any publicity at all was welcome, because a large part of the nation was ready to receive new justifications for their racial beliefs. (The Bell Curve is not an original work; earlier books making the same claims languished due to a lack of well-funded publicity.) To date, The Bell Curve has sold over 500,000 copies.

But the way the authors concealed -- and then publicized -- the book was disingenuous. Most scientists share their work with other scientists before publication, because their criticism is helpful and constructive. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences promotes such a policy in the form of the peer-reviewed journal and the scientific conference. In these two forums, researchers can face their critics and argue it out. Sometimes the debate is brutal and extensive, but it is useful for weeding out errors and arriving at a consensus. Murray and Herrnstein completely bypassed this process. To say that they would have faced a certain firestorm of opposition from "liberal academia" is beside the point -- if the research were valid, then not all the criticism in the world would hurt it. Therefore, bypassing peer review can be condemned on principle alone.

And there is a practical criticism as well -- peer review helps to correct flawed information before it reaches the public, where it tends to take on a life of its own. Defenders of The Bell Curve seize on this as an example of "liberal censorship," hence the reason why Murray and Herrnstein sought to avoid it. But this ignores the fact that there is freedom of the press in this country, and people can print anything they want. Peer review simply brings errors to the attention of the author, allowing him to correct them before printing. An author doesn't have to correct his errors, of course, but it becomes much more difficult to defend printing obvious and blatant errors after they have been pointed out. This is the reason why Murray and Herrnstein's bypassed peer review. Their arguments were carefully constructed fictions that would have fallen apart under expert criticism; the ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ reason to bypass it was to get this information out to the public before bona fide geneticists could refute it.

The media blitz was ultimately financed by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, one of the wealthiest and most conservative foundations in the country. With assets over $420 million, the Bradley Foundation has been instrumental in creating an "alternate academia" of far-right think tanks and conservative media outlets. For example, it provides major funding to National Empowerment Television, a cable channel that delivers far-right programming to American homes nationwide. The Bradley Foundation pays Murray $100,000 a year to continue his researches as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the nation's top conservative think tanks. Without the Bradley Foundation, Murray's academic career would have foundered long ago. (Even the conservative Manhattan Institute has asked him to leave.) Nor would The Bell Curve have graced the covers and pages of so many national publications. (2)

After The Bell Curve ignited an uproar, the National Academy of Sciences found itself competing to be heard among all the voices assessing the work. Nonetheless, peer review occurred after the fact. The American Psychological Association set up a task force of its top experts to review the science and politics of the controversy. According to Dr. Ulric Neisser, the task force chair, the investigators were commissioned to research the issues "in an unbiased, systematic manner." (3) Ideologically, the task force spanned the spectrum of opinions, from Thomas Bouchard, Ph.D. (generally supportive of The Bell Curve) to Ellin Bloch, Ph.D. (generally against). (4)

In August 1995, a year after The Bell Curve hit the bookstores, the task force released its report. Its press release opened with the following general observation:

• "What is intelligence and can it be measured? These questions have fueled a continuing debate about whether intelligence is inherited, acquired, environmental, or a combination of these and other factors. In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place." (5)

As for specific assessments of The Bell Curve, the findings of the task force can be summed up in three points:

• Much of the book's data are accurate, especially when addressing the fundamentals of intelligence and IQ testing. One of the stated purposes of the book was to serve as an introduction to the topic, and in this respect the book succeeded. Stephen Ceci, Ph.D., said that despite Herrnstein and Murray's political agenda, they have been "the clearest and most comprehensive writers" on the topic to date. (6)
• However, much of the data are also wrong, and analysis of it severely flawed. Halford Fairchild, Ph.D., who led one of the panels assessing the scientific accuracy of the book, summed up their conclusions this way: "The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent." (7) Indeed, some of the errors were so large as to be attributable to non-experts attempting to write in the field.
• The policy recommendations suggested at the end of the book do not follow from the book's own arguments on genes and IQ. On this point the task force was emphatic: it called The Bell Curve a "political" work, not a "scientific" one. (8)

What were the errors that the task force found? A major flaw was that most of the "IQ" scores used by the authors were not from an IQ test at all! They mistook an armed forces qualifying test that measures vocabulary and verbal reasoning for IQ tests, Fairchild said. "This is an achievement test. It shows the extent to which you've benefited from school. To assert it's a proxy for IQ is a big lie." (9)

Another problem the task force found was the authors' handling of the "Flynn Effect," a world-wide phenomenon which is raising average IQs about three points per decade. That is much too fast to be genetic; therefore, social factors must play a large role in raising IQs.

