User:James A. Donald

An encyclopedia that anyone can edit is going to have grave problems in reporting controversial topics.

The history of communism, the Soviet Union and the cold war, as reported by Wickepedia, is in substantial part commie propaganda and revisionist history, and I suspect that any attempt to remedy this would result in edit wars that would reduce, rather than improve, the quality of information. The article on containment and the truman doctrine is accurate and uncontroversial history, but the article on NSC-68, which is a synonym for containment and covers the same events, is commie bunkum at the time I write this. If one article is true, the other article must be false.

I doubt the Wickepedia project is well suited to such topics, and do not intend to spend too much of my energy writing stuff that some lying scum might promptly “correct”. If I write something good, should go on my web page, not Wickepedia's. But when I see a particularly untruthful article, I am provoked to correct it.

James A. Donald 08:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest edit war, Brandon Darby

Edit war under way on Nazism page. I really should not waste my time, but nonetheless, I am. An idiot, "neon white" wants the Nazism page to say that Nazis were conservatives. Now one can make a case that the Nazis were right wing. One can even make a case that they were pro capitalist, if only in the sense that they wanted capitalists to serve the state, when a lot of the voters wanted to slaughter the bourgeoisie. But conservative!

James A. Donald 02:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Committed identity: a3882087eafe005c6e47b08574f6b0fcf3805874e8173985011ae4a5e67160d7c8065f33adb6d208bbc7f1fdffda177c05a245a05a1134c56dee69c60059a17d is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

In the seventies, Darwinism became politically incorrect. It then became necessary to attribute common descent to Darwin and deny that Lamarck proposed it, so that the politically correct could claim to be Darwinists while rejecting Darwinism.

The earlier interpretation was :

A Definition of Darwinism. — For the meaning of Darwinism we may adopt the excellent definition of the Century Dictionary:. "That which is specially and properly Darwinian, in the general theory of Evolution, relates to the manner, or methods, or means by which living organisms are developed, or evolved, from one another; namely, the inherent susceptibility and tendency to variation according to conditions of environment ; the preservation and perfection of organs best suited to the needs of the individual in its struggle for existence; the perpetuation of the more favorably organized beings, and the destruction of those less gifted to survive ; the operation of natural selection, in which sexual selection is an important factor; and the general proposition that at any given time any given organism represents the result of the foregoing factors, acting in opposition to the hereditary tendency to adhere to the type, or 'breed true'"

The Lamarckian Theory of Evolution. — "The portion of the theory of Development [Evolution] which maintains the common descent of all species of animals and plants from the simplest common original forms might, therefore, in honor of its eminent founder, and with full justice, be called Lamarckian ; on the other hand, the theory of Selection, or breeding, might be justly called Darwinisim being that portion of the theory of Development [Evolution] which shows us in what way, and why, the different species of organisms have developed from those simplest primary forms."

The Century Cyclopedia defines Lamarckism as:

the general body of doctrine propounded by the French Naturalist J.B.P.A. de Monet de Lamarck (1744-1829): the theory of evolution as maintained by him at the beginning of the nineteenth century to the effect that all plants and animals are descended from a common primitive form of life. In its fundamental principles and essential features Lamarckism differs from Darwinism in assuming that changes resulted from appetency and the active exertion of the organism.

Fun hate facts about the bell curve

normal distribution, probability of cases having value x

${\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi \sigma ^{2}}}}e^{-{\frac {(x-\mu )^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}}$

cumulative normal distribution, proportion of cases x or more

$\int _{x}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi \sigma ^{2}}}}e^{-{\frac {(y-\mu )^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}}\,dy$

cumulative normal distribution at the extremes, x one or two standard deviations above the mean

${\begin{array}{lcr}&\int _{x}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi \sigma ^{2}}}}e^{-{\frac {(y-\mu )^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}}\,dy\\=&\left[{\frac {\sigma ^{2}}{(x-\mu ){\sqrt {2\pi \sigma ^{2}}}}}+O\left({\frac {1}{(x-\mu )^{3}}}\right)\right]e^{-{\frac {(x-\mu )^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}}\end{array}}$

$\left[{\frac {\sigma }{(x-\mu ){\sqrt {2\pi }}}}+O\left({\frac {1}{(x-\mu )^{3}}}\right)\right]e^{-{\frac {(x-\mu )^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}}$

For x more than one or two standard deviations, the following approximation is good enough:

${\frac {\sigma }{(x-\mu ){\sqrt {2\pi }}}}\;e^{-{\frac {(x-\mu )^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}}$

Notice that the function falls of hyperexponentially, in other words, very abruptly.

This makes it possible to deduce facts about people's characteristics from their race in particular individual cases, and their race from their characteristics in particular individual cases.

It follows from hyperexponential decay that if you select a subgroup from the population that meets some high standard, for example the entry requirements of a university course, or fails some low standard, for example performs an act that is both stupid and criminal, then the vast majority of those selected will only just meet the standard.

Thus, if you apply affirmative action, and have one standard for whites, and another standard for blacks, chances are that all the whites will be better than any of the blacks.

Even though there is a lot of overlap in the population as a whole, in the selected category, very little overlap, so chances are that in any small group of the category, such as students at a class, every person who got in on his merits will be better than any single person who got in on affirmative action.

Thus for example, a class of fifty students, six of them black. None of the white essays are plagiarized, all of the black essays are plagiarized.

Conversely, if you look at the work of a group where they were selected for being good enough, that work is is not good enough, you can be pretty sure he belongs to the category benefited by affirmative action. You can tell the skin color of Michelle Obama from the fact that her Princeton University senior thesis is incoherent and full of spelling and grammar errors. Obviously, you cannot conclude that someone is black from the fact that their essay is full of spelling and grammar errors, but from the fact that it is senior thesis at an ivy league university, and nonetheless is full of errors, you can tell that they are black.

If a crime is violent, you cannot necessarily know the perpetrator is black. If a crime is stupid, you cannot necessarily know the perpetrator is black. But if a crime is violent and stupid, you know the perpetrator was black.

Two women attempt to pass a counterfeit $50 bill at McDonalds. The cashier knocks it back. One of them punches the cashier, a large male. He retreats. They jump the counter. He flees all the way to the corner. Then they attack him in the corner. He loses control, beats the crap out of both of them, damn near kills one of them. Guess the race.