Close Reading

Bro on the bike is a white trash liar especially on the whole Africa IQ thing. He is referring to claims made by a debunked scientist called Richard Lynn. "major academic critiques have accused Richard Lynn of deliberate bias and systematic misrepresentation to fit a specific ideological agenda. Independent researchers have found that he consistently selected data that favored his preconceived conclusions while ignoring contradictory evidence. Evidence of Systematic Bias Peer-reviewed analyses by researchers such as Jelte Wicherts identified several patterns suggesting intentional distortion in Lynn's work: Cherry-picking Low Scores: Lynn was found to have systematically excluded studies that showed higher IQ averages in African countries. He reportedly ignored every available study reporting an average IQ above 85 for African samples. Misrepresentation of Samples: In one "egregious" example for Equatorial Guinea, Lynn assigned a national IQ of 59 based on a single study of children who were in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain, not a representative group from the country itself. Inconsistent Selection Criteria: Critics noted that Lynn's only consistent rule for including a study appeared to be the final score; lower scores were more likely to be included regardless of the sample's health or representativeness. Ideological Motivation Experts and organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) argue that Lynn's work was not impartial science but was motivated by white nationalist and eugenicist ideologies: "Race Realism": Lynn was a long-time advocate of "race science," a fringe field that attempts to use biological data to justify racial hierarchies. Political Agenda: He openly argued that nations with high IQs must "subjugate or eliminate" lower-IQ groups to maintain dominance. He also advocated for the breakup of the U.S. into racial ethno-states and promoted anti-immigration and eugenics policies. Funding Ties: Much of his work was supported by the Pioneer Fund, an organization founded by Nazi sympathizers to promote "race betterment" and white supremacy. Scientific Consequences As a result of these documented flaws, the academic community has largely rejected his datasets: Revoked Status: In 2018, Ulster University revoked Lynn's emeritus status due to the "racist and sexist" nature of his work. Formal Rejection: The European Human Behavior and Evolution Association issued a formal statement in 2020 advising all researchers to stop using Lynn’s data, labeling it "unsound" and "scientifically unreliable". Publisher Reviews: As of late 2024 and 2025, major academic publishers like Elsevier have initiated comprehensive reviews of his published research due to mounting evidence of its "fundamentally flawed" and "misleading" nature. "

Your research it flawed, I live in London not to far from Brampton, I worked for Tim Hortons for 10 years and quite because the company is awful to their employees, race has nothing to do with it.

I think Canada economy is not as flawed as this video propose. Instead I would say that Canada as develop a strange equilibrium by surfing on the American economy. It does not need to take risk : to be entrepreneurial, to pay for research. AKA, Canada is out sourcing the risk out of its economy and I wouldn't be surprise if Canada is always performing relatively better when recessions happen.

Many leave their own country, and come to Canada BECAUSE of their dislikes; extremism, culture, religion, laws, identity and in some cases backwards thinking; attempt to turn what we in society would consider as sexist, and discriminatory in some examples….\n\n…however when those same individuals finally achieve citizenship, or in some cases this starts (attempt to change Canadian law(s)) before obtaining citizenship, making moves to force the above, everything they despised, hated or disliked about their own country, into this new country ? Its like, the expectation is that we assimilate to them, not that they assimilate to their new chosen country??\n\nIt appears in some cases, going as far as attempting to rationalize why the the very thing they left their own country for, should now be a part of or have a place in Canadian society….where in any place in the World does this happen? Would it happen? Can you imagine, if I were a guest in someone else’s home, being invited over for dinner, but they had rules…like taking off your shoes when entering their home…or demanded they change their menu that they worked hard making for me to eat..or that I do not put my feet up in the coffee table or furniture…but I said, screw that, I don’t agree with their rules..I’m just going to do what I want! What would be the outcome do you think if I were to disrespect their rules?\n\nWhen Canadians have the audacity to say NO, we’re not interested in adopting …the rules/laws of the country they just abandoned…we’re now somehow insulted, or angered the guest? …the same Canada that has welcomed, provided safety, roof over their heads, food on the table, an education for their children, and provided access to our medical (albeit far from perfect) infrastructure.\n\nTo stomp their feet, bang their fist on the table when discovered that it’s expected to take four years of your life to become a doctor (which btw if you’re smart enough to become a doctor, you should be smart enough to of researched the expectations, PRIOR to coming to Canada) in the Country that YOU have chosen to spend the rest of their lives in, to have to work in a job to help support you and your families transitions,…imho, is NOT an unreasonable ask….that 4-5 years of their next 40-50+ ? Well, if that is considered a hardship, then maybe they need to rethink their intent. Maybe, the grass WAS greener in their former Country?!! \n\nI think to expect or demand to just step into or handed on a silver platter all the goodies without having to except to take the not so good…is imho ignorant, arrogant and selfish.\n\nEven with our flaws, Canada is one of the best places to live on the planet. It’s takes hard work, investment and community to make/keep Canada