Another problem was the authors' thesis that the smart classes are getting smarter, and the dull classes duller. However, the task force found quite the opposite: "We're getting a convergence, not a divergence," Ceci noted. Specifically, the IQ gap between those at the top and bottom rungs of the social hierarchy in job status has shrunken from a 12.5-point difference in the 1930s to an 8.5-point difference today, with people testing higher on average than they used to. (10)

The American Psychological Association is not the ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ expert organization that has denounced The Bell Curve. The Human Genome Project has weighed in as well. In a letter written to Science magazine, its members wrote: "As geneticists and ethicists associated with the Human Genome Project, we deplore The Bell Curve's misrepresentation of the state of genetic knowledge in this area and the misuse of genetics to inform social policy." (11) In particular, they raised three objections:

• "First, Herrnstein and Murray invoke the authority of genetics to argue that 'it is beyond significant technical dispute that cognitive ability is substantially heritable.' Research in this field is still evolving, studies cited by Herrnstein and Murray face significant methodological difficulties, and the validity of results quoted are disputed. Many geneticists have pointed out the enormous scientific and methodological problems in attempting to separate genetic components from environmental contributors, particularly given the intricate interplay between genes and the environment that may affect such a complex human trait as intelligence.
  
  "Second, even if there was consensus on the heritability of cognitive ability, lessons from genetics are misrepresented. The authors argue that because cognitive ability is substantially heritable, it is not possible to change it and that remedial education is not worth the effort or cost. This is neither an accurate message from genetics nor a necessary lesson from efforts at remedial education. Heritability estimates are relevant ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ for the specific environment in which they are measured. Change the environment, and the heritability of traits can change remarkably. Saying a trait has high heritability has never implied that the trait is fated to be. Height is both genetically determined and dependent on nutrition. Common conditions in which genetics play a role, such as diabetes or heart disease, can be corrected with insulin or cholesterol-lowering drugs and diet. The disabilities associated with single-gene conditions, such as phenylketonuria or Wilson disease, can be prevented or significantly ameliorated by medical or nutritional therapy.
  
  "Third, the more scientists learn about human genes the more complexity is revealed. This complexity has become apparent as more genes correlated with human genetic diseases are discovered. We are ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ beginning to explore the intricate relationship between genes and environment and between individual genes and the rest of the human genome. If anything, the lack of predictability from genetic information has become the rule rather than the exception. Simplistic claims about the inheritance of such a complex trait as cognitive ability are unjustifiable; moreover, as the history of eugenics shows, they are dangerous." (12)

Finally, there is the reception of the entire scientific community itself. "Within the sophisticated research community, the opinion has been virtually unanimous that ‘The Bell Curve’ was a primitive, oversimplistic and flawed analysis," says Craig T. Ramey, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Alabama. (13) Many scientists have been writing detailed, technical refutations to The Bell Curve. A team of sociologists led by Claude Fischer has addressed the sociological arguments raised by The Bell Curve in their book, Inequality by Design. (14) Reanalyzing the very data used by Herrnstein and Murray, they correct many of the statistical errors and show how the environment, not genes, plays a larger role in who gets ahead in life.

