<hurr Imma ignore the context of two phrases to create a false dichotomy
It's the same fucking sentence, you idiot. You just don't know what a sentence fragment is.
>Stereotypes are a widely held belief or image of something or someone that is somewhat oversimplistic. This does not exclude it being largely accurate about a general population.
<Stereotypes are widely held beliefs[,] or images of something or someone[,] that [are] somewhat oversimplistic[;] this does not exclude [them] being largely accurate about a general population.
<Stereotypes are widely held beliefs that are somewhat oversimplistic, however this does not preclude them from being largely accurate about a general population.
It's the same fucking sentence, and you contradicted yourself. "muh context"
>Are you a jew? Have you lived with them? Talked with them? Read their literature and partaken in their culture? I fucking live it.
And you base your stereotypes of all Jews on your tiny lived experience in one tiny region of the world.
>inb4 I'm a traveling Torah salesman
Most Jews I've met have been nothing like the American Jewish stereotype.
>What the fuck are you even trying to say?
You're acting all smart, yet you couldn't even understand a simple point. My point is that grades, tests and hierarchical education are human inventions, that do not exist in every single human society. Societies without these things would not be able to form the stereotype of Asians being smarter because they might not have the concept of "smarter". If you think the world is some sort of homogenous place, you need to get off the internet and walk around a bit.
>I'm an oldfag who was here since the days of Aidan-Chaya poster and before /leftpol/ split on 8ch, piss off
And in all that time you managed to learn fuck all and still remain a retard. Why are you even here?
>That makes 90% of all posters on this site /pol/ Good job at creating an utterly meaningless determination
>Your bourg moral-faggotry isn't socialism
<this thing> isn't socialism
You keep talking like a /pol/yp.
>It's about the grades and measurements we see given as statistics according to ethnicity/culture you twit.
All bullshit, have more to do with economics, child nutrition, home environment and social environment, than it does with "ethnicity/culture".
>Or do you deny that Asian people score higher in IQ tests, grades, scores, college qualifications etc.?
I deny that if what you say is true, it is due to genetics and "culture" (poorly defined term in this conversation, can mean anything). They score better for a number of reasons: their educational systems focus on test-taking, so they're not "smarter", just better at taking tests; a lot of this info comes from Asian immigrants in North America, which obviously selects for the well-off (who can afford such an expensive move), therefore the children will have better educational opportunities; and so on.
Besides, Estonia ranks better in math, science and reading than Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.
Only several Asian countries appear on top of the list, but what about the rest? Vietnma, Laos, Cambodia, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Philippines, etc. do they have these "smart Asian" stereotypes attached to them?
Or wait a minute, are these stereotypes just based on successful immigrant groups in the United States? :o What a crazy idea! Think about it.
>Most people who talk about the smart-asian stereotype are also aware that it comes with the "overbearing parent" stereotype, which is why we have "dishonor on your family" humor in media relating to Asians.
You're basing your arguments and knowledge on fucking Hollywood movies.
>The material dialectics of society progress in similar manners, and while there are differences, they all share certain traits and cultural features of some variability.
>material dialectics of society progress
What, pray, are the "material dialectics of society", and how do they "progress"?
>inb4 they progress in similar manners
>China also imitated the USSR, and while its economy has become revisionist, it's education system is not.
Marx never wrote on education (unless in some letter in passing that I haven't seen) and I don't know any early Marxist literature on education. So how can education be "revisionist" or "non-revisionist"? Oh that's write, you're a retarded /pol/yp who doesn't know what the words he's using mean. Don't you fucking get that we're not your stupid fascist friends and you can't fool people here just by using leftist terminology. "Materialism", "dialectics", "revisionism", all these words have definitions, and when you use them incorrectly it stands out like a sore thumb. LURK MOAR
>The General trend observable in education, business and real life is that Asian people achieve better results.
>general trends in real life
And how do we measure "real life"? God you're so fucking stupid, it's unbelievable.
>Fuck me this is tutoring highschool students all over again.
Stupid, and transparent. Kid, it's fucking obvious you're a kid, because no one talks about "measuring real life" or "measuring business". Those are absolutely silly claims made by an immature mind.
>trends and outliers
Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? "trends and outliers" fucking lol
>They are published for public viewing
You think student grades are published for public viewing? Lol, where did you see that, Starship Troopers?
>I shan't engage with you longer after this post
Of course you won't, because you keep embarrassing yourself. I wouldn't either if I were you.
>however I will say that blah blah blah
Didn't read that part, fuck you.