Please prove me wrong about black people

[Vale]

I'm at a point where I can no longer deny it, and it would be against my nature as an INTP to do so...I am beginning to believe that there are genetic differences between the races, and that by and large the state of black people worldwide today has little to do with environmental factors and much to do with innate characteristics. This started with Hurricane Katrina; I observed blacks in the media and began to wonder why, after so many decades of affirmative action and aid that they were still disproportionately in poverty and disproportionately criminals...I checked out The Bell Curve and found the statistics difficult to contend.

Trust me when I say I don't want this to be true. I've always had a liberal stance towards the races, but now that the facts are in front of me, I feel as though if I continued to have such a stance I'd only be lying to myself.

As for the "statistics" I'm talking about, I found this link:

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

The basic conclusions are that, on average, the highest IQ's are held by Asians (106), whites have slightly lower than that (100), and blacks have significantly (a standard deviation) lower than whites (85). IQ does not generally change considerably over one's lifetime and is mostly inherited. A study showed that adopted black children raised in well-off white households still had IQ's around 85. And the especially awful thing is that blacks' average IQ of 85 is still a standard deviation higher than Sub-Saharan Africans' average IQ of 70. Low IQ is directly linked to lack of success, criminality, broken marriages, and early pregnancy.

I know this is a subject none of us want to talk about, but if anyone can find statistics that support environmental, rather than genetic, factors as being the cause of the IQ gap, please do so.

[headfonez]

thats too bad. So who likes pizza?

edit: Ill say that, yeah if "black" people are dumb and "asians" are smart and its hereditary, then what does that mean to the average induvidual.

If its true its true, if false, its false. thats that. or was this post intended for ego fueling/deflating?

[Nighthawk]

Very touchy subject. I also read The Bell Curved and was shocked at what it portrayed. I still don't quite know what to think about it, as I've believed my entire life that intelligence is not race specific. My heart tells me there are no genetic differences ... but if The Bell Curve is right, then we have a big problem on our hands. How do we correct for an IQ imbalance, if one exists? Also, how do we keep it from becoming yet another measure of discrimination?

[Zephyrus055]

Black INTPs, like on this forum, are cool though.

[Madrigal]

I think you're just another gullible redneck reading the racist news, and trying to come up with stupid statistics to back up your 'fear' (or not? Maybe you just think this is fun, to act like the bewildered little girl, in the face of some kind of 'evidence'???) that you might be a racist. Why don't you analyze things with your own mind? I'm not even going to bother with you anymore than this.

[ptGatsby]

First look;

Many of the things quoted there have been proven to have a correlation not with race, but other factors (ie: Crime, etc).

Also, what IQ test are we talking? Poor get less education, and asians have a superior education system than the west... at least, for certain tests, like patterns and/or spatial sense.

Could be that simple.

[headfonez]

the funny thing is, if someone is stupid, they are too stupid to know it.

its the same phenomenon with america. If you survey the average american on their social status, most believe they are in the middle class while many are at or near the poverty line.

If you think youre smart, then to you you are and you cant worry about something (like being unintelligent because of heredity) being a problem if you dont believe it exists.

[kwis]

Well theres always the factor of test bias. There are a million ways to define intelligence and the test only tests a few. Even if they are less testably intelligent, I like to think they make up for it in other ways(penis size). The people who lack the traits that a culture requires will always be descriminated against.

[headfonez]

Black INTPs, like on this forum, are cool though.
and the ones in real life arent.

[Madrigal]

Sh*t, why don't I just stay away from these threads. That was probably over-the-top. Whatever. I'm pissed.

[headfonez]

I'm at a point where I can no longer deny it, and it would be against my nature as an INTP to do so...I am beginning to believe that there are genetic differences between the races, and that by and large the state of black people worldwide today has little to do with environmental factors and much to do with innate characteristics. This started with Hurricane Katrina; I observed blacks in the media and began to wonder why, after so many decades of affirmative action and aid that they were still disproportionately in poverty and disproportionately criminals...I checked out The Bell Curve and found the statistics difficult to contend.

Trust me when I say I don't want this to be true. I've always had a liberal stance towards the races, but now that the facts are in front of me, I feel as though if I continued to have such a stance I'd only be lying to myself.

As for the "statistics" I'm talking about, I found this link:

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

The basic conclusions are that, on average, the highest IQ's are held by Asians (106), whites have slightly lower than that (100), and blacks have significantly (a standard deviation) lower than whites (85). IQ does not generally change considerably over one's lifetime and is mostly inherited. A study showed that adopted black children raised in well-off white households still had IQ's around 85. And the especially awful thing is that blacks' average IQ of 85 is still a standard deviation higher than Sub-Saharan Africans' average IQ of 70. Low IQ is directly linked to lack of success, criminality, broken marriages, and early pregnancy.

I know this is a subject none of us want to talk about, but if anyone can find statistics that support environmental, rather than genetic, factors as being the cause of the IQ gap, please do so.
How regularly do you wash your confederate flag? Are the stars still in good shape?

[Vale]

Very touchy subject. I also read The Bell Curved and was shocked at what it portrayed. I still don't quite know what to think about it, as I've believed my entire life that intelligence is not race specific. My heart tells me there are no genetic differences ... but if The Bell Curve is right, then we have a big problem on our hands. How do we correct for an IQ imbalance, if one exists? Also, how do we keep it from becoming yet another measure of discrimination?

I definitely don't want to put any of this information to use, because there are still plenty of intelligent, law-abiding blacks. I just want to know the truth, that's all.


I think you're just another gullible redneck reading the racist news, and trying to come up with stupid statistics to back up your 'fear' (or not? Maybe you just think this is fun, to act like the bewildered little girl, in the face of some kind of 'evidence'???) that you might be a racist. Why don't you analyze things with your own mind? I'm not even going to bother with you anymore than this.

I expected this kind of response, so I won't raise an eyebrow to it. Madrigal, I'm interested in the truth...I don't care how offensive or deviant it may be. I just want facts. If The Bell Curve is wrong, I'd sure like to know. I certainly will continue to look at everyone, no matter their race, on an individual basis (I'd rather congregate with a black INTP than another type of another race). What interests me, however, are averages. If you can't prove me wrong and can only insult me, you contribute nothing to this discussion.

[headfonez]

why do you want to know

[Alchemist]

I don't think it is so much genetics; it is culture. The "gangsta" "hoodlum" "white people hate us," ETC. ETC. and with these cultural factors... we see some things that are unintelligent, most definitely. Also, since more black people are poor. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on anything) They have less education. Also there are more black with one parent, poverty, etc. I own a liquor store, admittingly, the area around it is a diverse mix.. however, there are more black people running into that store than anyone else. These people are just not intelligent. You can tell they aren't, trust me. Sure, sure: You can just judge on a first impression. You can. So.. Point is: I think that because of the.. lesser resources of black people in the US, they have lower IQ scores, etc. Now, I'm not saying there aren't white people the same. Drive by a trailer park one day.. I kid! :)

[Vale]

why do you want to know

Isn't that a silly question to ask on an INTP forum?

[headfonez]

Isn't that a silly question to ask on an INTP forum?
are you referring to your topic?

youre asking if anyone has a time machine and found out if the 1st black man, 1st white man, 1st asian, had a certain different I.Q. IF youre wondering if I.Q. is hereditary, ask your parents.

and if you wanna know just to know, no one can "prove" anything.

[Sackanaka]

I'm sure many of us have thought of the issue too.

I like to think that it has more to do with the philosophies that are integrated into each ethnic identity.
For example, asians have always had a sense of honor and duty to uphold, and everything was done for the sake of the group. Any defect of the individual meant a defect of the group, and this was very shameful. Thus, high standards are always maintained, and those who don't meet the standards fall out of the group- adaption towards cream-o-the-crop.
Caucasians have an extensively developed cultural identity, with a rich background in science and philosophy. As a collective group across Europe, they had ups and downs- if we were back in the medieval ages, if we were looking from the viewpoint of aliens, we may believe that Europeans were barbaric and irrational, but ask someone with their group and the general consensus would probably differ.

Tribal countries typically haven't had a strong science background, environment probably did not favor the development of it. Thus there is different context for these tribal people compared to Europeans and Asians. The 'whatever works' perspective can be applied to any culture. At this point, no one is particularly inferior to the other unless external comparisons are made- the European would be better at scientific logic, the Asian would be better at working hard, and the Tribal would be better at surviving on sticks and rabbits. The generalizations are just to show my next point.

What happens when you take away a culture's philosophy? The way a culture had developed- strip it away by force, changing a group of people into a manner unnatural to typical cultural development- say, slavery. Within a very short time, a large group of people had to let go of their group identity and had to start over. Not only that, but had to adhere to a philosophy of the very group who had threatened their lives. This is just me speculating, but I think this has a grand impact on an ethnic group's development.
I think what happened to the Africans was a philosophical decapitation. Without its head, which was once full of ideals and moral codes of how to live, it has had to grow a new one within a few centuries. And things have not really gotten better. Civil rights is still relatively new in the course of their history, and worse yet there are bad philosophies being proposed- that Black people are fated to be dumb, poor, drug addicts, and on the streets. Listen to any random rap album- that's what the good deal are talking about. The "street way of life" is a strong cage that has been established and perpetuated in the culture. Is it because they're Black? No! It's because they're people who have lost a philosophy and are struggling to find one that works.

I may be wrong, but I'm not sure which argument is right. At least with my answer, humans are treated as equals, allowing for social homogeny amongst a culturally heterogeneous world. It's a lot more friendlier that way.

[Combat]

The guys who "prove" differences between races usually seem to start with the conclusions and then collect some statistics that appear to support those conclusions. Bad science, basically.

[jyakulis]

Well, I don't know if this holds at all but I remember in a Chris Rock comedy special saying that during slavery the law of the land was to kill any slave that could read. You read you die. The policy was only to keep the biggest and strongest slaves....and only breed those ones. Which he said is why you see black people dominating football, baseball, and basketball in america. But hey it's just comedy I don't know if there is any historical evidence to support it. It sort of makes sense though.

"America is great, for white people it's like the uncle that payed your way through college. For black people it's great too, but it's more like the uncle that payed your way through college and molested you growing up"
Chris Rock

[headfonez]

I'm at a point where I can no longer deny it, ...I am beginning to believe that there are genetic differences between the races

As of now, you have an opinion that people of recent african decent have a lower I Q than other races. Atleast you know the issue. Whether you want to follow your opinion will be your proof.

Sackana those are well thought and logically correct ideas.

[Vale]

Well, I don't know if this holds at all but I remember in a Chris Rock comedy special saying that during slavery the law of the land was to kill any slave that could read. You read you die. The policy was only to keep the biggest and strongest slaves....and only breed those ones. Which he said is why you see black people dominating football, baseball, and basketball in america. But hey it's just comedy I don't know if there is any historical evidence to support it. It sort of makes sense though.

I've heard of that theory, that only the strongest and least intelligent (and thusly, not beneficial to the tribe) Africans were plucked from their homeland to become slaves. But then, wouldn't Sub-Saharan Africa's average IQ be higher than American blacks'?

And there are environmental factors...I've heard of many cases of intelligent blacks being ridiculed for "acting white" (I seem to remember a black INTP on this forum complaining of that phenomenon). It would be nice to be able to homeschool, away from all cultural influence, a group of black, white, Asian, etc. children in identical households to get completely accurate statistics, but I doubt that is plausible.

I think most of us here subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution...The general consensus is that the human race began in Africa, and at one point a group of humans left Africa and then later split into the Caucasoid and Mongoloid groups, which branched into further subraces, each adapting to their respective environments. The Caucasoid and Mongoloid races would seem to be more closely related, since they came from the same group, the one that left Africa. Why is it so out of the realm of belief that human races, like the races of other species, would develop characteristics that would help them adapt to their environments?

[charred_heart]

I.Q of 85? That's retardation level. You can't possibly believe that the average black person is retarded!!!

About intelligence being affected by genes: I come from Sub-Saharan Africa.My mother is a sociology graduate, my father is a GP (doctor). Only 2 of my uncles work in the family business, the others are General Practitioners, surgeons plus 1 lawyer. I started my higher education at 16, so did my older brother and 2 sisters. My family has a long line of religous scholars and village elders. It was actually my grandfather, a village farmer, who enrolled his children into the british education system (set up by the then british empire) allowing them to gain scholarships in the U.K. Now how would a simple vegetable farmer who never left his village come up with such an idea and follow through with it? Only natural intelligence & common sense is the answer.

Let me tell you something: you cannot under any circumstances, link physical or mental prowess with race. You will be a very misguided person if you do that.

[Ivy]

As for the "statistics" I'm talking about, I found this link:

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

The basic conclusions are that, on average, the highest IQ's are held by Asians (106), whites have slightly lower than that (100), and blacks have significantly (a standard deviation) lower than whites (85). IQ does not generally change considerably over one's lifetime and is mostly inherited. A study showed that adopted black children raised in well-off white households still had IQ's around 85. And the especially awful thing is that blacks' average IQ of 85 is still a standard deviation higher than Sub-Saharan Africans' average IQ of 70. Low IQ is directly linked to lack of success, criminality, broken marriages, and early pregnancy.

Assuming those statistics are accurate (which I'm not ready to do, but for the sake of argument, let's) the fact that there may be a different average for sub-Saharan Africans from other blacks pretty much reinforces to me that any difference is cultural, not genetic. Poverty being as it is, and IQ tests being as they are, I think it's a slam dunk.

Hasn't the very idea of the "three world races" as a physiological phenomenon been pretty soundly debunked, anyway?

[YardGnome]

I'm at a point where I can no longer deny it, and it would be against my nature as an INTP to do so...I am beginning to believe that there are genetic differences between the races, and that by and large the state of black people worldwide today has little to do with environmental factors and much to do with innate characteristics. This started with Hurricane Katrina; I observed blacks in the media and began to wonder why, after so many decades of affirmative action and aid that they were still disproportionately in poverty and disproportionately criminals...I checked out The Bell Curve and found the statistics difficult to contend.

Trust me when I say I don't want this to be true. I've always had a liberal stance towards the races, but now that the facts are in front of me, I feel as though if I continued to have such a stance I'd only be lying to myself.

As for the "statistics" I'm talking about, I found this link:

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

The basic conclusions are that, on average, the highest IQ's are held by Asians (106), whites have slightly lower than that (100), and blacks have significantly (a standard deviation) lower than whites (85). IQ does not generally change considerably over one's lifetime and is mostly inherited. A study showed that adopted black children raised in well-off white households still had IQ's around 85. And the especially awful thing is that blacks' average IQ of 85 is still a standard deviation higher than Sub-Saharan Africans' average IQ of 70. Low IQ is directly linked to lack of success, criminality, broken marriages, and early pregnancy.

I know this is a subject none of us want to talk about, but if anyone can find statistics that support environmental, rather than genetic, factors as being the cause of the IQ gap, please do so.

You should talk to a friend of mine. Although he'd probably take offense to what you've just stated, or what you are thinking...

Regardless, he grew up in the middle of the Ghetto, in the same conditions the stereotype usually applies to. Yet he's shattered everything there is about the stereotype. From the music he listens to, to the fact that he attended a well renowned college. To his current job and social status.

[Vale]

Assuming those statistics are accurate (which I'm not ready to do, but for the sake of argument, let's) the fact that there may be a different average for sub-Saharan Africans from other blacks pretty much reinforces to me that any difference is cultural, not genetic. Poverty being as it is, and IQ tests being as they are, I think it's a slam dunk.

Not quite...It's been proposed that American blacks have higher IQ's than Sub-Saharan Africans because of better nutrition, and because, over time, they have mixed interracially with whites more than their African brethren. The studies weren't exclusive to "pure" blacks -- rather, they defined a "black" person as one who simply identified themself as black.


Hasn't the very idea of the "three world races" as a physiological phenomenon been pretty soundly debunked, anyway?

Care to link me to a site that supports this?


I.Q of 85? That's retardation level. You can't possibly believe that the average black person is retarded!!!

About intelligence being affected by genes: I come from Sub-Saharan Africa.My mother is a sociology graduate, my father is a GP (doctor). Only 2 of my uncles work in the family business, the others are General Practitioners, surgeons plus 1 lawyer. I started my higher education at 16, so did my older brother and 2 sisters. My family has a long line of religous scholars and village elders. It was actually my grandfather, a village farmer, who enrolled his children into the british education system (set up by the then british empire) allowing them to gain scholarships in the U.K. Now how would a simple vegetable farmer who never left his village come up with such an idea and follow through with it? Only natural intelligence & common sense is the answer.

Let me tell you something: you cannot under any circumstances, link physical or mental prowess with race. You will be a very misguided person if you do that.