For example, Herrnstein and Murray analyzed a long-term survey (the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth) and concluded that a person's future success is far better predicted by IQ than by childhood socioeconomic status. But they failed to include several important factors in their definition of "socioeconomic status": the number of siblings, the presence of two parents in the home, farm residence, etc. Correcting for these factors, the authors of Inequality by Design recalculated the data and showed that socioeconomic status, not IQ, is a far better predictor of future success. Based on the corrected data, the authors conclude: "If we could magically give everyone identical IQs, we would still see 90 to 95 percent of the inequality we see today." (15)


The sources for The Bell Curve

Defenders of The Bell Curve have double duty to pull, for not ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ has the book been denounced by the top scientific organizations in the U.S., but the book itself relies on sources that most scientists regard as dubious, racist, white supremacist and eugenicist. Whenever The Bell Curve talks about racial differences in IQ, the studies cited are almost always ones funded by the Pioneer Fund, a neo-Nazi group whose founder advocated sending all blacks back to Africa. Even Murray himself seems embarrassed by some of his sources:

• "Here was a case of stumbling onto a subject that had all the allure of the forbidden. Some of the things we read to do this work, we literally hide when we're on planes and trains. We're furtively peering at this stuff." (16)

The urge to hide embarrassing sources must also have struck the authors while writing The Bell Curve, because they do not prominently display some of the names of Pioneer Fund researchers in the main text, preferring instead to hide them in the endnotes. The authors cannot be held accountable for the racist views of their sources, of course, but then why would they rely on their studies so heavily? It's hard to believe they don't sympathize with those views. In an article in The New York Times Magazine, Murray admitted to burning a cross with a group of friends as a teenager. He conceded his actions were "dumb," but insisted: "It never crossed our minds that this had any larger significance." (17)

The Pioneer Fund was created in 1937 by Wickliffe Draper, an eccentric millionaire who wanted to rid the U.S. of its black population. Another founder, Frederick Osborn, described Nazi Germany's sterilization law as "a most exciting experiment." (18) The history of the organization is replete with neo-Nazis and Nazi sympathizers. (19)

Pioneer has been crucial to funding scholars whose research promotes the belief that whites are a superior race and that blacks threaten to drag society down, either economically or genetically. Promoting eugenic policies has been it's prime goal. Over the years, it has awarded major research grants to scholars who have achieved widespread notoriety, all of whom are cited heavily in The Bell Curve:

• Arthur Jensen, who once said, "Eugenics isn't a crime," has received over $1 million from the Pioneer Fund. (20) Jensen's name became synonymous with racism in the 70s, after he blamed lower black performance in Head Start on lower black IQs.
• Thomas Bouchard has also been a major recipient of Pioneer Fund grants, which enabled him to conduct the famous Minnesota twins study. This study compared the traits of twins separated at birth and raised apart. According to Bouchard's results, intelligence turned out to be 70 percent genetic in the twins, even though all other twin studies have found it be ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ 50 percent. (And even these figures are too high, because the adoption agencies usually put the twins in the same neighborhoods.) Curiously, Bouchard has not allowed other scientists to examine the methodology he used to arrive at these unusually high results -- consequently, no one can disprove them. (21)
• Richard Lynn has received at least $325,000 from the Pioneer Fund, for research along the lines of "Positive Correlations Between Head Size and IQ." (22) He has said: "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." (23) Herrnstein and Murray call Lynn "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences."
• And then there is J. Philippe Rushton, who has received at least $770,000 from the Pioneer Fund. Throughout his career, Rushton has been obsessed with the alleged negative correlation between IQ and the size of sexual organs like penises, breasts and buttocks. "It's a trade-off: More brain or more penis. You can't have everything," he told Rolling Stone magazine. (24) Of course, the stereotype that black men have large penises figures prominently in Rushton's theories about why they have such low IQs.

These are the sources that Herrnstein and Murray use for most of their arguments on racial differences in IQ. Needless to say, the scientific quality of many of these studies are dubious at best, and their methodology has been almost universally criticized. By no stretch of the imagination could The Bell Curve be called a top-level work of science. But tell that to Newsweek, which is both corporate-owned and under the spell of the Bradley Foundation. In a generally positive article, it wrote: "The science behind 'The Bell Curve' is overwhelmingly mainstream." (25)

La revista Scientific American en 1995 incluso los llamó a esos estudios "atrocious science", no por sus afirmaciones "controversiales", sino por el alto nivel de pseudociencia contenido en los mismos.

