This measure could be: units of distance between even quite small populations, as a percentage of the 'miles' of genetic distance between them. Leaving out of account the specifically anti-Caucasian
aspect of the pro-diversity of officialdom and its professoriate, the distance units can be the same for each group compared. When two groups with maximum genetic distance between them are at minimum spatial separation, we have the greater part of that 'diversity' which we're asked to celebrate as somehow creating value in itself. Adding distance of points of average IQ between the two groups compared (notional miles consisting of a percentage of the maximum IQ difference between groups), there may then be a close-to-universal measure of what that diversity is, which is presented as value in the above way...[continued in comments section below]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
[continued from above post]...Nearly so, that is, except that one never hears of how Japan or South Korea face catastrophic deprivation of diversity-value, for not finding out how to bring in large numbers of Africans to settle in their largest cities. In spite of that perhaps not permanent, inconsistency; one feature that stands out is the tendency for valuing diversity in the above sense, to be much like the wish to increase conflict between the groups juxtaposed. Beyond this, would be a measure of the resistance to despotism of the groups which have this pro-diversity urged on them more than others. If all these measures together would explain the prevalence of pro-diversity indoctrinations, this would yield a clue as to the objective, which would be power won through enhancement of conflict. That is, where we have self-aware, high-ability leaders of such pro-diversity manipulations.
Post a Comment