70 is actually the level of borderline retardation. Again, if there is a study that supports American blacks having an average IQ different from 85, please post a link.

You must understand, I'm not saying that all black people conform to this average. Individuals still vary much more than races do.

[nomir_dva]

There are many characterisitcs that vary across ethnic groups; intelligence is not somehow immune from that possibility. That said, a difference of one standard deviation between whites and blacks (and another standard deviation between Jews and whites, as I've seen claimed by some questionable sources) sounds unrealistic. Cultural values are probably far more significant in determining who suceeds (especially since the concept of success is by no means universally consistent) in a society.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Not quite...It's been proposed that American blacks have higher IQ's than Sub-Saharan Africans because of better nutrition, and because, over time, they have mixed interracially with whites more than their African brethren. The studies weren't exclusive to "pure" blacks -- rather, they defined a "black" person as one who simply identified themself as black.



Care to link me to a site that supports this?



70 is actually the level of borderline retardation. Again, if there is a study that supports American blacks having an average IQ different from 85, please post a link.

You must understand, I'm not saying that all black people conform to this average. Individuals still vary much more than races do.


Sorry to burst your concrete bubble -


Blacks in this country tend to test lower because of poverty and other cultural reasons - not genetic. I have known blacks, pure blacks, that have no european influence that rank as the highest level intellectuals in the world (pure black as defined by your assertions that they have not mixed with other races because they are actually from Africa)


Culture - and I am not saying ethnic - I am saying culture has more of an effect on racial behavioral differences than genetics. DNA sequencing has proven that the DNA variance is to tight that the variance of the whole human race is less than the variance in a group of 20 chimps. This mean - any differences that we see are there because we want to see them.

[altblue]

I'm not sure if this is addressed yet, but I think it's all about self-selection. The original slaves that were brought to the States were generally the ones most disadvantaged (basically the ones allowed to get themselves caught or sold), and well, suffered 200 years of slavery, segregation, no education, etc. Remember that it was only in the 1960's that schools became more de-segregated, that's really not so long ago. Many Hispanics were also already here before they had their land taken from them. And the Asians and other immigrants that are here, are mostly here because their ancestors were smart enough and capable enough to immigrate to the States. They were not taken, they came here for a better life. People that can devise ways to form a new and better life in a completely foreign environment are probably generally smarter. Same kind of concept with Ethiopians (aka "real" Africans) that are here in the States. The ones that are able to get here tend to be pretty smart, nice, and quite good-looking. ;) But hey that's just my impression...

[Ivy]

Care to link me to a site that supports this?


(Re: the idea of 3 world races being debunked)
I first heard this in several of my anthropology classes, and a minute of googling yielded this: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/125/8/675



The Medicalization of Race
Scientific Legitimization of a Flawed Social Construct
Ritchie Witzig, MD, MPH

15 October 1996 | Volume 125 Issue 8 | Pages 675-679

The term "race" has many definitions, ranging from a family unit to a species, but in common and medical usage, defining "race" has meant separating Homo sapiens into three to six groups.This division of Homo sapiens into race taxons started in the 18th century, when the sciences of genetics and evolutionary biology were not yet invented. These disciplines have since shown that human race taxonomy has no scientific basis. Race categories are social constructs, that is, concepts created from prevailing social perceptions without scientific evidence. Despite modern proof that race is arbitrary biological fiction, racial taxons are still used widely in medical teaching, practice, and research. Human diversity is inconsistently taught in medical schools and erratically presented in medical texts. Race taxons have been "medicalized"; that is, race groupings have been legitimized by their use in medical literature and practice as acceptable descriptive labels that are integral to the proper diagnosis and treatment of disease in humans. Assumptions about disease that are made because a race has been assigned can result in important negative consequences for individual patients and inaccurate genetic inferences for populations.

In contrast, ethnicity is a concept that incorporates social, religious, linguistic, dietary, and other variables to identify individual persons and populations.Ethnicity may be able to impart clinical clues to diagnosis if the clinician taking the history is well informed and open minded. Ethnic boundaries are dynamic and imprecise, and a strict methodical approach to ethnicity that is equal to the approach required for the study of other variables is necessary if the concept of ethnicity is to be clinically useful.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of race as a way to classify large divisions of Homo sapiens originated with Carl von Linne (Linnaeus) [1]. Johann Blumenbach [2] was the first to use the word "race," and use of this word has remained largely unchanged in common and medical contexts. Von Linne, the Swedish taxonomist and botanist, was the first to place humans in a taxonomy of animals, in his Systema Naturae in 1758. He divided humans into four main groups on the basis of physical and psychological impressions: Europeans, who were "fair ... gentle, acute, inventive ... governed by laws"; Americans, who were "copper-coloured ... obstinate, content free ... regulated by customs"; Asiatics, who were "sooty ... severe, haughty, covetous ... governed by opinions"; and Africans, who were "black ... crafty, indolent, negligent ... governed by caprice" [1].
Blumenbach [2], the German anthropologist and anatomist, first used the word "race" in 1775 to classify humans into five divisions: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Blumenbach also coined the term "Caucasian" because he believed that the Caucasus region of Asia Minor produced "the most beautiful race of men" [2]. Both von Linne and Blumenbach stated that humans are one species, and the latter remarked on the arbitrary nature of his proposed categories [2].

These men were products and producers of the prejudices of their era, but it is remarkable how similar the concept and categories of race remain today, even after it has been widely documented that phenotypic and biochemical variations do not correlate simply with genotypic differences [3-5].

[Zephyrus055]

There are military and education statistics that suggest that blacks have a lower average IQ (85). However, the cause of this has been determined to be due almost entirely to environmental conditions. Randomly selected blacks raised in white families, for example, have been shown to have an IQ relatively comparable to whites.

Environmental conditions such as bad nutrition, low funding for schools, government programs that encourage parasitic behavior, and lame music and role models etc. have caused the majority of black Americans to fail to reach their intellectual potential.

[KuJo]

that average doesnt really seem right, because I know not everyone scored an 85, so some must have scored lower, or even much lower (60). Where did this guy get his information from? anyways we should all look at individuals and how they differ, instead of generalizations that people would take offense to.

[Rajah]

Lord, this is a touchy topic.

I remember this debate raging when The Bell Curve was published. Some people (before you get up in arms, not me) regarded this as a good answer for the race-based disparity in testing scores. However, as eyebyte and others have pointed out, the disparity in test scores is often now tied to socioeconomics, not race. At least in America, it is often the case that African-Americans or Hispanics do not have access to the same opportunities that Caucasians do, pure and simple. These opportunities are still out of reach despite affirmative action; it just hasn't leveled the playing field. This all appears to be cultural, not racial. Compounding the problem is the fact that IQ testing has been shown to be skewed in favor of Caucasians. The Bell Curve simply seems to be another case (and, unfortunately, a very harmful one) of extrapolating the wrong conclusion from the data. At first blush, it seems supportable by the evidence, but in fact is wrong.

Now, point 2. I get concerned when someone raises a controversial issue like this on the boards and is immediately shot down as being racist, or sexist, or evil, or whatever. From Vale's post, I only got that he was struggling with a controversial issue, was drawn to a certain conclusion based on the facts, and hoped to hell he was wrong. The conclusion was uncomfortable for many of us, but I hate to see real debate stifled just because of our discomfort. In this case, all we had to do was say, "No, that's not the case, and here's the counterevidence."

[Madrigal]

I expected this kind of response, so I won't raise an eyebrow to it. Madrigal, I'm interested in the truth...I don't care how offensive or deviant it may be. I just want facts. If The Bell Curve is wrong, I'd sure like to know. I certainly will continue to look at everyone, no matter their race, on an individual basis (I'd rather congregate with a black INTP than another type of another race). What interests me, however, are averages. If you can't prove me wrong and can only insult me, you contribute nothing to this discussion.

You're right, I can't contribute to this discussion in any other way. I am not compelled to prove you wrong on this one.

[cjs55]

The Darwinian explanation of the variation of species when undertood in the context of humanity spreading across the globe offers a conceptually essential argument of the different specialization of different groups of human beings. This is backed up with a large variety of data. Race, Evolution, and Behavior (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965683621/qid=1129587418/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-1173148-5452968?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) does contain some of this. It is not perfect, but it is large and enveloping. If only one of many of its parts fails, the entire model is still intact. There are parts of it I find to be flawed, but this does not counteract the model which explains in conceptual accordance to evolution (which most liberal theories do not) some differences in humanity.

Those that deny that race exists do so on the grounds that it is only a human construct and that the lines are arbitrarily drawin. They are right that it is a human construct, but so is everything else human beings will ever conceptually create, so it is not a significant argument. Lines are always drawn, that is what human beings do to understand the world around them.

The current thoughtblock of opposition to natural differences in humanity is partially a result of an extreme reaction against nazism. It is also the manifestation Nietzchean slave-morality in the masses, the grand bucket of lobsters pulling each other down humanity has become recently.


Randomly selected blacks raised in white families, for example, have been shown to have an IQ relatively comparable to whites.

It's actually halfway between the two averages, perfectly in accord with a holistic understanding that takes into account the plausible and non-exclusive theories of natural and nurture causality.

(In all of this, remember always however that moralistic inferences are a relativistic cultural/racial hybrid phenomenon that cannot be correctly undersood outside of where one falls in the overall spectrum. You won't get far trying to make any claims about the objective superiority of any race over another.)

[Ivy]

Care to link me to a site that supports this?


(I heart SkepDic. I want to quote the whole thing, but in the interests of saving space, I will not.)

http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html



IQ and race
The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense

"IQ" stands for "intelligence quotient." A person's IQ is supposed to be a measure of that person's intelligence: the higher the IQ number, the greater the intelligence. This is inaccurate, however, since it assumes that there is only one kind of intelligence. Most people recognize that there are some people with fantastic memories, some with mathematical minds, some with musical genius, some with mechanical expertise, some with good vocabularies, some good at seeing analogies, some good at synthesizing, some at unifying, etc. Some people excel at more than one of these behaviors. It would be more accurate to speak of human intelligences than of intelligence. An IQ test, therefore, should be considered a measure of some kinds of intelligence, but not all. The most accurate claim one can make about an IQ test is that it measures IQ.

The research on IQ and race by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, Herrnstein and Murray (The Bell Curve) and others have not found any significant correlations between race and intelligence. They have found correlations between race and IQ, which has been used to support the notion that some races are inferior to others.

The term 'race', however, is even more problematic than the term 'intelligence.' While all humans are members of the human race, few deny that there are many races or that there are obvious physical and cultural differences among different ethnic groups. But it has become a widespread belief that race is genetically determined in much the same way as, say, eye color. Having a certain gene or set of genes means you have blue eyes. Likewise, it is thought, having a gene or set of genes makes one Caucasian. However, there is no such thing as a racial gene or set of race genes any more than there is such a thing as an intelligence gene or set of intelligence genes. This does not mean, of course, that a person's genetic makeup is not a significant factor in individual intelligence in particular areas or in physical features associated with different races, such as skin color, breadth of nose, shape of eyes, etc. It should be obvious, however, by the tremendous variation in intelligences among individuals of any race, that environment is a much more significant determinant of racial features than it is of intelligence. This seems to imply that whatever genetic differences exist among the races are most likely due to natural selection and sexual selection. It also seems to imply that the notion of a "pure" race is an absurdity. Even if the fundamentalists are right and there was an original Adam and Eve, no race can claim to be "pure." Each race evolved according to natural processes such as natural selection.

[Johan]

The only poster that pass the "reality check" in this thread is the original poster, some other people here seem to think that resorting to ad hominems and dogma provided by leftism.inc is a valid way arguing.

Common sense and knowledge of biology tells us that it is clear that differences between the races do exist. If you believe in the theory of evolution, this should be obvious to you, as populations seperated from each other WILL differentiate as the circumstances, that includes culture BTW, are different. If the theory that we originate from africa is true, think about this then: What is the exact benifit of a white skin as opposed to a black skin? The difference in energy consumption to have some extra pigment is hardly exisiting. If this has changed completely, and without a strong impetus, isn't it very possible that other traits have changed too?

What you actually make out of this difference is another story. It is not necessaary to react like the moron "nationalists" in the US and commence the planning for genocide.

Some hillarious contributions in this thread. I am not doing this to gain support for a lunatic white supremacist movement, but because my intellectual integrity and hatred for bad science tells me to.


I think you're just another gullible redneck reading the racist news, and trying to come up with stupid statistics to back up your 'fear' (or not? Maybe you just think this is fun, to act like the bewildered little girl, in the face of some kind of 'evidence'???) that you might be a racist. Why don't you analyze things with your own mind? I'm not even going to bother with you anymore than this.

Hillarious of multiple reasons:

1. So YOU are not accepting blindly what the media tells you of that we are exactly equal?
2. Is it not wonderful how the leftists never manage to come up with actual evidence, and always resort to "fell good" "it must be fair" emotional arguments without empirical evidence? Oh, I forgot blaming everything on culture.
3. The media and the entire establishment is propagating against his point... I have yet to see the media argue FOR racial differences.

Quit acting like the female professor who cried and ran out the hall when the principal at Harvard dare to state that less women are talented in math. Proove him wrong with solid --->empirical<--- evidence.


The guys who "prove" differences between races usually seem to start with the conclusions and then collect some statistics that appear to support those conclusions. Bad science, basically.

Oh, and how did we prove that everyone was equal? By assuming that everyone was equal and then discounting all eveidence pointing in another direction blaming culture? This is the same reasoning that "proved" that men and women are completely equal except for the appearance, and that only because you can't deny it and be treated seriosly (but in fact one of our feminazi organisations in Sweden actually stated that once...). In fact we even believed that every single human was of idenitcal intelligence at one point in history, blame the English for that...


How regularly do you wash your confederate flag? Are the stars still in good shape?

Ever heard of the nice little term ad hominem? Thanks for dragging the discussion down to kindergarten level.


Assuming those statistics are accurate (which I'm not ready to do, but for the sake of argument, let's) the fact that there may be a different average for sub-Saharan Africans from other blacks pretty much reinforces to me that any difference is cultural, not genetic. Poverty being as it is, and IQ tests being as they are, I think it's a slam dunk.

A hint: American blacks have mixed quite a lot with white people. Just so you don't see blacks as a completely homogenous group, something which you actually blame the racists for.



Blacks in this country tend to test lower because of poverty and other cultural reasons - not genetic. I have known blacks, pure blacks, that have no european influence that rank as the highest level intellectuals in the world (pure black as defined by your assertions that they have not mixed with other races because they are actually from Africa)

Ever heard of the term anecdoatal evidence? This proves nothing but the fact that not all blacks are retards, something the orignal poster never stated. The point is rather that these people are very rare, and that blacks on the whole scores lower. Your argument is equal to arguing that chinese people are not smaller than westerners due to the fact that there exists a tall chinese guy.



Culture - and I am not saying ethnic - I am saying culture has more of an effect on racial behavioral differences than genetics. DNA sequencing has proven that the DNA variance is to tight that the variance of the whole human race is less than the variance in a group of 20 chimps. This mean - any differences that we see are there because we want to see them.

And here we have someone who does not understand genetics. Did you know that a SINGLE mutation on a SINGE gene can cause a lethal heriditary disease that messes up the entire body? Also, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps, 90% of it with banana flies if I am remembering it correctly. The races share 99% if I am not wrong. Of course no one is asserting that the variance between the races is larger than the variance within, as that goes against common sense, but the point is that this does not refute that there ARE differences.

[Madrigal]

Hillarious of multiple reasons:

1. So YOU are not accepting blindly what the media tells you of that we are exactly equal?
2. Is it not wonderful how the leftists never manage to come up with actual evidence, and always resort to "fell good" "it must be fair" emotional arguments without empirical evidence? Oh, I forgot blaming everything on culture.
3. The media and the entire establishment is propagating against his point... I have yet to see the media argue FOR racial differences.

Quit acting like the female professor who cried and ran out the hall when the principal at Harvard dare to state that less women are talented in math. Proove him wrong with solid --->empirical<--- evidence.

It would be nice to see people spending so much energy on actually fighting against racism. It isn't the first time people like you disguise your hatred for the Left as 'objectivity', 'science' or 'empirical evidence'. As I told Vale, I don't even feel compelled to prove anything to you. It's not like we're discussing the Abolition of Slavery, and it's you that's going to decide on it. Although you would like that, wouldn't you?

[Zephyrus055]

Blacks also have fewer opportunities and ineffective programs to advance them because it's convenient for the political and economic elites.

[Johan]

cjs55's post is very good.