Psychology student here. In the interest of accurate information, I would like to point out some flaws I find with some of the studies in this documentary and question the conclusions reached. I understand that CBC Marketplace are not personality psychologists and therefore cannot be expected to produce the same quality of work as a scientist. However, I think it is worthwhile to think critically about the information in the media that we consume. I am also open to anyone who wants to engage in debating the contents of this documentary.\n\n\nThe following are some notes I took while watching the documentary outlining the individual hypotheses of the studies I think are flawed and descriptions of their respective accompanying errors. \n\n\nThere are three possible research questions, and thereby dependent variables, being answered by the apartment hunting studies.\n1. If there is no discrimination between the white man and the first-nations man, then they should get equal treatment, including quotes and availability, when apartment hunting. \na. Could the gender of the landlord be a confounding variable (perhaps men are more discriminatory than women)? \n \n2. If there is no discrimination between the white man and the first-nations man between Toronto, Montreal, Regina, and Victoria, then they should get equal treatment, including quotes and availability, when apartment hunting. \na. Could total apartments visited be a confounding variable? (4 in Toronto, 3 in Montreal, Regina, and Victoria) \nb. Could the gender of the landlord be a confounding variable (perhaps men are more discriminatory than women)? \nc. They only showed the black man apartment hunting in some of the trials. I am considering him out of the study for consistency purposes. The first-nations man is the only one who got unfair treatment in the footage of apartment hunting. \n \n3. Possible hypothesis: If male landlords/agents are more discriminatory than female landlords/agents, then the white man and the first-nations man will get different treatment at different Canadian apartments in equally diverse cities. \na. Don’t know all the information about the genders of the landlords/agents, not all the footage is shown, but the ones where they get ripped off are male. The others shown are female. The remaining interactions are not shown.\n\n\nThere are also some factors that may have influenced the racial bias survey and, in my estimation, rendered it scientifically unreliable.\n\n\n1. The bias survey and accompanying tests at the CBC attributed the differences between the studies to unconscious racism. What if it was just due to familiarity with certain racial groups over others? \na. The black participants had no bias between European-American and African Americans, supposedly indicating no racism, while the white and first-nations participants did, supposedly indicating racism. Is it possible that another interpretation of this result is that bias is a function of familiarity: that we are comfortable with the majority demographic in the geographical location we live in, as well as our own kind. Therefore, the black guys are less biased against black people due to being both black and living in a white majority demographic? \nb. The participants took the survey knowing the objectives of the researchers was to study racial discrimination. They might have influenced the answers they gave \nc. Whether the participants agreed with identity politics or not was a confounding factor that was not controlled . You can only be racially unbiased biased if you think that racial identity is a means of accurately viewing the world. People who do not believe in the existence of identity politics may answer the questions quite differently, which could be a different reason for the results.\nd. I took the study myself. The words that participants were required to match were a mix of adjectives and nouns. It is known within psychology that nouns have higher levels of imagery. This was not properly controlled and therefore is another confounding variable. \n \nAll the other studies looked fine to me. I welcome any discussion on my observations.

CBC, I'm disappointed. You have to be aware that the Implicit Association Test is a flawed test. Do some research, and you will find that outside of the soft sciences, it does not hold water. It is not a repeatable test. Get one person to do the same test every day for 30 days. See how things change. \nAdditionally, that written survey is craftily put together to get what it wants. Just look at the language.