Cuando salió a la luz pública el conservadurismo se frotó las manos al hallar "estudios" científicos que les sirvieran para atacar los programas del gobierno tendientes a cerrar las brechas de "raza".

Estos estudios son armas políticas un tanto añejas ya.

Un muestreo aleatorio no se viene abajo por algo empírico como las personas que vemos y conocemos, sería al revés más bien.

Y hablamos de tendencias, no absolutos, por lo que pueden haber excepciones sin que ello implique que no hay tendencia.

Totalmente de acuerdo con esa afirmación.

Pero volviendo al tema, curiosamente usted se la pasó por el ras cuando se discutía acerca de la migración y sus efectos en la CCSS y la criminalidad. Ahí sus anéctodas y demás tonteras sí son capaces de "traerse abajo" cualquier estudio

 

[OCP2]

Los estudios que trae a colación OCP2 se basan en la famosa curva de Bell, un método refutado hace más de 15 años,

No llevó Proba 1? La curva de Bell sigue vigente. No ha sido refutada y se utiliza en infinidad de muestreos- es una distribución sencillamente.

El hereditarismo no es solo basado en el libro ese, hay estudios más recientes.

Respecto a la respuesta de la APA también se dijo que:

"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status."

El estatus socioeconómico no explica por completo las diferencias en CI entre etnias.

y respecto al CI en sí:

"

• IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement.
• IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled.
• Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by both genetics and environment.
• There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition.
• There are no statistically significant differences between the IQ scores of males and females"

La dieta infantil no influye sobre el CI, el CI predice el desempeño académico y laboral. Asimismo el CI es influenciado por genética tanto como por el ambiente.

Totalmente de acuerdo con esa afirmación.

Pero volviendo al tema, curiosamente usted se la pasó por el ras cuando se discutía acerca de la migración y sus efectos en la CCSS y la criminalidad. Ahí sus anéctodas y demás tonteras sí son capaces de "traerse abajo" cualquier estudio

A ver, a cuál estudio se refiere, troleante?

 

[LosGatosNegros]

O una persona en Kenia, o en Costa Rica!!!! Si como lo oye, mucho mae aqui cree que los ticos somos muy educados y que hasta no somos "tanto del primer mundo como los paises africanos". Pero la mentalidad de la mayoría de la gente no demuestra eso. Vea lo que salio en la BBC para que vea que CR no es la pomada canaria, sino que las estupideces en manos de este gobierno ineficiente y su poblacion acanallada constantemente es el hazmereir del mundo:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/cc/cc_20101118-1125a.mp3

Mucho tico se cree que puede subsanar este retraso de actitud y sentido de inferioridad copiando como un mono todo lo de afuera. Lo unico curioso es que lo que se copia es solo lo malo!!!

Excelente comentario. Si hablamos de la identidad, el tico se caracteriza por ser una mezcla multicultural. Es un hecho que los jovenes copian los modelos anglosajones que vemos en la television y mas ultimamente en internet. Sin embargo si vamos un poco mas atras no podemos negar la influencia que tuvo Mexico atraves de la musica (rancheras por ejemplo) y el cine en la cultura del costarricense.

 

[Maleante.]

"The bell curve" es el nombre del libro pseudocientífico que dio origen a toda esta controversia.

El método del libro es lo que se refuta(debunk, en inglés, no sé si serán sinónimos), no el uso de la función gaussiana, que es lo que se conoce popularmente como la "bell curve" o en español, la campana de Gauss.

 

[Maleante.]

A ver, a cuál estudio se refiere, troleante?

Cifras específicamente. A usted, o a alguno de sus otros "alteregos" en el foro, no le gustaba el hecho de que los extranjeros no son una carga para la CCSS. No me diga que no se acuerda.

 

[OCP2]

Cifras específicamente. A usted, o a alguno de sus otros "alteregos" en el foro, no le gustaba el hecho de que los extranjeros no son una carga para la CCSS. No me diga que no se acuerda.