Now on to English Ivy's last post:

His essential argument is that as it is arbitary to decide what abilties are classified as IQ, then the whole construct is useless. Of course to state this, he has to assume that differences do exist as it is otherwise a useless remark. He is also commiting the error to believe that the intelligent racists believe in a race gene. That is just plain wrong. Every intelligent racist (some of genious IQ) I have discussed with has seen race as a COLLECTION of TRENDS in the DISTRIBUTION of particular genes.

[jyakulis]

The only poster that pass the "reality check" in this thread is the original poster, some other people here seem to think that resorting to ad hominems and dogma provided by leftism.inc is a valid way arguing.



I thought my point was valid... :blink:

[eyebyte_atWork]

I'm not sure if this is addressed yet, but I think it's all about self-selection. The original slaves that were brought to the States were generally the ones most disadvantaged (basically the ones allowed to get themselves caught or sold), and well, suffered 200 years of slavery, segregation, no education, etc. Remember that it was only in the 1960's that schools became more de-segregated, that's really not so long ago. Many Hispanics were also already here before they had their land taken from them. And the Asians and other immigrants that are here, are mostly here because their ancestors were smart enough and capable enough to immigrate to the States. They were not taken, they came here for a better life. People that can devise ways to form a new and better life in a completely foreign environment are probably generally smarter. Same kind of concept with Ethiopians (aka "real" Africans) that are here in the States. The ones that are able to get here tend to be pretty smart, nice, and quite good-looking. ;) But hey that's just my impression...


This is trying to find an evolutional reason for something that has nothing to do with evolution or biology. It is cultural. American Culture.

[cjs55]

It would be nice to see people spending so much energy on actually fighting against racism.

Some form of racism is a somewhat natural phenomenon. Many different ethnicities (and subrace/tribal differences) exist because of racism. Basically in evolution of human beings, the ones that last in the long term were somewhat xenophobic at least when it comes to mating, because any that weren't would mege with others and become evaporated. Just as an opposition to random murder is essential for society to emerge, so is some xenophobia essential for a race/culture to exist in the long term.

If you want to remove this, than you remove the only division between these groups, resulting in the loss of the current diversity of the human species, with little reason for such diversity to ever occur in the future. If this is what you want, so be it, but I doubt such an occurance would result in a 'better' human species. It would certainly result in a more boring one.

(This is not to say that conflict between races is a good thing. I would say it is something to be generally avoided, America being an example of things going poorly both ways.)

[Ivy]

Now on to English Ivy's last post:

His essential argument is that as it is arbitary to decide what abilties are classified as IQ, then the whole construct is useless. Of course to state this, he has to assume that differences do exist as it is otherwise a useless remark.

Has anyone here said that NO difference exists? I haven't seen it. What I have seen is people attributing what difference may exist to culture instead of genetics, and a few people (myself included) who have questioned that the difference is as large as the site Vale quoted says it is.

[file cabinet]

here is the wikipedia entry concerning the author of the cited work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

[Johan]

I thought my point was valid... :blink:

Sorry, I forgot to edit my post and include "and some more".

Mardigal:



It would be nice to see people spending so much energy on actually fighting against racism. It isn't the first time people like you disguise your hatred for the Left as 'objectivity', 'science' or 'empirical evidence'. As I told Vale, I don't even feel compelled to prove anything to you. It's not like we're discussing the Abolition of Slavery, and it's you that's going to decide on it. Although you would like that, wouldn't you?

If you with racism mean discrimination based purely due to the fact that people are black, then I am a vehemment opponent to it. I also happen to dislike the right with their religious belief in the perfection of capitalism. I just dislike bad science, and the equality taboo today is ridiculous. In my home country, it is almost forbidden to have seperate groups in math or languages as "all the children are just as good", and it is not politically correct to state the opposite.

I just find it very interesting that such an "obvious" truth as the belief in that we are 100% equal is refuted in every empircal examination.

[eyebyte_atWork]

The only poster that pass the "reality check" in this thread is the original poster, some other people here seem to think that resorting to ad hominems and blah blah blah

blah blah blah


blah blah blah .


No one is saying that everyone is equal (far from it) - this is simply not true - but thinking that racial difference are where the lines are drawn is an exercise in selective observance.

I do think it is really funny that it is the younger people here who share the opinion of yours. Maybe you are reading the book "The Bell Curve" and think that it holds water. Maybe you think you - at your young age - have figured out things that older people are too stupid to realize. Or maybe you have not been exposed to the world to draw your own conclusions and see the truth.

Every few months some more youngsters come around and state what you are stating as if the ideas were new or novel. It's not. Furthermore the evidence that supports you conclusions are not only suspect - they are not even true.

And one more thing - a good percentage of the Greatest American Mathematicians have been black. What have you done??

[Zephyrus055]

Has anyone here said that NO difference exists? I haven't seen it. What I have seen is people attributing what difference may exist to culture instead of genetics, and a few people (myself included) who have questioned that the difference is as large as the site Vale quoted says it is. The morphological differences probably are not due to culture, but genetics. However, these genetic differences have no affect on intelligence and social adaptibility etc - that which makes people good/productive citizens. However, these genetic differences in morphology are probably a consequent of mate selection and quick geological adaptions.

[Madrigal]

Sorry, I forgot to edit my post and include "and some more".

Mardigal:



If you with racism mean discrimination based purely due to the fact that people are black, then I am a vehemment opponent to it. I also happen to dislike the right with their religious belief in the perfection of capitalism. I just dislike bad science, and the equality taboo today is ridiculous. In my home country, it is almost forbidden to have seperate groups in math or languages as "all the children are just as good", and it is not politically correct to state the opposite.

I just find it very interesting that such an "obvious" truth as the belief in that we are 100% equal is refuted in every empircal examination.

I just found it strange that you would jump, not at the suspicion that blacks are inferior to whites (is this not what was suspected by an adult human being?), but against those that reacted against such an assumption. I find that very odd. I think it just says something about your principles. And I feel no need to argue genetics & racial differences. It isn't my field of interest. I take offense when someone watched Fox news during the Katrina aftermath, and wonders if black people are inferior. It is as simple as that.

That is the reason for my reaction. But I won't be lured into 'proving' to someone that blacks are not more stupid and selfish than whites. I guess I have other ways of wasting my time.

[cjs55]

No one is saying that the human species doesn't have many across the board similarities (far from it) - this is simply not true - but thinking that there are only nurtural factors in causing difference in human beings is an exercise in selective observance.

[eyebyte_atWork]

The morphological differences probably are not due to culture, but genetics. However, these genetic differences have no affect on intelligence and social adaptibility etc - that which makes people good/productive citizens. However, these genetic differences in morphology are probably a consequent of mate selection and quick geological adaptions.


Word.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I just found it strange that you would jump, not at the suspicion that blacks are inferior to whites (is this not what was suspected by an adult human being?), but against those that reacted against such an assumption. I find that very odd. I think it just says something about your principles. And I feel no need to argue genetics & racial differences. It isn't my field of interest. I take offense when someone watched Fox news during the Katrina aftermath, and wonders if black people are inferior. It is as simple as that.

That is the reason for my reaction. But I won't be lured into 'proving' to someone that blacks are not more stupid and selfish than whites. I guess I have other ways of wasting my time.

Very good point Madri

[cjs55]

Maybe you think you - at your young age - have figured out things that older people are too stupid to realize.

Certainly different generations do not see things differently, and the younger generation may never have advantages in different understandings.


I do not doubt that when I am older, intelligent youth will be far beyond me in many areas due to their contextual differences in upbringing and conceptual structure.

Not to state that this is currently the case, just that the appeal to age as authority is not a particularly impressive one.

[Ivy]

I just dislike bad science, and the equality taboo today is ridiculous. In my home country, it is almost forbidden to have seperate groups in math or languages as "all the children are just as good", and it is not politically correct to state the opposite.

I just find it very interesting that such an "obvious" truth as the belief in that we are 100% equal is refuted in every empircal examination.

And you've just nullified your own assertion. No, everyone is not equal (if by equal you mean "the same"-- the word comes fraught with value judgments). Which is EXACTLY why extrapolating from the different traits that are naturally selected in populations of people over generations to the macro-concept of the three world races is fallacious. And so is saying that those of us who contend that the three race idea is culturally imposed just want to believe that everyone is the same. You're attributing an argument to me that I never made.

[cjs55]

Working in macro-concepts is the only way to understand the actions of large groups of people. I don't see the problem with it. Only a fool would want use a general/non-absolute concept and define a singular being by it, this would be extremely poor logic.

[Ivy]

No one is saying that the human species doesn't have many across the board similarities (far from it) - this is simply not true - but thinking that there are only nurtural factors in causing difference in human beings is an exercise in selective observance.

And that isn't the argument that is being made on the other side, at least not by me. There are obviously different traits that groups of humans share due to natural (and, on a smaller scale, cultural) selection. Tay-Sachs and Sickle Cell, epicanthal folds, darker or lighter skin, these differences are pretty much irrefutable. Like I said in my last post, though, extrapolating those myriad differences which different groups express in different combinations into a concept that there are really only three groups (black/white/asian) is not. In my opinion, it's simple-minded at best and malicious at worst.

[Zephyrus055]

And that isn't the argument that is being made on the other side, at least not by me. There are obviously different traits that groups of humans share due to natural (and, on a smaller scale, cultural) selection. Tay-Sachs and Sickle Cell, epicanthal folds, darker or lighter skin, these differences are pretty much irrefutable. Like I said in my last post, though, extrapolating those myriad differences which different groups express in different combinations into a concept that there are really only three groups (black/white/asian) is not. In my opinion, it's simple-minded at best and malicious at worst. Right on!

Actually, there's 4 groups and several subgroups for each group and 5 subs for the caucasian group. It's really sick and disturbing!

And among the "black race," it has been found that there is soooo much genetic variation among them that they can not even be considered a race. Furthermore, some black populations have a lot more in common with white populations than other black populations

[eyebyte_atWork]

Certainly different generations do not see things differently, and the younger generation may never have advantages in different understandings.


I do not doubt that when I am older, intelligent youth will be far beyond me in many areas due to their contextual differences in upbringing and conceptual structure.

Not to state that this is currently the case, just that the appeal to age as authority is not a particularly impressive one.


Kids are predictable.

I heard the same words when I was younger - the people who said these things then and still believe them are people who isolate themselves from reality accross the board.

I once saw the reaction of one such person when they saw this older black gentleman who was minding his own business. I remember this guy talking to his friend saying how he just knew that guy was a minimum wage worker. He went of to spectulate as to what he did - the consensus was that he was a janitor (We were all at the univeristy) because he was wearing jeans and a hawaiian shirt. This black guy was an award winning mathematician that I knew - but to these two guys he was a janitor. People see what they want.

What I am getting at is that when you are young - you see with young eyes - and it shapes you - if you restrict your eyes from seeing without judgement then those judgements color your future learning experiences. I have seen many young people -when I was young and now that I am older - say the same exact stuff - like it was new or original -or smarter - and it is short sighted and untrue

Perhaps thats the way you wanna see things because it makes you feel better. Maybe it explains why you are a better person (cause of your DNA) - but I have seen these same people fail from Physics programs and Math programs while the members of the inferior race excel.

You may quipp back at me with that shit about younger gerenations being smarter than older ones and therefore the youngsters must be right - but I answer - read the works Shakespear, Newton, and the works of many great people from generations before to see that we have advance very little in history of civilzed man. After that if you choose to do so PM me and I will link you to information about people who have contributed our lives and why we do not know their names. I will give one example - everyone here knows who Bill Gates is - but how many know who Dr. Mark Dean is.

[Ivy]

Working in macro-concepts is the only way to understand the actions of large groups of people. I don't see the problem with it. Only a fool would want use a general/non-absolute concept and define a singular being by it, this would be extremely poor logic.

I don't really even quarrel with the practice of working with macro concepts, as long as they're not SO macro as to be meaningless. The macro concept that Chinese people have epicanthal folds is one that holds generally true even if not every single Chinese person does. When the groups get large enough that all 6.5 billion people on the planet fit into only three of them, though, I'm not sure those are useful categorizations to make precise scientific observations with.

[kuranes]

How intelligence is best measured has long been a controversial subject.

Edit - Removed comparison to Johnny and Suzy One-Note

[cjs55]

Kids are predictable.


Incorrect assumptions there, although I'm sure that was a predictable response as well. I do not work in personal anecdotal evidence, because I know it will always be short-sighted. I do not make individualistic assumptions based on generalities like your other young friend.

I find the current civilizations that have spawned from the europeans to be atrocious. I have much more respect for native american or african tribes.

I need no proof of genetic superiority for myself or anyone else. I know I am smarter than many, and less intelligent than some. I am horrible at physics, and no test that said 'white people are great at physics' could help me feel better about my physics ability.

That doesn't mean the test was flawed necessarily, it just means that I do not take general data and forcibly apply it to individuals.

[Ivy]

The morphological differences probably are not due to culture, but genetics. However, these genetic differences have no affect on intelligence and social adaptibility etc - that which makes people good/productive citizens. However, these genetic differences in morphology are probably a consequent of mate selection and quick geological adaptions.

Right-- I was referring specifically to differences in IQ, which is in itself a social construct. I don't argue that there are no differences between groups of people! But correlating one social construct (IQ) to another social construct (dividing countless morphological traits in diverse combinations into a small number of races) and calling it physiology... well, it smells fishy to me.

[kuranes]

Right on!

Actually, there's 4 groups and several subgroups for each group and 5 subs for the caucasian group. It's really sick and disturbing!

And among the "black race," it has been found that there is soooo much genetic variation among them that they can not even be considered a race. Furthermore, some black populations have a lot more in common with white populations than other black populations

I'd be interested to hear more about this. Is it related to "tribes"?

[cjs55]

When the groups get large enough that all 6.5 billion people on the planet fit into only three of them, though, I'm not sure those are useful categorizations to make precise scientific observations with.

Precise scientific observations are always a construct of where we draw the lines. I think you possibly meant useful, and I may agree with you there, although at times it is useful to broaden the boundaries or collapse them depending on what we need to know about.

When it comes to the interaction of human groups, I think the three-race picture can definitely be useful personally. Especially considering modern times, and nations of immigrants such as america. When many different groups collide, sometimes it is useful to sort them in ways if one can accurately predict future clashes and events.


Whether these new names seen here today will turn out to be such I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised.

I think when it comes to this topic that the other side (the evil one) is woefully represented, which is possibly why some people break out of their shell to post on it. What you said is also possible, but I do know that topics where I feel the majority of people are incorrect are the ones where I feel most compelled to post.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Incorrect assumptions there, although I'm sure that was a predictable response as well. I do not work in personal anecdotal evidence, because I know it will always be short-sighted. I do not make individualistic assumptions based on generalities like your other young friend.

I find the current civilizations that have spawned from the europeans to be atrocious. I have much more respect for native american or african tribes.

I need no proof of genetic superiority for myself or anyone else. I know I am smarter than many, and less intelligent than some. I am horrible at physics, and no test that said 'white people are great at physics' could help me feel better about my physics ability.

That doesn't mean the test was flawed necessarily, it just means that I do not take general data and forcibly apply it to individuals.



Cool - I was not attacking you as much as I was attacking the ignorance that I heard growing up in Beaumont Texas - next to Vidor - where the KKK still marches regularly. Baseless crap that hold no water - I am also not attacking any race.

Sure there are physical differences between people (races) but science has already accounted for them in DNA sequencing - and it is only superficial at best. Myers, Briggs, Keirsey and Bates did more to find differences between people than any skin color ever could.

Again - I am not attacking anyone - I am attacking ignorance. It took me many years before I could accept the truth about Religion and I am sure many here will be learning lessons until the day they die. My concern is that we all stay truely observant and not predisposed so that we may learn actual truth.

Peace out.

[cjs55]

But correlating one social construct (IQ) to another social construct (dividing countless morphological traits in diverse combinations into a small number of races) and calling it physiology... well, it smells fishy to me.

For me, the most useful thing about IQ is that it predicts success in european (american) society. It is not necessarily a way to determine intelligence (although I don't think intelligence is just culturally relative either). But it it useful to see if the brain processes of an individual are in occurdance to those attriubutes which allow people to be successful in America or not. This is (in my opinion) somewhat physiological in nature, but in a different manner than is often inferred, and it's the only one I believe we can (probably) necessarily logically conlude from IQ difference. I think though that IQ is a great example of the 50/50 approach to understanding nurture and nature in human development.

[Ivy]

Precise scientific observations are always a construct of where we draw the lines. I think you possibly meant useful, and I may agree with you there, although at times it is useful to broaden the boundaries or collapse them depending on what we need to know about.

You're right, I did mean useful. And I'm glad you agree with me that WE draw the lines-- that's all I've meant to argue all along, that the three-race thing is a social construct, not a biological fact.


When it comes to the interaction of human groups, I think the three-race picture can definitely be useful personally. Especially considering modern times, and nations of immigrants such as america. When many different groups collide, sometimes it is useful to sort them in ways if one can accurately predict future clashes and events.

The way you say it, I can get with this, actually, because you're using the three-race idea as a social construct. Just because it's a social construct doesn't make it wrong, as long as it is recognized as such. We use the three-race idea in discussions of culture all the time, and it can be useful.

[cjs55]

My concern is that we all stay truely observant and not predisposed so that we may learn actual truth.

Cheers to that =)

[eyebyte_atWork]

ok - So who can tell us about Dr Mark Dean??

[cjs55]

And I'm glad you agree with me that WE draw the lines-- that's all I've meant to argue all along, that the three-race thing is a social construct, not a biological fact.

A problem with this may be that you're thinking all biological facts are not always represented in human constructs. The categorization of species in general is in some sense a human construct. Humans place facts in a framework of understanding always.

I would say that there are biological facts (well, something close to facts, probabilities I suppose). And on whatever scale you'd like to frame them is your own business. I'd suggest doing what is most useful in the context of what you are trying to figure out/understand/predict.

[Ivy]

A problem with this may be that you're thinking all biological facts are not always represented in human constructs. The categorization of species in general is in some sense a human construct. Humans place facts in a framework of understanding always.

I would say that there are biological facts (well, something close to facts, probabilities I suppose). And on whatever scale you'd like to frame them is your own business. I'd suggest doing what is most useful in the context of what you are trying to figure out/understand/predict.

As I clicked send on my last post I wondered if anybody would bring up the system of classifying life on earth. I kind of hoped they wouldn't, so good on ya for that. :) I will say, however, that that particular construct hasn't proven to be untouchable, either-- remember when nobody knew what to do with algae?

[Lee]

I'm at a point where I can no longer deny it, and it would be against my nature as an INTP to do so...I am beginning to believe that there are genetic differences between the racesThere are genetic differences between everyone except identical twins, and while you may initially consider this statemtent to be a misinterpretation of what you actually mean, it is important nonetheless.

Racial categorizations are based on the simple idea that there is diversity within the phenotypic characteristics of humans, and this diversity of phenotypic characteristics and genetic make-up is something few actually deny. However what can be challenged are the categories and whether those categories actually mean anything at all.

If I could walk from England to South Africa to India to Canada Before finishing up in Argentina, I could quite easily come to the conclusion that there is the human species, that is simply populated by many variations. I would also likely come to the conclusion that demarcating these groups would be a fairly pointless exercise, since there would appear only a continuous change from one variety to another, none of which differ considerably from the basic plan.

I could not make any clear distinctions, only observations that each variation of human appears slightly adapted to their respective environments. Furthermore, these variations are not necassarily consistent, especially amongst those who are crossbreeds of variations. Yet racial classification almost always relies on skin colour, or some over obvious physical characteristic... but it is entirely possible that a black American is actually more closely related to his fellow white American than a native of Africa. All this black American needs is that a small collection of genes responsible for a few physical characteristics to be expressed in a particular way, and his appearence can decieve the world to his ehtnic lineage.

The categaries that are used are arbitrary. Studying differences in human variation is worthwhile, demarcating these differences into racial groups is simply not helpful, since there are far too many exceptions to these categaries.


and that by and large the state of black people worldwide today has little to do with environmental factors and much to do with innate characteristics.I can understand how you might reach this conclusion, but sadly, it does not seem to be corroborated by the facts (and yes, that includes the facts you have provided).

Human civilisation can only prosper under situations where excess food is produced, and produced regularly. Aboriginal Australians, most natives of Africa and Native Americans had few, if any viable plants for large scale farming... which is vitally important to producing a fledgling civilisation.

Most of the large domesticable herd animals lived upon the Eurasian continent spreading from Spain to China, these were used for food production as well as power. Animal domestication was also very important to the begginings of civilisation.

It is also well known that the equator acts as a natural barrier to people, knowledge, animals and plants moving from north to south or south to north. Both the American continent and African continent run from north to south, with the radically different, non-seasonal climate of the equator regions acting as a barrier. The Eurasian continent suffers no such problems, and goods, knowledge, animals, people and plants can be transported and used far more readily.

Environment has played a key role in the development of these civilisations, and to presume that any one of these 'races' is inherently incapable of creating or existing within civilisation is a gross injustice to the many that do. We know that such people can exist within civilisation because they do, and frequently prosper as part of it.

Besides, perhaps we could ask a very telling question - would Africans have been able to create civilisation if they populated Eurasia? of course the answer is right in front of us, because they did populate Eurasia and what we see now is the end result.


This started with Hurricane Katrina; I observed blacks in the media and began to wonder why, after so many decades of affirmative action and aid that they were still disproportionately in poverty and disproportionately criminals...I checked out The Bell Curve and found the statistics difficult to contend.Well, half of the explanation really is that it has only been a few decades, and these things are not going to necassarily change as quickly as some may hope. The legacy of the past will take time to wither away.

Even so, to suspect that different variations will equal out amongst all skills and abilities is also highly unlikely. There are genetic reasons why sporting skill, swimming ability, intelligence, aggressiveness etc. correlate with other characteristics, such as nose shape, skin colour, body hair etc. Yet the very existence of the bell curve tells us something very important, and that is that there are many exceptions, and that by and large, these bell curves will overlap far more than they differ.


Trust me when I say I don't want this to be true. I've always had a liberal stance towards the races, but now that the facts are in front of me, I feel as though if I continued to have such a stance I'd only be lying to myself.You seem to be making two errors:

a) You are relying on unhelpful racial groupings, that do not reflect the diversity we can observe, and do little or nothing to help us better understand human variation. (more often than not, they seem to do damage).

b) You are assuming that equality of rights requires equality.

I already covered a) at the beggining of this post, so I will go straight on to b).

No two people are equal. In fact, some people are clearly more intelligent, healthier, attractive, sporting and more capable overall than others; in soe cases people are not equal simply because their skills lie in very different areas of life.

No two people are equal, however what we strive for is equality of rights, not equality in all manner of life's endevours, this is a mistake commonly made by those fighting for equality, and one that can have negative repurcussions.

What is important is that we judge people as individuals, and not by the statistical correlations of an arbitrary racial group. Although this evidence you have provided, which could well be true suggests a plethora of differences, it does so under the guise of averages and correlations. We know that extreme intelligence, extreme stupidity, extreme sporting talent, or extreme aggressiveness can occur within all groups.

If we desire a society that allows the best to flourish, we need not even worry about these 'racial' groups, or variations. We give each person equality of rights so that if they are willing and capable, that no avenue is barred for them. We should never expect a complete equality across the board, and this applies as much to the sexes as it does to the races. Ultimately, such a set-up is the best for all of us.. and is the only morally acceptable solution.

[Lee]

I think you're just another gullible redneck reading the racist news, and trying to come up with stupid statistics to back up your 'fear' (or not? Maybe you just think this is fun, to act like the bewildered little girl, in the face of some kind of 'evidence'???) that you might be a racist. Why don't you analyze things with your own mind? I'm not even going to bother with you anymore than this.Considering the person you are speaking to is actually asking for guidance on this issue, your response here is completely uncalled for. Vale actually asked to be proved wrong, and you attacked her for being racist.

It is exactly that kind of response which does nothing to help debate on this topic, which is controversial enough already, and for all the wrong reasons.

[Madrigal]

Considering the person you are speaking to is actually asking for guidance on this issue, your response here is completely uncalled for. Vale actually asked to be proved wrong, and you attacked her for being racist.

It is exactly that kind of response which does nothing to help debate on this topic, which is controversial enough already, and for all the wrong reasons.

I confess I wasn't trying to help the debate, or to provide guidance. And knowing this, I still don't want to do it.

[charred_heart]

Not quite...It's been proposed that American blacks have higher IQ's than Sub-Saharan Africans because of better nutrition, and because, over time, they have mixed interracially with whites more than their African brethren.

This is sickening. I never thought someone would actually say this at the end of 2005. This thread should be closed.

[eyebyte_atWork]

This is sickening. I never thought someone would actually say this at the end of 2005. This thread should be closed.


Dude - I am with you - it amazes me that this propogates itself. Ignorance is to blame.

[cjs55]

Sometimes the truth is sickening. The fact that it sickens you is not a compelling argument. I would say it's easily potentially a factor, so I suppose I should be banned from the forums, and immediately executed for having sickening ideas that you do nothing to disprove? Your aesthetic reaction is a sign of irrational prejudice, the same reaction that the KKK has when a black guy moves down the street from them.

And why would you lock a discussion thread that has mostly avoided ad hominems and excessive attacks? Because the points presented are unpalatable to you? If you they are obviously incorrect and not worthy of discussion, and if you have a consise rejection of them proving that, please present it.


(Although deconstructing a previously held personal ideology always is a sickening process. That much I know is true.)

[eyebyte_atWork]

Sometimes the truth is sickening. The fact that it sickens you is not a compelling argument. I would say it's easily potentially a factor, so I suppose I should be banned from the forums, and immediately executed for having sickening ideas that you do nothing to disprove? Your aesthetic reaction is a sign of irrational prejudice, the same reaction that the KKK has when a black guy moves down the street from them.

And why would you lock a discussion thread that has mostly avoided ad hominems and excessive attacks? Because the points presented are unpalatable to you? If you they are obviously incorrect and not worthy of discussion, and if you have a consise rejection of them proving that, please present it.


(Although deconstructing a previously held personal ideology always is a sickening process. That much I know is true.)


I am sickened when children die of desease or when others die of cancer or when ignorance is taken as fact. - I am biased that way. Shoot me (hang me - or burn a cross on my yard)

[Lee]

Not quite...It's been proposed that American blacks have higher IQ's than Sub-Saharan Africans because of better nutrition, and because, over time, they have mixed interracially with whites more than their African brethren.This is sickening. I never thought someone would actually say this at the end of 2005. This thread should be closed.It is well known that poor nutrition leads to impaired development. To presume that somehow the central nervous system i.e. brain and spinal cord escape this impairment is highly unlikely. Nutrition is very important in nourishing the brain, and therefore intelligence; even those who consider IQ not to be a good measurement of intelligence, can't deny the strong correlation between IQ and intelligence.

To suggest that this is 'sickening' is proposterous, especially considering this leaves open the possibility that poor nutrition effects the intelligence of all ethnic groups.

I also find the suggestion that intelligence is exempt from genetic variation highly unlikely, otherwise there is no reason why the chimpanzee should not be as intelligent as a human.

No, it is highly likely that genetic variation that leads to different physical characteristics correlates with overall intelligence on average. And if studies find that the group identified as having white characteristics also carry more inteliigent genes, the suggestion that intermediary groups that mark the transition from white characteristics to what the article describes as pure bred blacks would indeed fit the middle ground, and be more intelligent becase of their genes.

But again, we face the ugly consequence of these unhelpful racial categorizations. If you fizzle away these racial groups in your mind, then you are simply a mix of different characteristics, just another variation in humans. You are not carrying white genes, since a skin colour cannot claim to own a particular gene.

[Leftfield]

I didn't go through this whole thread but I would think there a correlation between SOCIO-ECONOMIC classes and IQ (primarily Verbal IQ). I bet the average IQ of a black inner-city person is roughly the same as ANY inner-city white person.

This is too narrow-minded to classify all one race to an IQ but I think the statistics are vaild, I found it on wikipedia (but with a neutrality disclaimer) and had a discussion with my ISTJ best-friend about it.

I go to a college with many black people and take offense, because I have had pretty deep conversations with black people. Others I don't take seriously. I can say the same about all other races (including white of course) beside Asian and Indian because they tend to have a high standard of work ethic, which is why most grad students are of these two races.

TO VALE, THE WHITE GIRL FROM TEXAS: Please prove me right about White people

George W. Bush came from your state and is the president of the US???

[cjs55]

Yet racial classification almost always relies on skin colour, or some over obvious physical characteristic...

Agreed with the pointlessnses of this. Any division of humanity into groups which may be fruitfully studied must be somewhat holisitic in scope of it's division. We are not in isolated tribes any more, in which case this would be more simple.



If we desire a society that allows the best to flourish, we need not even worry about these 'racial' groups, or variations. We give each person equality of rights so that if they willing and are capable, that no avenue is barred for them. We should never expect a complete equality across the board, and this applies as much to the sexes as it does to the races. Ultimately, such a set-up is the best for all of us.. and is the only morally acceptable solution.

Society as you put it is initially founded by a group of people. They set the rules. This isn't a codified block of rules, but rather a consensus of the population. This population is genetically similar. If a group of genetically similar people set the rules, then certainly said rules will be advantageous to themselves.

My point is, in your example do you wish for a society where norms are totally unaffected by different genetic groups, and if so how will you get it? Maybe a one-world scenario where there was no distinctness? Would it be worth it?

Or do you wish for a multi-racial society? And then, what sort of norms would occur in such a society? Would they not be somewhat schizophrenic? Maybe we would need a qualitative way to determine worth of human beings (cash intake), because thats all we could agree on as a whole. Maybe there would be a sense of loss and valueless in many of the citizens.

[cjs55]

I am sickened when children die of desease or when others die of cancer or when ignorance is taken as fact.

This is fine, but the fact that children die of disease is not untrue because it is sickening. That's all I wanted to point out.

[Jacque]

"I don't mean to be a racist, but I am." :hello:

I say, that before being tempted to draw conclusions from any source - especially when overwhelmed with statistics and footnotes - you need to hear the other side...the one that's not racist.

Here's a start:http://slate.msn.com/id/2416/

Your hear the arguments for racism without hearing the claim and so think yourself genius for arriving to the diabolical conclusion and its truth, which good conscience had kept hidden away. :worthy:


You may quipp back at me with that shit about younger gerenations being smarter than older ones and therefore the youngsters must be right - but I answer - read the works Shakespear, Newton, and the works of many great people from generations before to see that we have advance very little in history of civilzed man.

You know, I've never enjoyed Shakespeare, so I think it must be taste not greatness. But still, even I'm smart enough to tell wisdom from intelligence. I probably won't go to grandma for computer trouble, but if I ever need strength (to not toss my fustrations out the window) I turn to someone who has conquered more obstacles than my friend has videogames.

But I don't identify with my peers much, most of my friends surpassing me by 10 years. It's a birth order thing being an only child.


After that if you choose to do so PM me and I will link you to information about people who have contributed our lives and why we do not know their names.

I think they'd be hard-pressed to find the same level of recognition within your own narcissistic generation, Xer. ;P

Anyways, according to the Flynn Effect, IQ doubles every 114 years leaving the Founding Fathers with an IQ of 26. No wonder we've had such difficulty interpreting the Constitution. It was written for a moron (or an imbecile to be IQ specific), perhaps Miers' only redeeming qualification.

I'm evil... :peep:

[cjs55]

I bet the average IQ of a black inner-city person is roughly the same as ANY inner-city white person.

I have not read research concerning that, however I am reasonably sure that the inverse is untrue (average IQ of african-american in middle class homes vs. others). The gap is met halfway, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

[cjs55]

Your hear the arguments for racism without hearing the claim and so think yourself genius for arriving to the diabolical conclusion and its truth, which good conscience had kept hidden away.

Oh yes, the battle rages on. The psudeo-scientific liberals and the pseudo-scientific racists will always squabble. Of course, they are both right on points, but rarely will it be admitted.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I also find the suggestion that intelligence is exempt from genetic variation highly unlikely, otherwise there is no reason why the chimpanzee should not be as intelligent as a human.

No, it is highly likely that genetic variation that leads to different physical characteristics correlates with overall intelligence on average. And if studies find that the group identified as having white characteristics also carry more inteliigent genes, the suggestion that intermediary groups that mark the transition from white characteristics to what the article describes as pure bred blacks would indeed fit the middle ground, and be more intelligent becase of their genes.




This is the part I take exception to - here's why...


DNA Sequencing has proven that the variance spread in the entire human race is smaller than an group of 20 chimps. This means there is not enough of a difference at the generic level to support a claim as such.

I will agree that social factors such as nutrition has an effect in individual people - not on a whole race. THe variance spread does not support this.

Type theory holds more water as to indicate a more intelligent group than does race -

Finally - the people I know from Africa tend to be more intelligent than the white americans living here (PHD level Grad Students) - not because they are genetically smarter at the racial level - but because they are smarter at the individual level. We only get to see the best from their countries - while in America we see all of Americans - the smart and the not so smart. ANy studies that have shown "groups that mark the transition from white characteristics to what the article describes as pure bred blacks" were most likely conducted with that end in mind or prematurely concluded. I see too much evidence to believe such crap (read accepted articles from respected scientific orgainizations).