Eso no es de un artículo de La Nación que compara cifras obsoletas con cifras nuevas para saltar a esa conclusión?

 

[Machaca]

The Bell Curve es pseudociencia, pero no es la fuente de esta controversia.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

estos son datos verificables (hasta donde tengo conocimiento).

 

[Maleante.]

Eso no es de un artículo de La Nación que compara cifras obsoletas con cifras nuevas para saltar a esa conclusión?

Más allá de que las cifras sean obsoletas, lo cual es absurdo teniendo en cuenta la evidencia demográfica del verdadero crecimiento de la población inmigrante(no el de la percepción acomodadiza), así como el contexto histórico(ya desde ese entonces y mucho antes se hablaba de cargas asociadas a la migración); lo cierto es que el peso de la prueba recae sobre los que hacen la afirmación y no al revés. La "obsoletitud" de esas cifras no prueban su punto de que los inmigrantes son una carga para el seguro.

Yo no tengo que demostrar que su percepción subjetiva sea falsa, sino que usted tiene que demostrar que su afirmación va más allá de su percepción subjetiva, lo he repetido miles de veces; ustedes deben dar una prueba que sea contrastable intersubjetivamente. Ese es un principio básico de la postura escéptica.

En ese sentido, se descartan todos los alegatos tipo "fui a la CCSS y había un montón de nicas haciendo fila", "el hermano de mi cuñada trabaja en la CCSS y dice que la mitad de la gente que atienden son nicas".

Por tal razón yo considere válido que usted desechara como pruebas en su contra las opiniones de una forista que había conocido negros muy inteligentes en la U.

Esto a pesar de que pienso que los enfoques "monoparametrizados" de inteligencia son obsoletos.

La percepción subjetiva de la forista simplemente no es una objeción válida, ni lo es la suya ni la de los "expertos" en "asuntos migratorios".

 

[OCP2]

Más allá de que las cifras sean obsoletas, lo cual es absurdo teniendo en cuenta la evidencia demográfica del verdadero crecimiento de la población inmigrante(no el de la percepción acomodadiza), así como el contexto histórico(ya desde ese entonces y mucho antes se hablaba de cargas asociadas a la migración); lo cierto es que el peso de la prueba recae sobre los que hacen la afirmación y no al revés. La "obsoletitud" de esas cifras no prueban su punto de que los inmigrantes son una carga para el seguro.

Son estimaciones muy toscas, en realidad no hay forma de saber la magnitud de la población de ilegales acá ni afirmar que el crecimiento de dicha población es vegetativa.

Los que tendrían que probar que no son carga serían propiamente los xenófilos que afirman lo contrario. Y no es una percepción subjetiva mía sino de trabajadores de la Caja con los cuales he interactuado, es casi unánime el asunto.

Los nicas repetidamente abusan del sistema acudiendo a servicios de emergencias para cuestiones no urgentes. No hay cifras como tales PERO en el sitio de la CCSS se aprecia que la cantidad de emergencias no urgentes es altísima en cualquier ciudad donde abundan nicas, por ejemplo Matina o Sarapiquí.

Otro detalle es que una de cada cinco emergencias urgentes de nicas corresponde a partos.

Si no hay estudios no me voy a poner a diseñar una encuesta para postear en un foro de internet, en este caso lo que hay son hipótesis, lo admito, pero con algo de sustento aunque sea empírico e indirecto.

En ese sentido, se descartan todos los alegatos tipo "fui a la CCSS y había un montón de nicas haciendo fila", "el hermano de mi cuñada trabaja en la CCSS y dice que la mitad de la gente que atienden son nicas".

Ok pero en este caso no se intenta contradecir a estudios con empiricismo o subjetividad.

 

[Maleante.]

No crean que estoy dejando las discusiones botadas, lo que pasa es que estoy un toque tallado ahorita, pero bueno, sigamos.

Los que tendrían que probar que no son carga serían propiamente los xenófilos que afirman lo contrario. .

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.

Y no es una percepción subjetiva mía sino de trabajadores de la Caja con los cuales he interactuado, es casi unánime el asunto

Weasel words is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.....