Speculation is nice - but it is speculation.


btw - I do wanna thank you guys for helping me get my post count higher.

[Lee]

Society as you put it is initially founded by a group of people. They set the rules. This isn't a codified block of rules, but rather a consensus of the population. This population is genetically similar. If a group of genetically similar people set the rules, then certainly said rules will be advantageous to themselves.These rules are always changing as we adapt to new circumstances. This is especially true of democracies.


My point is, in your example do you wish for a society where norms are totally unaffected by different genetic groups, and if so how will you get it? Maybe a one-world scenario where there was no distinctness? Would it be worth it?

Or do you wish for a multi-racial society? And then, what sort of norms would occur in such a society? Would they not be somewhat schizophrenic? Maybe we would need a qualitative way to determine worth of human beings (cash intake), because thats all we could agree on as a whole. Maybe there would be a sense of loss and valueless in many of the citizens.I am not sure exactly what you mean, but I sense you would wish me to set forth how I hope my vision would be achieved.

Equality of rights are ultimately beneficial to everyone, and ignoring these 'racial' averages when making judgements is crucial.

As I already had expressed, I do think that different variations of human have different genetic strengths and weaknesses, however the overlap ensures that any individual will likely not fit the average.

Ultimately, as long as we can uphold a state of law, what is good for my next door neighbour, is good for me... since law seeks to abolish destructive competition. Capitalism does not care what 'race' a person is, as long as they deliver the goods, and so equality of rights allows for those who are capable to excel presuming they are willing, and by affording equal rights to everyone, you ensure that all your best, brightest and most capable people are taken advantage of.

This is good for everyone in the long run.

Besides, by refusing rights, we are inviting revolution and repurcussions from those who are being denied a chance on no rational grounds.

[Jacque]

The psudeo-scientific liberals and the pseudo-scientific racists will always squabble.

Why always the two? When are the detached, patronizing, third party, so-called middle-of-the-road observers gonna get their licks?

[cjs55]

I agree that refusing rights is a bad thing, however I disagree with you on the basis of what society should be.

The problem I have with that is I fully disagree with the value system created in democracy/capitalism, and I find that other values should exist in a society other than the accumulation of wealth or individualism for its own sake. My point is that the societies that I find myself respecting most are the ones where the values of a society are the more heroic and naturally harmonious ones that tribal groups tend to gravitate towards, instead of being dictated by the lowest-common-denominator (money). I guess this is for another thread though.

[cjs55]

Why always the two? When are the detached, patronizing, third party, so-called middle-of-the-road observers gonna get their licks?

You can't lick a detached observer, for there is nothing there to lick ; ).

Seriously though, when I change my mind it will be because of a conceptual shift due to a large amount of enveloping understanding, not because of some link disparaging one document. There is plenty of material that goes both ways, and I have read a decent amount of it. I accept that there are natural causes in the differences in human beings because it explains more of the world than the liberal/humanist side does. I will take the holistic explanation of events over the non-holistic one any day.

It's fairly obvious to me that nurture and nature are not exclusive theories in understanding human development. I will not abandon one because the other makes more sense in places.

[eyebyte_atWork]

You can't lick a detached observer, for there is nothing there to lick ; ).

Seriously though, when I change my mind it will be because of a conceptual shift due to a large amount of enveloping understanding, not because of some link disparaging one document. There is plenty of material that goes both ways. I take the side of darwin, because it explains more than the liberal/humanist side does. I don't accept non-holistic understandings of the world.


You're as about detached as florida is from the rest of the US.

and I do take the side of darwin - along with presently known facts (DNA evidence)- not studies that are half done.


Good night people - take care

[Lee]

This is the part I take exception to - here's why...


DNA Sequencing has proven that the variance spread in the entire human race is smaller than an group of 20 chimps. This means there is not enough of a difference at the generic level to support a claim as such.The phenotypic expression of a gene is not proportional to the amount of information that gene represents in the DNA. The alteration of one gene can have repurcussions throughout the organism.

I am not suggesting with certainty that what I am saying is true, but I have seen many studies that have suggested these patterns. So I find it extremely unlikely that during these adaptations to local environment, that genes controlling intelligence would not also have been altered/selected for/selected against or even just been a lucky batch through an evolutionary bottleneck from the Africans from which they decended.

Just as some people are faster than others due to their genes, others are more artistic, aggressive or intelligent. What adds flames to this issue are these racial groupings, that really are unhelpful in almost every respect. Nobody would batter an eyelid if I said that some people are innately more likely to turn out intelligent than others due to genetic characteristics, and really, that is all I am suggesting.


btw - I do wanna thank you guys for helping me get my post count higher.My pleasure.

[cjs55]

DNA Sequencing has proven that the variance spread in the entire human race is smaller than an group of 20 chimps. This means there is not enough of a difference at the generic level to support a claim as such.

What does this mean? I have no clue. What we consider 'varying intellgence' is not necessarily the result of massive DNA divergence.

Intelligence (or intelligences, whatever) varies quite a bit across the human population, excluding any supgrouping considerations. This seems fairly obvious.




You're as about detached as florida is from the rest of the US.

It's almost impossible to get into arguments like this without taking some stance. There is too much data available, and it's all far too complex, to just make totally neutral logic claims about it and think you will get anywhere.

That said, I do try to do so when I can. I may not achieve it, but I doubt on a charged topic such as this that anyone here would ever be a reliable source in telling me how close I came.

Actually I might trust Lee on it...maybe.

[Jacque]

Seriously though, when I change my mind it will be because of a conceptual shift due to a large amount of enveloping understanding, not because of some link disparaging one document.

"A conceptual shift due to a large amount of enveloping understanding"???

I won't say anything (http://www.pentacle.co.uk/compilation_4.htm)...

But you know what sold the book. People bought the book for a myriad of different reasons and "enveloping understanding" wasn't one of them or else they were looking in the wrong place. What the link "disparaged", if you read it, was its claim to authority.

[cjs55]

I suppose all other books are always purchased for the effort of a greater understanding of the world then? Only those evil racists have to find evidence for what they already believe.

It goes both ways. All the time. It's a part of being human. Many times intuition will lead in research being done that validates that intuition. Sometimes the only guage of accuracy in 'scienctific' study is being able to predict the future, and thats it.

Anyways, I don't really see your point. I haven't read the bell curve. I have read some other essays on IQ that seem more interesting and persuasive than it. I wasn't amazingly enthralled by the arguments put forward by either the summary of the book, or its detractors.

[cjs55]

I won't say anything...

You have certainly pegged me via a message board. I know very little about you, so I suppose you are quite superior to me in that respect.

I will always search for a holistic explanation of the universe. If you don't want to believe me, I could care less.

[Jacque]

I suppose all other books are always purchased for the effort of a greater understanding of the world then? Only those evil racists have to find evidence for what they already believe.

No, it's claiming to know from one book how intelligent black people are as if, with all your past interactions, you were never able to put your finger on it before.


I wasn't amazingly enthralled by the arguments put forward by either the summary of the book, or its detractors.

Well then, keep that nose clean.

[Vale]

This is sickening. I never thought someone would actually say this at the end of 2005. This thread should be closed.

That's what I thought, too, when I first read it...and I tried my best, but I couldn't find a way to type that sentence out to be inoffensive without sugar-coating it. I'm sorry, but the statistics support that biracials tend to get better IQ scores than "pure" blacks. It's hardly a palatable concept, but there's research to back it up. I don't particularly like the idea of men, on average, having slightly higher IQ's than women, but I can't fight facts. I've still found myself to be smarter than the vast majority of people I've met, male and female, so it doesn't exactly bog me down too much.

I decided to post this topic on this forum because I believed, with the volume of brilliant, probing, open minds here, that it was the only place where an intelligent discussion could develop that wouldn't be locked (and, for the most part, I think I was right).


TO VALE, THE WHITE GIRL FROM TEXAS: Please prove me right about White people

George W. Bush came from your state and is the president of the US???

You're holding an entire state accountable for a single man?


And I would like to focus on a specific point...A number of people here seemed convinced that IQ's are the result of upbringing and environmental factors. One of the main points of The Bell Curve, and the link I posted, was that IQ is primarily genetic. An adopted child raised in a different household is more likely to have an IQ, and a criminal record, closer to his or her original parents than with his or her adoptive parents. There are a number of studies that back this up, but rather than quote them, I'll just refer to the original link. I'd also like to emphasize that IQ doesn't generally fluctuate throughout one's lifetime (it may change by a few points, but by and large, increases of upwards of 10 just don't happen). A person at the age of 15 is probably going to have the same IQ at age 67.

Even ignoring the racial debate, this data deviates considerably from mainstream thought. Genetics has much more to do with who you are than you probably think. And we forget that human beings are animals, subject to the same laws of heritability and Darwinism that other creatures are.

I am still not convinced that races do not exist, even if they have mixed and migrated quite a bit over the centuries. People of a race still generally choose to mate (for lack of a better word) with those of their same race. The fact that dog breeds have interbred doesn't mean the original breeds are nonexistent.

[floyd]

i am curious if anyone has a theory as to why all these racist scientists (who are mostly caucasian) and research studies consistently find asians to be the smartest?

[Ivy]

i am curious if anyone has a theory as to why all these racist scientists (who are mostly caucasian) and research studies consistently find asians to be the smartest?

That's who they cheated off of in college?

[floyd]

if you want to fix differences between races we need to understand genetics and genetic evolution better. we need to figure out how to give people the option of eliminating any genetic liability which all races have in different areas. that would be the practical compassionate solution, denying differences is dishonest/ignorant/lazy compassion (and in so far as it does not reduce the percent of blacks in poverty it does not qualify as compassion either).

failing the above, eventually most the descendents of non asians here will live in some ghetto struggling to learn chinese.

["InsertNameHere"]

Vale you should read this thread in its entirety or preferably the last 7 pages.

RACISM (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4060&page=1&pp=10)

Some of the questions you asked are covered there. So read up!

[mgb]

Vale,

It's probably in your wording, I mean why you are being called a racist. You said, "Please prove me wrong," in your title.

As for the research, why does everyone else have to cough up information for you? Maybe you could do some of your own. Either way, I have a hunch you'll come to which ever conclusion you want to. Clearly, there really isn't anything definitive out there about the nature of humans or this wouldn't be a debate.

For me, in part, it is one of the truest measures of science, that in the end it really tells us nothing.

[cjs55]

I agree with mgbradsh there, the scientific method can produce useful results but the initial questions are always the product of a subjective mind seeking a certain result.

Oh on a total side note, speak of the devil:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007391

Reading it now.



(And damn, I made some dumb comments in that other thread. I haven't gotten much better though.)

[floyd]

I agree with mgbradsh there, the scientific method can produce useful results but the initial questions are always the product of a subjective mind seeking a certain result.

Oh on a total side note, speak of the devil:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007391

Reading it now.



(And damn, I made some dumb comments in that other thread. I haven't gotten much better though.)


that article is too long, i would have to be asian to finish it.

[cjs55]

yeah my attention keeps fading as well. I wonder what the 'ADD' rates (whatever the fuck ADD really is) are in different cultures and different ethnicities?

[Valentine]

Okay, I will admit to skimming the last 8 pages of posts. As I was reading, I remembered an article that had been in my local paper. I was able to find it, and, probably in violation of copyright law, I'm going to just put up the whole thing.

I thought the article below was fascinating. I saw several people on this thread discussing race as a cultural phenomenon, and I would agree.

Dealing with all the different factors (culture, nutrition, home environment, etc.) that go into making each person what he or she is, then dealing with how any single aspect of that person is measured (and trying to watch for biases, influences) is hugely messy and inaccurate.

I'm going to go back and do more reading now.




Title: High school biotechnology class challenges ideas about race , San Jose Mercury News (CA), Feb 13, 2004
Database: Newspaper Source
High school biotechnology class challenges ideas about race


SAN JOSE, Calif.-In the stratified world of high school, where cliques often form along racial lines, Carolyn Abbott's biotechnology students recently made a startling discovery:

More than half of the class at Piedmont Hills High School in San Jose, Calif., made up of students from numerous racial and ethnic backgrounds, are linked in their DNA to the same ancestor, born more than 100,000 years ago in central China or Taiwan.

"That's crazy," said junior Christina Romero, as she scanned the wide array of facial features, hair colors and skin tones among 17 teenagers who were suddenly related.

"I finally have an excuse to be in the Chinese Club," said sophomore Beth Gomes, a white student among the consanguineous classmates.

It was a highly technical genetics experiment involving polymerase chain reactions and gel electrophoresis. But it yielded deep revelations that forced the identity-conscious teens to re-evaluate their differences. And it prompted students to ponder a perplexing question: Does race exist?

With the recent mapping of the human genome and the intricate picture of humans available on a molecular level, scientists know that traditional notions of race no longer hold up.

"It's kind of mind-blowing," said Alan Goodman, president-elect of the American Anthropological Association, who likens the discovery to "what it must have been like to understand that the world isn't flat. The majority of individuals, if you asked them if race is based on biology, they would say yes."

Junior Aaron Saini, whose family comes from northern India, was surprised to learn that he has more in common genetically with classmate Christine Gonzalez, who is half Mexican and half European, than with Sefali Patel, whose heritage is also northern Indian.

(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

After the lab experiment, junior Michael Huynh walked outside the classroom and saw a friend, who is Indian, in a different light.

"He was just standing there in the hallway, and I was just looking at him and thinking, `Wow. He may look different, but there's no real separation between us,' " the 16-year-old said.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

For centuries, scientists have studied the physiology, facial features and brain size of various populations to prove genetic differences among so-called "races." Geneticists who spent years mapping the human genome, however, discovered just the opposite: Modern humans vary by only 0.2 percent of their genetic material-and none of those variations correspond with definitions of race.

There is still debate over the fact that racial groups respond differently to diseases, as well as medications. Most geneticists attribute human differences to environmental adaptations, not race.

But one need only look around the hallways of any California high school to wonder whether some primordial force is at work. Like elsewhere, students segregate at Piedmont Hills, a school that draws from middle-class neighborhoods at the base of San Jose's eastern foothills and that has changed dramatically in the last decade from predominantly white to 56 percent Asian, 19 percent Latino, 19 percent white, and 5 percent African-American.

Beth hangs out mostly with white kids, though she doesn't know why. Calvin Wei, a student of Chinese heritage who discovered he shares a common ancestor with Beth, has mostly Asian friends.

"It's not that we choose to hang out specifically with Asians; it's just that we grew up together," said Juan Palma, who is of Filipino heritage.

Which is precisely why a lab such as the one conducted at Piedmont Hills High is so important, said Katy Korsmeyer, program director for the Santa Clara County Biotechnology Education Partnership, which provides support and training for teachers conducting such DNA experiments, which are scheduled for 13 county high schools this year. Science educators estimate that as many as 50,000 students do the experiment nationwide.

"We are 99 percent the same," Korsmeyer said. "That's what we want students to understand."

(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

Abbott's students tested for a specific genetic marker, called an alu, a random mutation that occurred in one human being, which was then spread worldwide over thousands of years through progeny and migration. The genetic marker doesn't determine cell functions or human traits. But its presence in populations today allows scientists to determine that it first occurred in eastern China or Taiwan, one reason why there would be a high prevalence of the alu in Abbott's class, which is majority Asian.

Through weeks of failed results, do-overs, fire drill interruptions, late assignments and silly comments (one student asked about the impact of aliens on the complexity of the human genome), Abbott never let on that the scientific exercise would also have vast social significance.

"I not only teach genetics and techniques, but how to connect these things to their everyday lives," said Abbott, who has taught 16 years at Piedmont Hills and started the biotechnology class five years ago.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

When results were in, 17 related students had a variety of racial and ethnic heritage-African-American, European, Japanese, Indian, Taiwanese, Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, Vietnamese and Korean.

After their initial gasps, students downplayed the results, saying that they already knew-living in such a diverse area as San Jose-that all people are pretty much the same.

"It's kind of obvious," said Calvin. "You don't judge a book by its cover."

But in the following days, the lab results stayed with them. Sefali, who was stunned that she and Aaron didn't share the same ancestry, was compelled to talk about the lab with her father, asking him if he thought race existed.

"To him, it doesn't," she said. "But he said in reality it does, because the majority of people do think race exists. ... That's just how everyone looks at it."

Michael remembered the lab results in history class, during a discussion of Rudyard Kipling's infamous 1899 poem "The White Man's Burden" about Western imperialism. The class was considering the notion put forth at various times in history of a superior race.

"And I said, `Race doesn't exist,' " Michael said. "I wouldn't have said anything if I wasn't in this class."

---

(c) 2004, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).

Visit MercuryNews.com, the World Wide Web site of the Mercury News, at http://www.mercurynews.com.

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

-----

PHOTOS (from KRT Photo Service, 202-383-6099): bloodlines

[cjs55]

Modern humans vary by only 0.2 percent of their genetic material-and none of those variations correspond with definitions of race.


Turning to race, we must begin with the fraught question of whether it even exists, or whether it is instead a social construct. The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Mr. Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels.

In the past few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Mr. Lewontin was wrong. Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9% of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

Homo sapiens actually falls into many more interesting groups than the bulky ones known as "races."....

I suppose you can find data either way. And considering that both sides blame the other for social problems, one can understand why it's such a heated discussion.

[shum]

there are some things you just dont do.

if you are decent.

[Jacque]

But they are probably migration markers, which speak nothing of innate abilities and neither does pigmentation. There's so much more that explains us than race. And when we get there and unravel those mysteries, we'll probably look back only to laugh at our foolish fixation with racism.

I won't deny people the right to look for biological causes, but do so objectively and not profit off racial tensions. It is not a promising sight watching the future gatekeepers of institutional racism mature.

As for Asians being more intelligent, many of those reported in study were - if I remember correctly - well-to-do, who attended a Hong Kong prep school. Again, the socioeconomic influences are underplayed. Again, pay close attention as the devil is always in the details. And we all know how hideously the idea of racial inferiority evolves. I've read this stuff on white supremacist websites where they continue to test the intellectual corriders. We aren't the only ones paying attention to what science or the statisticians tell us.

[Helios]

that article is too long, i would have to be asian to finish it.



Yeah, but think how small your cock would be then! :shock:


This is all crap. Vale I don't fault you for asking, but keep in mind this is all based on what could be totally faulty data. Now maybe you would score higher on an IQ test than a bushman, and I higher than than you since I am both Western,white, and male. But if you and I were stranded in the Kalahari who's knowledge would be priceles then?


If in your life you have seen and believed that all people are equal than you already know that anything else is socail consturct or the result there of. If you had doubts then the question lies inside of you and isn't subject to data. I personally believe alota things that conflict with conventional wisdom and so-called "fact", but my experiance tells me something else, and I have to go with my gut.


So tell me what is better a chihuahua or a Russian wolfhound?

[Wiki]

I think you're just another gullible redneck reading the racist news, and trying to come up with stupid statistics to back up your 'fear' (or not? Maybe you just think this is fun, to act like the bewildered little girl, in the face of some kind of 'evidence'???) that you might be a racist. Why don't you analyze things with your own mind? I'm not even going to bother with you anymore than this.
Stop holding back and tell us how you really feel.

[Hustler]

I know this is a subject none of us want to talk about, but if anyone can find statistics that support environmental, rather than genetic, factors as being the cause of the IQ gap, please do so.

Feel free to check out "Genes, Peoples, and Languages." You can learn about it here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520228731/qid=1129631255/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8826689-9630466?v=glance&s=books

Once you better understand the nature of genetic differences in the various peoples in the world, it will make the real reasons for and significance of the alleged racial IQ disparity clear to you. This book is but one piece of the puzzle, as is "The Bell Curve." The information is out there, but you are going to have to go beyond reading just the book you have already.

[Architectonic]

I think people first need to clarify what they mean by 'race'. Race is traditionally a way of categorizing people based only on their physical characteristics. Any further difference in attributes in addition to these physical characteristics may be implied by some, but would need to be proven with hard physical evidence. The DNA that relates to physical characteristics may be similar between two people of the same 'race' will of course be similar, but that does not necessarily imply similarities in DNA that determine any other characteristics. Furthermore, race based on physical characteristics goes a lot further than what colour someones skin is, or what colour their eyes are. It would not be logical to assume that just because two individuals share the same skin tone, that they are also of the same race. It has been found that a number of northern Africans share many physical characteristics with certain european races, more so than some of the other African races.

A more realistic definition of race would simply be one that is based on an extended family tree - one that defines all of the ancestors (possible sources of DNA) and maps out all of the similarities between each individual. Of course even within an extended family, there can still be significant DNA variances, since it is still *somewhat* random which combination of DNA an individual will get based on all of the possible ancestors.

Part of the problem with these macroscopic studies is that it is necessary to account for and control the multitude of variables involved. In the case of 'The Bell Curve' for example, there are a number of assumptions involved in the IQ testing and how different races are categorized, not to mention how factors such as culture are taken into account, that the results are potentially suspect and open to questioning before you can form any realistic conclusions.

Naturally, you have to put the conclusions based on macroscopic observations into context when applying it to an individual case.


Kids are predictable.

Anyone find this comment rather ironic? :ph34r:


ok - So who can tell us about Dr Mark Dean??

An EE who helped lead the development of the ISA bus among other achievements.

[Architectonic]

i am curious if anyone has a theory as to why all these racist scientists (who are mostly caucasian) and research studies consistently find asians to be the smartest?

As an attempt to add validity to their biased assumptions? :ph34r:

[eyebyte_atWork]

That's what I thought, too, when I first read it...and I tried my best, but I couldn't find a way to type that sentence out to be inoffensive without sugar-coating it. I'm sorry, but the statistics support that biracials tend to get better IQ scores than "pure" blacks. It's hardly a palatable concept, but there's research to back it up. I don't particularly like the idea of men, on average, having slightly higher IQ's than women, but I can't fight facts. I've still found myself to be smarter than the vast majority of people I've met, male and female, so it doesn't exactly bog me down too much.



Which studies?? The statistic of school test scores?? These results are use to determine which school districts need more money. This means that the results are more indicative of economic factors - not racial - and it is no surprise blacks tend to score lower on these test because blacks tend to live in an economically disadvantaged position.

And I share you unique position of having yet to have met many people smarter than myself - big whup.

And also being from Texas (born and raised)- the people I have met here who echo these beliefs and quote such "Statistical Evidence" tend to the people who hang out with their intellectual friends smoking pot - talking about how blacks are bringing down the neighborhood. These college drop out dope smoking intellectuals (who try to validate their ignorant views with whatever they can) are the reason I want to leave this state.





And I would like to focus on a specific point...A number of people here seemed convinced that IQ's are the result of upbringing and environmental factors. One of the main points of The Bell Curve, and the link I posted, was that IQ is primarily genetic. An adopted child raised in a different household is more likely to have an IQ, and a criminal record, closer to his or her original parents than with his or her adoptive parents. There are a number of studies that back this up, but rather than quote them, I'll just refer to the original link. I'd also like to emphasize that IQ doesn't generally fluctuate throughout one's lifetime (it may change by a few points, but by and large, increases of upwards of 10 just don't happen). A person at the age of 15 is probably going to have the same IQ at age 67.

Even ignoring the racial debate, this data deviates considerably from mainstream thought. Genetics has much more to do with who you are than you probably think. And we forget that human beings are animals, subject to the same laws of heritability and Darwinism that other creatures are.



Genetics has everything to do with it - and it still surprises me that it gets ignored in favor for biased beliefs. DNA sequencing has shown that the genetic spread between all people are earth is so miniscule compared to other animals - this means that we are more then same with each other than other animals are to each other - including a litter of kittens - which for all pusposes are all about the same except for there markings.


And that adopted thing.... I want to see proof of that. It sounds anecdotal to me My sister in law is adopted and her bio mom was criminal (and white) - she does take after her adopted parents as far as morals and such - no criminal record and a wonderful mother. Now her IQ is likely to be that of her bio-mothers - how she uses it is a result of her upbringing.





I am still not convinced that races do not exist, even if they have mixed and migrated quite a bit over the centuries. People of a race still generally choose to mate (for lack of a better word) with those of their same race. The fact that dog breeds have interbred doesn't mean the original breeds are nonexistent.


That last one has me laughing - people choose people who look like them "to mate" because it is a group finding mechanism. People tend to group - a remnant of our ape selves. This tendancy has been deminishing over time - but it was neccessary for group survival. People used to group for group security - something that is no longer needed in today's world as we are now becoming a global community. This is a recent occurance. People who are still into that separatist thinking are definitely using old world thinking. THat's so last century.

[eyebyte_atWork]

An EE who helped lead the development of the ISA bus among other achievements.

You forgot to mention that he was black. Thats ok - most whites forget to mention that.

Also - he personally holds three of nine patents for the PC - and he lead the team that was able to create the microprocessor that was over 1 Ghz.

I have talked to people (engineers) who knew him - and they all say the same thing - he is the smartest guy they have ever known. That is a very telling compliment.

I can also list other black people who have done great things that lack public exposure thus adding to the general consensus that blacks are not generally smart and therefore genetically disadvantanged. Ignoring evidence only leads to skewed conclusions.

[Architectonic]

You forgot to mention that he was black. Thats ok - most whites forget to mention that.

I didn't feel it was necessary to discriminate his skin colour.

His skin looks kinda light brown (http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/labdir/) to me. :ph34r:

[Lee]

That's what I thought, too, when I first read it...and I tried my best, but I couldn't find a way to type that sentence out to be inoffensive without sugar-coating it.You made a statement consistent with the information you were working from, and you did not say that it was a view that you held. There was nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

Some people are smarter than others, and it is largley due to thier genes. All you really said was that some people have genes that predispose them to intelligence more than others, the confusion arises with the use of 'races' and how people identify themselves quite erroneously as a particular race.

People are insulted due to their own failure to appreciate what is really being said. If anything you have expressed the best attitude of anyone in this conversation:

a) Because you are shaping your conclusion from the evidence that you have at your disposal. That is all that can be asked, and it is considerably more than what many people do, which is come to a conclusion before searching for evidence to support it.

b) You seek constructive and critical discussion on the topic, which is by far the best method of reaching a realisitc conclusion. Those who would wish to stifle the debate only hurt themselves in the long run because ignoring evidence is a sure way to reach an incorrect conclusion.

You have nothing to feel apologetic for, and you were certainly not wrong to make the comments that you did.


I'm sorry, but the statistics support that biracials tend to get better IQ scores than "pure" blacks.Here is one of the issues. What is a pure black? how would you go about identifying a pure black, since human share the majority of their DNA nobody can be said to be a pure black by those standards, nor even a pure human, as we also share DNA with animals.

The very concept of a pure black is broken.

This idea acts as though humans arose independently in different areas of the globe, with distincly different DNA. This is clearly false.


It's hardly a palatable concept, but there's research to back it up.It is not unpalatable to suggest that their is gentic variation amongst humans, and it is certainly not unpalatable to suggest that ceratin combinations of genes controlling appearence and intelligence might correlate with a higher frequency together. It is only the broad and flawed categories of black, white, asian etc. hat lead us to the statement that blacks are less intelligent than whites and asians.

If people insist on making judgements of the entire person off physical characteristics, that may correlate with other other characteristics with a greater frequency through a population, then that is their failing. People fail to acknowledge the difference between an individual and an average, because a randomly selected individual need not fit the pattern of an average at all.


I don't particularly like the idea of men, on average, having slightly higher IQ's than women, but I can't fight facts.Hmm... I have read that the average IQ's of men and women are actually quite equal, but men tend to be spread more thinly over the entire spectrum, leading to more male geniuses and more male retards. Although to be fair, I am not certain of the reliability of any statistics on this matter.

Once again though, for practical purposes it is quite irrelevent and any random sample can go completely against the average (such as yourself), and equality of rights (leading to equal oppurtunities) is what matters, because that allows those female geniuses to get ahead if they are capable, instead of being discriminated agianst based off a statistical average that does not represent them. Ultimately this equality of rights is better for all, despite what some more traditional minds may think, luckily the universe does not care what they think.


I've still found myself to be smarter than the vast majority of people I've met, male and female, so it doesn't exactly bog me down too much.Exactly, and nor should it ever, for anybody.

Using population averages for decisions about individuals will always be a bad policy, because in doing so you do not make the best of the recources available.


I decided to post this topic on this forum because I believed, with the volume of brilliant, probing, open minds here, that it was the only place where an intelligent discussion could develop that wouldn't be locked (and, for the most part, I think I was right).:blink: brilliant? probing? open minds? are you sure you have not stumbled into the wrong place... hehe.

Joking aside, I am also glad that this thread was not closed, because I find this topic interesting and worth discussing.


And I would like to focus on a specific point...A number of people here seemed convinced that IQ's are the result of upbringing and environmental factors. One of the main points of The Bell Curve, and the link I posted, was that IQ is primarily genetic. An adopted child raised in a different household is more likely to have an IQ, and a criminal record, closer to his or her original parents than with his or her adoptive parents.Yes, genetic inheritance plays a key role of how intelligent a person is, and what kind of intelligence they posses.

Studies on identical twins are perhaps some of the most enlightening as they share the exact same set of genes, and these twins on average have closely corralting IQ scores, far more than would be expected from a random sample of the rest of the population. This even holds true for indentical twins that are reared apart.

Furthermore, I would like to actually challenge the very concept of the "nature-nurture" argument that has crept into this thread several times.

The "nature vs nurture" agument is based of a misunderstanding of what DNA is.

DNA is information, and information is represented as organisation, in a similar way that the bumps on a CD are organised, or the words on this screen are organised, without that organisation there is no information.

DNA is organised and from that organisations springs possible results, DNA does not desire an end state, it does not try for anything, DNA simply reponds passively to environmental laws, and the orgnism emerges. DNA is probabilistic, not deterministic, it makes some outcomes more likely than others, nothing more.

Therefore all outcomes are consistent with the information in your DNA, since your very existence is dependent upon that DNA to begin with. The common act of placing environmental influences and genetic influences at odds with each other is fallicious. Using the labels of 'nature' and 'nurture' is completely inadequate. Of course I do not suggest that we cease to look for causes of how an organism came to be as it is, but the "nature vs nurture" debate will do little to further that goal.

Besides, how do you classify a scar, nature or nurture?

So anyway, back on topic. We could say that certain combinations of genes will result in a higher probability that a certain characteristic or desires are expressed.


There are a number of studies that back this up, but rather than quote them, I'll just refer to the original link. I'd also like to emphasize that IQ doesn't generally fluctuate throughout one's lifetime (it may change by a few points, but by and large, increases of upwards of 10 just don't happen). A person at the age of 15 is probably going to have the same IQ at age 67.I have read that people actually become more like their parents as thy get older, including IQ. By this I mean that a comparison of a parent in childhood and their children yeilds less correlation than a comparison of a parent and their children at middle age, including IQ.


Even ignoring the racial debate, this data deviates considerably from mainstream thought. Genetics has much more to do with who you are than you probably think. And we forget that human beings are animals, subject to the same laws of heritability and Darwinism that other creatures are.Genetics has everything to do with who you are, and since all learning occurs within the contraints of the equipment your genes have provided for you, even more so. But I have already kind covered my views on the nature and nurture debate above, so i'll leave that there. :)


I am still not convinced that races do not exist, even if they have mixed and migrated quite a bit over the centuries. People of a race still generally choose to mate (for lack of a better word) with those of their same race.Categaries do not exist in nature. Categaries are something we create to better help us understand the world. Therefore it is vital that these categaries actually correspond to our observations and are useful, otherwsie they will lead to faulty reasoning, and therefore mistakes.

Human beings are a mosaic of features, no one blanket classification to the entire mosaic can possibly do them justice as a category, especially categories based on a few superficial characteristics that are not necassarily representative of the individual. You are mistaking large scale patterns for being worthwhile categories for thinking about the topic.

In the future this will be far less of a problem, as mass breeding from diversely varied people around the globe will show these categaries to be what they are - useless, and only good for confusing the issue.

Geographic labelling of characteristics is also a flawed method of categarizing characteristics, as we all know that geographic location of birth is not a determinant of DNA content.


The fact that dog breeds have interbred doesn't mean the original breeds are nonexistent.This presumes that the different variations of human were different to begin with, IOW appeared independently, but they are not, and these variations are only subtle and relatively recent evolutionary developments. We really are the same species.

You wouldn't presume that a litter of kittens eached belonged to a different species, and that is because those visual markers are not reliable indicators of a category in kittens, and nor are they in humans.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I didn't feel it was necessary to discriminate his skin colour.

His skin looks kinda light brown (http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/labdir/) to me. :ph34r:


In this thread it would not have been out is place to mention it.

In his autobiography he actually mentions that when he growing up the white kids could not believe that a black kids could be so smart - and therefore he must not be a true black (that he must be mixed).

Your brown skin comment is funny. Same thinking I guess.