Examples​

• "A growing body of evidence..."[11] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
• "People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
• "It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?)
• "Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
• "Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)
• "It stands to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above)
• "Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)
• "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
• "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
• "Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
• "It has been mentioned that..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)
• "Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
• "Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular wisdom" above, and "It is known that" below)
• "It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)
• "Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when—who says so?)
• "It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?)
• "It was noted that..." (A commonly used start of a line by Auditors with poor workpapers or little evidence)
• "Our product is so good, it was even given away in celebrity gift bags." (True, perhaps, but not relevant.)
• "See why more of our trucks are sold in Southern California than in any other part of the country." (Southern California is a big vehicle market.)
• "Nobody else's product is better than ours." (What is the evidence of this?)
• "Studies show..." (what studies?)
• "(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?)
• "Some argue..." (who?)
• "Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)
• "More than seventy percent..." (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?)
• "The vast majority..." (All, more than half—how many?)

Aquí estamos ante un vulgar argumento a partir de la ignorancia, "sustentado" con un poco de "weasel words".

"Personal de la CCSS con el que he interactuado....". ¿Es eso corroborable? y aun siéndolo, ¿qué estamos probando con eso?

Las opiniones de los "científicos" con respecto a ciertos fenómenos poco importan a la hora de demarcar entre qué es ciencia y qué no lo es, lo importante es seguir el método.

Si no hay estudios no me voy a poner a diseñar una encuesta para postear en un foro de internet, en este caso lo que hay son hipótesis, lo admito, pero con algo de sustento aunque sea empírico e indirecto.

Bueno, ya admite que lo suyo son "hipótesis"; eso es ganancia. Sin embargo a pesar de que en términos "coloquiales" es válido hablar de "hipótesis", lo cierto es que estos alegatos técnicamente hablando no son más que especulaciones.

Las especulaciones son válidas no cabe duda, lo que no es válido es convertirlas en santa palabra por la única razón de que mucha gente las cree, o lo que es peor, quiere creerlas.

 

[OCP2]

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.

Justamente, no se llega a comprobar en ningún momento que los nicas y los nicas ilegales son una carga "neutra" para la CCSS.

Por otro lado hay evidencia anecdótica que apunta a lo contrario.

Weasel words is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.....

Examples
"A growing body of evidence..."[11] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
"People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
"It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?)
"Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
"Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)
"It stands to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above)
"Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)
"I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
"Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
"It has been mentioned that..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)
"Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
"Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular wisdom" above, and "It is known that" below)
"It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)
"Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when—who says so?)
"It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?)
"It was noted that..." (A commonly used start of a line by Auditors with poor workpapers or little evidence)
"Our product is so good, it was even given away in celebrity gift bags." (True, perhaps, but not relevant.)
"See why more of our trucks are sold in Southern California than in any other part of the country." (Southern California is a big vehicle market.)
"Nobody else's product is better than ours." (What is the evidence of this?)
"Studies show..." (what studies?)
"(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?)
"Some argue..." (who?)
"Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)
"More than seventy percent..." (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?)
"The vast majority..." (All, more than half—how many?)

Usted ha tocado el tema con tan siquiera algún@ funcionari@ de la Caja? La percepción es bastante generalizada.

Bueno, ya admite que lo suyo son "hipótesis"; eso es ganancia. Sin embargo a pesar de que en términos "coloquiales" es válido hablar de "hipótesis", lo cierto es que estos alegatos técnicamente hablando no son más que especulaciones.

Las especulaciones son válidas no cabe duda, lo que no es válido es convertirlas en santa palabra por la única razón de que mucha gente las cree, o lo que es peor, quiere creerlas.

No he dicho que no son hipótesis, claramente lo son.

Sin embargo nuevamente no es razonable presumir que se tenga que ejecutar un estudio o apelar a un estudio existente para todo lo que se afirma.

Y antes que copy pastee argument from authority:

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

La fuente es bastante informal sí pero lo insto a tan siquiera tocar el tema con alguien que trabaja en centros de atención antes de saltar a conclusiones tipo xenófilas.