[Nighthawk]

These college drop out dope smoking intellectuals (who try to validate their ignorant views with whatever they can) are the reason I want to leave this state.

I just want to get away from my ex-wives. Costa Rica comes to mind.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I just want to get away from my ex-wives. Costa Rica comes to mind.


Yeah - Costa Rica is becoming popular these days - maybe I should look into it.

Retiring there would not be bad considering the exchange rate.

[Nighthawk]

Yeah - Costa Rica is becoming popular these days - maybe I should look into it.

Retiring there would not be bad considering the exchange rate.
I was thinking more of the women :D ... but yeah, the exchange rate is good too.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I was thinking more of the women :D ... but yeah, the exchange rate is good too.


Yeah - women.

It's all good.

[Rajah]

I was thinking more of the women :D ... but yeah, the exchange rate is good too.I honeymooned in Costa Rica. It was amazing. The people are laid back, it's beautiful (other than in San Jose), inexpensive (other than in San Jose), and has a high rate of alcoholism. My kind of people!

[Vale]

This is all crap. Vale I don't fault you for asking, but keep in mind this is all based on what could be totally faulty data. Now maybe you would score higher on an IQ test than a bushman, and I higher than than you since I am both Western,white, and male. But if you and I were stranded in the Kalahari who's knowledge would be priceles then?

Yes, I do realize this could be faulty data, which is why I constantly asked for contradictory data, which so far no one could provide. All data can be faulty, but we'd never learn anything if we didn't trust at least some of it.

And you might have a higher IQ than me by virtue of being male...if I were an average girl, which I'm not. And IQ and knowledge are two different things. Knowledge can be changed and expanded; IQ generally stays the same throughout one's life.


So tell me what is better a chihuahua or a Russian wolfhound?

This has nothing to do with whether a race is "better," however it seems clear that some races are adapted better to certain environments and civilizations.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Yes, I do realize this could be faulty data, which is why I constantly asked for contradictory data, which so far no one could provide. All data can be faulty, but we'd never learn anything if we didn't trust at least some of it.

Check out the genographic project (google it). I had some more links that I traded at work - I will look for them and post them. Let it not be said that no one could provide contradictory data. (main stream science data)




And you might have a higher IQ than me by virtue of being male...if I were an average girl, which I'm not. And IQ and knowledge are two different things. Knowledge can be changed and expanded; IQ generally stays the same throughout one's life.

Not sure why this was brought up - but since I am commenting...
True knowledge and IQ are too different things. You started to make a point - where is it??




This has nothing to do with whether a race is "better," however it seems clear that some races are adapted better to certain environments and civilizations.


Adaptation is one thing - and can vary quite a bit as it is not indicative of much change in DNA - intelligent variance is. The variance (standard deviation) of IQ is pretty much the same accross all races with equal environmental influence. The thing that differs is the envornment - which leads to all sorts of permutations. Lee actually did a really good job of noting some of these out.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I honeymooned in Costa Rica. It was amazing. The people are laid back, it's beautiful (other than in San Jose), inexpensive (other than in San Jose), and has a high rate of alcoholism. My kind of people!


I am scared to go out of the country (phobia) but when I get over that I will have to check that out - sounds cool.

It may be a good returement strategy - laying all day at the beach with a margarita in hand - heck I can go for that now.

[Leftfield]

And Vale here is the important concept... it's just an IQ... what is the big deal about it???

The comment I made about George W. way back, I was proving that he is a white man of an intelligence that I see uncapable of running a state/country and then stereotyped Texas as a whole being the problem... much like the initial comment on black people being stereotyped as "dumber" here. I called you a white girl from texas because of the whole issue at hand. :)

This thread should end ASAP...

[eyebyte_atWork]

Then Canada always seemed nice - all the benefit of being in the US with the heat of Dallas and not as many bugs either.

[eyebyte_atWork]

And Vale here is the important concept... it's just an IQ... what is the big deal about it???

The comment I made about George W. way back, I was proving that he is a white man of an intelligence that I see uncapable of running a state/country and then stereotyped Texas as a whole being the problem... much like the initial comment on black people being stereotyped as "dumber" here. I called you a white girl from texas because of the whole issue at hand. :)

This thread should end ASAP...



What is Cincinnatti like? I have never been to Ohio.

[kuranes]

I don't think that the Bell curve controversy and New Orleans problems have much to do with one another. That's a separate question/problem. Yet it was brought up as part of the intro to this thread - which says something, I think.

[Lee]

And Vale here is the important concept... it's just an IQ... what is the big deal about it???IQ is designed to measure intelligence, and while we can debate about how good it is at doing so, there is no denying that intelligent people tend to score very well on IQ tests.

The 'big deal' is that intelligence is a highly valued trait. You'll find that things that are valued are eactly what we consider 'big deals'.


The comment I made about George W. way back, I was proving that he is a white man of an intelligence that I see uncapable of running a state/country and then stereotyped Texas as a whole being the problem... much like the initial comment on black people being stereotyped as "dumber" here. I called you a white girl from texas because of the whole issue at hand. :) No, Vale expressed her scepticism at the information the link provided and wanted to discuss this topic. Neither has anybody actually claimed that individual people with darker skin are always 'dumber' than those white light skin, what has been suggested is that genes responsible for higher intelligence happen to reside in people with lighter skin with greater frequency than darker skin. This correlation is not entirely implausable, although it should be stressed that dark skin is not suggested to cause a lack of intelligence, simply correlate more frequently with it.

Of course, these broad patterns and statistical averages can never be applied to individuals, and the moral situation where we each are granted equal rights is correct, regardless of some vague and subtle differences among large poorly categarized groups.


This thread should end ASAP...Why? so you can avoid uncomfortable questions?

Analysing what race is, what scientific knowledge can be gathered about race, and whether or not 'race' has any reasonable place in our thinking is hardly a frivilous topic.

What is more is that your attitude of avoiding the topic only suggests that you have a poor understanding yourself, since ignoring criticism and evidence is sure to lead you to the wrong answer. Nobody is even being racist.

[kuranes]

I was thinking more of the women :D ... but yeah, the exchange rate is good too.

Yeah, I checked out Galilea, NH. I see you appreciate Latinas too!

[eyebyte_atWork]

Why? so you can avoid uncomfortable questions?

Analysing what race is, what scientific knowledge can be gathered about race, and whether or not 'race' has any reasonable place in our thinking is hardly a frivilous topic.

What is more is that your attitude of avoiding the topic only suggests that you have a poor understanding yourself, since ignoring criticism and evidence is sure to lead you to the wrong answer. Nobody is even being racist.

Whoa - there are people out there learning about race and genetics - these people publish their findings all the time - what we are doing here is debating - not studying. You have done a good job in being somwhat objective (as much as can be) but others here are clearly supporting (and trying to validate) their own beliefs.

[attila_the_hunny]

When someone says "prove me wrong" I would think that they already have made up their mind about something and believe it. Because really, who WANTS to be proven wrong?
I took a class and I was the only white girl--white anything, really--in it. Everyone was from Nigeria, Ghana, or Gambia or some other place. None of them were from the same village. I know I'm smart and I did better than they did, for the most part. I wouldn't attribute it to the fact that I am smarter than they are, but to the fact that English is my first language. I can only speak English--but they could speak at least three other languages. Had they had English as their first language, they would have most likely surpassed me.
I have seen more stupid white people [hell, I'm related to them] than of any other race.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Yeah, I checked out Galilea, NH. I see you appreciate Latinas too!

]
Yeah - who doesn't.

Aye - chee wa wa.

[eyebyte_atWork]

You know - I do have cousins in Chicago - maybe I should visit and see what thats like.

[kuranes]

]
Yeah - who doesn't.

Aye - chee wa wa.

There are guys who don't. In fact, I have a study on it here which proves that blah blah

[Lee]

Whoa - there are people out there learning about race and genetics - these people publish their findings all the time - what we are doing here is debating - not studying. You have done a good job in being somwhat objective (as much as can be) but others here are clearly supporting (and trying to validate) their own beliefs.Just because there are paid professionals who are seeking these answers is no reason for us to not discuss the topic, and because we all have different information to contribute we are all learning right here, right now.

People who try and silence worthwhile debate clearly must feel their own opinion inadequate. Otherwise they should have no fear in discussing alterntive views. What is more is that we can hardly reach the best conclusion if we do not discuss the topic.

Such attempts at closing the thread on nothing more than a request achieve nothing, and only leave those who currently hold racist views in the same position as they started.

Those requests irritate me.

[kuranes]

You know - I do have cousins in Chicago - maybe I should visit and see what thats like.

Yeah man - come check out Chi-town. Do it before the winter though, as it gets COLD up here. Unless you want to see the Xmas on Michigan avenue scene.

[attila_the_hunny]

There are guys who don't. In fact, I have a study on it here which proves that blah blah
:lol:

[eyebyte_atWork]

Just because there are paid professionals who are seeking these answers is no reason for us to not discuss the topic, and because we all have different information to contribute we are all learning right here, right now.

People who try and silence worthwhile debate clearly must feel their own opinion inadequate. Otherwise they should have no fear in discussing alterntive views. What is more is that we can hardly reach the best conclusion if we do not discuss the topic.

Such attempts at closing the thread on nothing more than a request achieve nothing, and only leave those who currently hold racist views in the same position as they started.

Those requests irritate me.

What part of England are you in ??

One of my co-workers grew up in London - I'll ask him where exactly and get back to you about that.

Is it rainy there? Is it more cold than hot - what is it like?

[attila_the_hunny]

Yeah man - come check out Chi-town. Do it before the winter though, as it gets COLD up here. Unless you want to see the Xmas on Michigan avenue scene.

Or New Year's Eve.

[kuranes]

Or New Year's Eve.

Me and Eyebyte will be found the next morning dazed with garish "party hats" still on, saying "Where's the action?" to passing worker bees, who will edge away from us.

[Lee]

Hehe...


What part of England are you in ??Essex. Which is just north east of London.


One of my co-workers grew up in London - I'll ask him where exactly and get back to you about that.I grew up near the border of London and Essex. Quite near Walthamstow and Chingford.


Is it rainy there? Is it more cold than hot - what is it like?It is cold, but not unbearably cold, though I wouldn't want to walk around in a t-shirt for too long.

Why?

[eyebyte_atWork]

Hehe...

Essex. Which is just north east of London.

I grew up near the border of London and Essex. Quite near Walthamstow and Chingford.

It is cold, but not unbearably cold, but I wouldn't want to walk around in a t-shirt for too long.

Why?


Cool - we'll compare notes - I am off to hooters

[cjs55]

Since it's been ignored conceptually, I'd like to make one final (hopefully clear) post concerning evolution. This is something that gets away from the bulky concept of 'race', but certainly has relevance to the dicsussion and America.

Do we agree that:

A) Evolution occurs through variability in species and through natural selection.
B] Natural Selection occurs differently depending on one's environment. It is entirely reliant on the environment, because that is what dictates what phenotypes get 'selected' and which don't

(side notes, not essnential to my argument but something I'm still interested in if you agree with)

Bsub1) It has been proven that different groups of people developed in a way to be prone to certain kinds of diseases, (and resistant to others).
Bsub2) There are physical characteristics of human beings that anthropologists can use to successfully determine what area in which a human being lived.

C) Living in America has environmental pressures, just like living in Africa requires certain traits to be successful, so does living in America. These can be attempted to be worked around of course, but it will be much easier to be successful in Africa if you have x, y, or z. There is absolutely no reason for a European to be as successful in Africa as an African native, because they have evolved in different situations. If environment is the main feature in controlling evolution as Darwin states, then human beings living in different environments will eventually adapt, and specialize to their own environment. A group in subsaharan africa will specialize differently than a group living in the sahara, vs. a group living in a forest some place in europe. This is the basic underlying concept of the theory of evolution. It applies to any environment, whether man-made or natural.

Yeah, some europeans might do pretty well in Africa. This is thanks to variation in populations. This means that there is a sphere of potential variations in a population where various people may end up in different traits. If a European happens to be near the edge of the sphere in traits x, y, and z, he may do well in sub-saharan Africa, possibly better than the average african would. But he is extremely rare. The sphere's of the groups will overlap, and possibly even across the average. However, the sphere of a populalation will always center around the important characterstics it needs to have to survive there. Thus we can see humanity as a group of distinct populations resulting from environmental pressure, that still overlap.

This is also why anecdotal evidence about certain people doing well in a particular situation is not useful in determining much about the whole (and vice versa).

Because society is influenced by both cultural/genetic issues (both influence each other in fact) one can observe society in a similar way to a natural environment. In this way societies that form in various places in the world tell us how a group of people have adapted to their envronment. You may say that after that, ideology/cultural norms takes over: You may be correct on that. However, I don't think ideology can take over at all without some initial genetic allowance for that ideology to come about. Thus, genetics always gets the ball rolling so to speak.

(another side note: In groups of 'primitive people' with less seperation from the original causes of culture (nature), it is possible that one finds a representation of darwin evolution more closer to the natural one, and less from the man-made ideology. Technology is the main seperator there, and one could possibly use development of technology as a starting point for a 'different' evolutionary path. I'm not sure about this.)

D) There is no reason to expect those Africans who were taken against their will to the United States to do well in it's environment, just as there is no reason to expect a European to do well in an African environment. Without any moralising whatsoever, it seems impossible to expect based on evolutionary theory alone. This is because of the great environmental difference between those places, and the subsequent specialization of human beings to that environment.

The difference between Africans in America and other immigrants in 'success' is not only due to a history of racism, but also because of the difference in the cultures from which they came. Obviously Europe is similar to the U.S., as it spawned it. More so than a west african tribe would be. But Asian civilization would also be more similar to the U.S. in it's development in a large scale.

(I think an interesting point here is that Asians in America often do very well in terms of crime rate and IQ tests, however, they do not quite have the testosterone level of whites on average which may result in them as a whole having less impact on the big scene (leadership positions, etc.) This may or may not be true, and I'm sure there are other factors. But at least In my own experience, I've very rarely seen 'high profile' asian-american leaders in the media.')

Finally, there will be differences those who chose to came here, and those who were forced to come here. The ones who chose to came here believed they would have a better life, and that sort of adventurousness and willingness to come here for the 'American dream' may predispose itself towards more likely success in achieving the 'American dream'. Those who were forced to come here will have no such correlation.

E) Social factors and genetic factors are not exclusive, that is by proving that social factors effect development you have done very little to disprove that genetic factors do not. %'s of similar DNA are not conclusive, because it is the phenotype that must accord to environment, and the phenotype can be significantly different in the context of the environment with 99.99% genetic similarity. Some genes are more important than others in various situations, and it could be that a very small amount of genotypal difference makes a huge difference in survival in a certain context.


Important final observation: Skin color is meaningless. What is meaningful is the genetic evolution of various populations to various environments, which may incoporate skin color but does not necessarily link it to other factors. Thus, any evidence about 'black people doing this or this' is not helpful. We need more genetic evidence about where their ancsestors came from. Once you can say 'those of west african descent are doing this or this', you're on the right track as far as the reality of human evolution goes.


(on a side note to jacque, I am not sure precisely how to determine if these studies featured 'migration markers' or not. From the annonated version of that essay:

"Tang, Quertermous, Rodriguez et al. (2005). The self-identified ethnic groups consisted of non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, East Asian, and Hispanic. The statistical procedure was cluster analysis. The algorithms in cluster analysis are not trying to find groupings that correspond to any pre-identified characteristic of the people in the sample—that is, the researchers did not use any information about the physical characteristics that humans use to identify ethnicity. Cluster analysis simply looks for interrelationships among the genetic markers that identify statistically distinct entities.")

[Madrigal]

Yes, I do realize this could be faulty data, which is why I constantly asked for contradictory data, which so far no one could provide.

Uhm, I think I predicted this, people. That was post #125, too. Sorry to butt in again (and not helping the discussion).

[Nighthawk]

I honeymooned in Costa Rica. It was amazing. The people are laid back, it's beautiful (other than in San Jose), inexpensive (other than in San Jose), and has a high rate of alcoholism. My kind of people!
Wow ... it's sounding better and better. My wife is also trying to get me to visit the Dominican Republic some time soon ... since she is Dominican.

[Nighthawk]

Yeah, I checked out Galilea, NH. I see you appreciate Latinas too!Yes ... I've always ended up marrying Latinas ... two Mexican and one Dominican. Latin television is on a lot at my house, so there is a long list of other Latinas that I appreciate in addition to Galilea. Luz Elena Gonzalez, Patricia Manterola, Annette Raveneau, Carla Martinez, Bibi Gaytan, Claudia Molina, and Pilar Montenegro ... just to name a few.