 

[Maleante.]

Justamente, no se llega a comprobar en ningún momento que los nicas y los nicas ilegales son una carga "neutra" para la CCSS.

Buen intento, pero no.

Yo no le tengo que demostrar que cualquier cosa que usted se saque del culo sea falsa.

El peso de la prueba recae sobre el que hace la afirmación, punto.

Igualmente le puedo replicar que usted no me ha comprobado que sean una carga.

Por otro lado hay evidencia anecdótica que apunta a lo contrario.

Las anécdotas no son "evidencia". Vaya a algún laboratorio de la UCR con esa estupidez para que vea como se le cagan de la risa.

¿Qué experimento de control hay en una anécdota?

¿Qué garantía hay de que el observador no este terriblemente viciado con prejuicios cognitivos?

El observador en cuestión puede sobredimensionar la "evidencia" que apoye su tesis y desechar aquella que la contradiga. Si no hay una "revisión por pares", aunque en este caso sea incipiente, no podemos simplemente creerle a sus hipotéticos informantes de la CCSS.

Para evitar ese tipo de cuestiones es que existen instituciones como El Estado de la Nación, el INEC, el Centro Centroamericano de Población, etc..

Usted ha tocado el tema con tan siquiera algún@ funcionari@ de la Caja? La percepción es bastante generalizada.

Sí, y ¿qué con eso?

Algunos están de acuerdo conmigo(los más "letrados" curiosamente), otros piensan igual que ud(la mayoría). Del mismo modo, la gente que conozco incurre en terribles sesgos a la hora de contar sus anécdotas. Por ejemplo, enfermeras me han dicho varias veces(incluso en este foro alguien ha repetido esa tontera), que en CR de cada 10 partos, 7 son de madres nicaragüenses; otras dicen que la mitad, otras dicen que la mayoría, y así sucesivamente. Sin embargo, si ud se mete a ver las cifras que maneja la CCSS, se tiene que en realidad poco más de 10% de los partos son de madres nicas. EN ese sentido, se tiene que los empleados en cuestión no están siendo objetivos en sus apreciaciones.

Y esto no aplica únicamente para el caso de los servicios de salud. Por motivo de las elecciones, una vez un taxista me dijo que en CR habían 500 mil nicas inscritos. También me dijo que OAS los nacionalizaba masivamente para que votarán por liberación, y que la razón por la que el gobierno es tan "tímido" con la inmigración es porque a OAS le sirve que vengan nicas a recoger caña.

Pero bueno, la cuestión es que el número de extranjeros en total inscritos era poco más de 38mil, de los cuales poco más de la mitad eran nicas. El taxista y su anécdota tienen un pequeño porcentaje de error de 2500%.

La cuestión aquí es que todos(bueno, casi todos) estamos de acuerdo con que el taxista está mamando cuando decide soltar semejante yeguada sin ningún sustento, sin la necesidad de apelar a los verdaderos datos.

La fuente es bastante informal sí pero lo insto a tan siquiera tocar el tema con alguien que trabaja en centros de atención antes de saltar a conclusiones tipo xenófilas.

Ya le respondí arriba.

Solo queda aclarar que a pesar de que este espacio es de mero ocio y no tiene ninguna repercusión sobre las decisiones que se tomen en la CCSS, lo cierto es que al discutir esta situación estamos al mismo tiempo hablando de la conveniencia de implementar X o Y política pública, y en ese sentido, no ha de haber espacio para consideraciones de la lógica "informal".

Igualmente, si de falacias de autoridad estamos hablando, qué le parecen las opiniones del gerente FINANCIERO de la CCSS, citadas en el artículo que estamos discutiendo.

 

[oscarza]

Como bien lo dice el autor de la cita textual "se repite el discurso oficial desde el siglo XIX ". El creernos un país "blanco" automáticamente nos da licencia para despreciar la herencia aborígen que también corre por nuestras venas (salvo excepciones), válidando únicamente la innegable influencia europea.

De todos modos ni los españoles son 100% blancos, recordemos la invacion musulmana en la península iberica...