[Lee]

Since it's been ignored conceptually, I'd like to make one final (hopefully clear) post concerning evolution.I was tempted to give an evolutionary angle on this myself. Seeking to explain how this variation among humans has evolved, and why I think people seem to display an instinct for racism.

However I felt that the importance was in what variation there currently is and what it means, rather than the specifics of how it came about, so I somewhat passed over it.


a) Evolution occurs through variability in species and through natural selection.
b) Natural Selection occurs differently depending on one's environment. It is entirely reliant on the environment, because that is what dictates what phenotypes get 'selected' and which don'tNo, I do not agree.

I believe the primary cause of evolution to be natural selection. So evolution requires:

1) self-replication of entities i.e. genes.
2) Mutation during replication, so that replicated is not exactly the same as the replicator in every case. This is necassary to add new information to the gene pool.
3) The characteristics (phenotypes) of the replicators give different chances of successful survival and replication, therefore poorly designed replicators are less likely to propogate to the next generation. Most mutations are maladaptive, but due to chance, some will be adaptive and selected in favour of.

Your mistake is that you assume that the environment is entirely responsible for selecting in favour of genes. In fact, Darwin himself stresses the importance of other organisms in the selection process, particularly in social animals such as humans.

Selection can even occur within the organism, as genes can actually directly compete with one another in the organism, although for the most part work together, because they all have a common interest in the survival of the organism and reproduction.

The idea that organisms adapt to other organisms is also at the heart of game theory, human behavioural ecology and evolutionary psychology.

Of course I am assuming that you did not include 'other organisms' in your defintion of 'environment', which is entirely possible. In which case, ignore me... hehe


(side notes, not essnential to my argument but something I'm still interested in if you agree with)

Bsub1) It has been proven that different groups of people developed in a way to be prone to certain kinds of diseases, (and resistant to others).People may have developed in a way that makes them prone to certain diseases, but they certainly would not have been a selected characteristic. Unless that proness to a disease comes packaged with another characteristic whose advantage outweighs that of the disease proness.


Bsub2) There are physical characteristics of human beings that anthropologists can use to successfully determine what area in which a human being lived.That is true, however it certainly does not hold true today. And because humans can travel long distances, trying to ascertain a location from physical characteristics is always going to be inexact.


C) Living in America has environmental pressures, just like living in Africa requires certain traits to be successful, so does living in America. These can be attempted to be worked around of course, but it will be much easier to be successful in Africa if you have x, y, or z. There is absolutely no reason for a European to be as successful in Africa as an African native, because they have evolved in different situations.There is every reason why a European can be successful in Africa, and vice versa. Mutiple reasons, including historical evidence could be provided.

The environmental adaptations of humans are very recent and relavtively minor. A native of Africa will have very little difficulty living in a European or North American environment, there is nothing a person with light skin can do that a person with darker skin can't.

There is every reason to expect aa person of African decent (heh, aren't we all?) to be successful in Europe, and that is exactly what did happen about 100,000 years ago. Mordern Europeans are decendents of those pioneering and successful Africans, the adadptations since that time are only minor and are adpated from a hunter-gathering lifestyle. Those selection pressures of a hunter-gathering lifestyle are not present today, problems of adaptation to cold or climate were likely not a huge problem to begin with, but even less so in the mordern world, where technology allows us to manipulate our living environments.

Furthermore, we have historic evidence that white Europeans can succeed in an African environment, indeed they pretty much conquered the entire continent. This is because the survival advantages wrought through knowledge and technology far outweigh limited adaptions to climate that you are posing as so important.


If environment is the main feature in controlling evolution as Darwin states, then human beings living in different environments will eventually adapt, and specialize to their own environment. A group in subsaharan africa will specialize differently than a group living in the sahara, vs. a group living in a forest some place in europe. This is the basic underlying concept of the theory of evolution.Yes, eventually we may even have expected humans to become distinct species, indeed there are at least two distinct species that died out. However homo-sapiens are still one species, adaptations to respective environment are very recent, the vast majority of human evolution occured in Africa. In the mordern world, the geographical barriers that allowed different variations to develop in relative isolation no longer hold, I would fully expect that humanity will homogenize over the next few hundred years.

However you are wrong if you propose that each ethnic group is finely tuned to their respective environment. Actually, humans are actually poorly adapted to any specific environment, and this is our strength... we are highly adaptive during a single liftime and can use our intelligence to survive many types of environment. The archeaological record tells us that overspecialization tends to result in extinction, because if you are overspecialized to your environment, one change can ruin everything. So lets be pleased that we are not specialized.


D) There is no reason to expect those Africans who were taken against their will to the United States to do well in it's environment, just as there is no reason to expect a European to do well in an African environment.That depends what you mean by 'well'. In fact, no human is well adapted to the world we live in today, no human is adapted to cities, subways, aeroplanes, telephones, TV, supermarkets etc. but once again, the fact that we are unspecialized is our strength.

Because no ethnic group ahs been selected for mordern environment, we should nto expect any of them to necassarily have an innate advantage due to the climates they evolved for.


Without any moralising whatsoever, it seems impossible to expect based on evolutionary theory alone. This is because of the great environmental difference between those places, and the subsequent specialization of human beings to that environment.I think I have already covered what I think is wrong with this theory.


The difference between Africans in America and other immigrants in 'success' is not only due to a history of racism, but also because of the difference in the cultures from which they came. Obviously Europe is similar to the U.S., as it spawned it. More so than a west african tribe would be. But Asian civilization would also be more similar to the U.S. in it's development in a large scale.This has truth to it. The legacy of the cultures from which immigrants originated from may play a part in the problems of today, however these cultures are largely a product of geographic recourses available. Not any large difference in innate ability or characteristics.


(I think an interesting point here is that Asians in America often do very well in terms of crime rate and IQ tests, however, they do not quite have the testosterone level of whites on average which may result in them as a whole having less impact on the big scene (leadership positions, etc.) This may or may not be true, but In my own experience, I've very rarely seen 'high profile' asian-american leaders in the media.')I agree with this. Testosterone is directly linked to competitive behaviour, and power play.


Finally, there will be differences those who chose to came here, and those who were forced to come here. The ones who chose to came here believed they would have a better life, and that sort of adventurousness and willingness to come here for the 'American dream' may predispose itself towards more likely success in achieving the 'American dream'. Those who were forced to come here will have no such correlation.This is likely to have some truth to it, although I would suspect it is again a matter of the culture/attitude that these people brought with them.

This is speculation, but it sounds quite plausable.


E) Social factors and genetic factors are not exclusive, that is by proving that social factors effect development you have done very little to disprove that genetic factors do not.That is obviously true, because organisms are the emergent product of our recipe i.e. DNA, and culture is the emergent product of all those organisms interacting with each other. And since genes are probabilistic, that means all culture is consistent with what our genes make possible.


%'s of similar DNA are not conclusive, because it is the phenotype that must accord to environment, and the phenotype can be significantly different in the context of the environment with 99.99% genetic similarity. Some genes are more important than others in various situations, and it could be that a very small amount of genotypal difference makes a huge difference in survival in a certain context.Indeed.

I think you are seriously overestimating the specialization of different humans to different environments, and you are also seriously underestimating the effects of technology and knowledge.

I actually see the variations between humans, and I would not seek to suppress their knowledge through fear of compromising morality, since that morality is based upon an impossible premise.

I would suggest that any superiority in intelligence (or at least the type of intelligence that IQ measures) possesed by Asians and Europeans, may actually be a result of added competition between individuals as Africans spread from Africa into new territory. This is just a pet theory of mine, I have not thought it through fully and hardly expect anyone to accept it.

While the instinct for racism is a byproduct of kin selection instincts.

[eyebyte_atWork]

QUOTE From js55]Since it's been ignored conceptually, I'd like to make one final (hopefully clear) post concerning evolution. This is something that gets away from the bulky concept of 'race', but certainly has relevance to the dicsussion and America.

Do we agree that:

A) Evolution occurs through variability in species and through natural selection.


Yes - what we are talking about has more to do with adaptation than evolutionary strains. The difference is that evolutionary strains meant people were actually different. While adaptation mean that the differences are much much smaller as not to define a separate human strain. This much is supported by DNA sequencing - please look it up. Most of the differences we experience with people from different parts of the world are more envornmental than genetic - as proven by DNA sequencing.


B] Natural Selection occurs differently depending on one's environment. It is entirely reliant on the environment, because that is what dictates what phenotypes get 'selected' and which don't


Let's see - I agree with this - and this is supported by the fact that no too long ago there were at least three strains of man still in existance including modern man (which is what we all are today) - the other two are Neaderthal and Homo floresienses. They died out with Homo floresienses dying out about 8 thousand years ago (The last non-modern man strain). The thing proposed by this thread falls more on environmental differences than genetic.


C) Living in America has environmental pressures, just like living in Africa requires certain traits to be successful, so does living in America. These can be attempted to be worked around of course, but it will be much easier to be successful in Africa if you have x, y, or z. There is absolutely no reason for a European to be as successful in Africa as an African native, because they have evolved in different situations. If environment is the main feature in controlling evolution as Darwin states, then human beings living in different environments will eventually adapt, and specialize to their own environment. A group in subsaharan africa will specialize differently than a group living in the sahara, vs. a group living in a forest some place in europe. This is the basic underlying concept of the theory of evolution. It applies to any environment, whether man-made or natural.



Again - more adaptation than evolutionary strain - please read the results of the DNA sequencing (google it people - some of the answers you seek are already out there)

[eyebyte_atWork]

Hehe...

Essex. Which is just north east of London.

I grew up near the border of London and Essex. Quite near Walthamstow and Chingford.

It is cold, but not unbearably cold, though I wouldn't want to walk around in a t-shirt for too long.

Why?


My co-worker is more familiar with Kent and Cheshire (Crystal Palace/Anerley/Penge areas). Do you know these areas? I do not know a thing about them.

[Fingers]

I've always felt there were types of intelligence...

Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")

[jimore]

1. The very first objection I have with your post is your unsophisticated dishonesty.
One of the most common linguistic ploys of the unsophisticated thinkers is to fake the role of the "reluctant convert (I can no longer deny it)", typically followed by some claim of "moral imperative( my nature as an INTP)". Even worse you cloaked your syntactical dishonesty in the old "Fake damsel in distress scam (please prove me wrong/ save me from this overwhelming truth). And on the subject of comparative intelligence— how smart can you be to think I would be stupid enough to fall for such a simpleminded ploy?

2.
I think you're just another gullible redneck reading the racist news, and trying to come up with stupid statistics to back up your 'fear' (or not? Maybe you just think this is fun, to act like the bewildered little girl, in the face of some kind of 'evidence'???) that you might be a racist. Why don't you analyze things with your own mind? I'm not even going to bother with you anymore than this. I fully agree with Mandrigal that attempting to get you to think is probably a waste of time, but the subject matter is relevant and important.

3. But, ever the optimist, and just in case... here are a few tidbits that might not have already been mentioned in this thread.

Richard Lynn quote:
"The theory I have advanced to explain these race differences in IQ is that when early humans migrated from Africa into Eurasia they encountered the difficulty of survival during cold winters. This problem was especially severe during the ice ages. Plant foods were not available for much of the year and survival required the hunting and dismembering of large animals for food and the ability to make tools, weapons and clothing, to build shelters and make fires. These problems required higher intelligence and exerted selection pressure for enhanced intelligence, particularly on the Orientals"

Now if that is indeed a factor, perhaps black folks living in the African jungles during the same period had to develop quick reflexes in response to sudden dangers from dense undergrowth. (Mammoths didn't really sneak up on folks, or strike suddenly from camouflage whereas tigers and snakes do). Looks like if these factors really did play a role in racial development, the most intelligent survival skill in dense cover would have been quick visual identification and reflexive response to incoming stuff. And if that were true, then maybe that survival intelligence might persist today in superior athletic skills.

*checks ethnic classification of professional sports that require quick reaction times* Hmmmm.

4. " I know this is a subject none of us want to talk about, [ Liar, liar, pants on fire].but if anyone can find statistics that support environmental, rather than genetic, factors as being the cause of the IQ gap, please do so.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-inferiorIQ.htm

5. Your self righteous and deceptive thread doesn't deserve much attention so I can't dig up enough enthusiasm to prepare a cogent response. Instead I will quote myself from an article I wrote on intelligence some time ago.

"In my own timorous way, I must observe that I have never heard an individual claiming the superiority of the white race, who personally exhibited the superior characteristics she/he claimed as legacy. Au contraire..."

So we are all different---- Get over it.

[eyebyte_atWork]

The old Nature vs Nurture bit - gets them fighting everytime !!!

[Lee]

I've always felt there were types of intelligence...

Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

[Fingers]

http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm


exactly! nicked from there! but i knew about it anyway, couldn’t be asked to type it all.

IQ is only one way of assessing who’s a smarty pants, its even said that these days a higher EQ is more relevant in getting jobs and succeeding

[kuranes]

http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

Where has THIS guy been all my life?

[Vale]

And Vale here is the important concept... it's just an IQ... what is the big deal about it???

The comment I made about George W. way back, I was proving that he is a white man of an intelligence that I see uncapable of running a state/country and then stereotyped Texas as a whole being the problem... much like the initial comment on black people being stereotyped as "dumber" here. I called you a white girl from texas because of the whole issue at hand. :)

On the contrary, I believe IQ is extremely important. It is probably the most effective measure of intelligence we have. If you've ever taken a look at the chart for "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," the two aspects appear directly linked. It has been estimated that for a nation to become technologically advanced, it must have at least 10% of its population with IQ's of 120 or more, and you'll notice that this estimate is confirmed by the current state of the world.

There's a fine line between stereotyping and compiling averages and concluding that biological genetic differences may exist. And while we're playing along, may I point out that Texas is the home of NASA as well as Texas Instruments, where one of the greatest inventions of our time, the integrated circuit, was created?

There appears to be some confusion here over the simple matter of averaging...and it seems as though, on the other thread, some posters had a difficult time with it as well. The average IQ in America is about 100. However, there are plenty of people with IQ's upwards of 130 (probably several on this forum) and also plenty with IQ's that dip below 80. But if we were to gather a crowd of a million Americans and divide their combined IQ's by a million, we'd probably get 100. This isn't a difficult concept. There are smart and dumb whites, smart and dumb Asians, and smart and dumb blacks. But the average IQ's of all three races seem to differ.

The evolutionary debate is of course the core of this subject. Africa is a harsh continent; there are droughts, insects, diseases that spread quickly, and hordes of other environmental factors to worry about. Do we agree that human life originated in Africa? Do we agree that the group that stayed in Africa became present-day Africans and that the group that left evolved into all other races? The group that left might have made it to greener pastures where they could successfully develop technology and grow more intelligent based on natural selection, and the group that stayed, being forced to face the elements, may have evolved favoring strength and stamina.

Black males' higher levels of testosterone and presence of more fast-twitch muscle tissue has been scientifically proven. It is hardly debatable, and the fact that it was being debated in the old thread proves that some people will find ways to argue that the sky isn't blue. The higher testosterone levels may help explain why this demographic has such high rates of violent crime.

[mgb]

On the contrary, I believe IQ is extremely important. It is probably the most effective measure of intelligence we have. If you've ever taken a look at the chart for "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," the two aspects appear directly linked. It has been estimated that for a nation to become technologically advanced, it must have at least 10% of its population with IQ's of 120 or more, and you'll notice that this estimate is confirmed by the current state of the world.

There's a fine line between stereotyping and compiling averages and concluding that biological genetic differences may exist. And while we're playing along, may I point out that Texas is the home of NASA as well as Texas Instruments, where one of the greatest inventions of our time, the integrated circuit, was created?

There appears to be some confusion here over the simple matter of averaging...and it seems as though, on the other thread, some posters had a difficult time with it as well. The average IQ in America is about 100. However, there are plenty of people with IQ's upwards of 130 (probably several on this forum) and also plenty with IQ's that dip below 80. But if we were to gather a crowd of a million Americans and divide their combined IQ's by a million, we'd probably get 100. This isn't a difficult concept. There are smart and dumb whites, smart and dumb Asians, and smart and dumb blacks. But the average IQ's of all three races seem to differ.

The evolutionary debate is of course the core of this subject. Africa is a harsh continent; there are droughts, insects, diseases that spread quickly, and hordes of other environmental factors to worry about. Do we agree that human life originated in Africa? Do we agree that the group that stayed in Africa became present-day Africans and that the group that left evolved into all other races? The group that left might have made it to greener pastures where they could successfully develop technology and grow more intelligent based on natural selection, and the group that stayed, being forced to face the elements, may have evolved favoring strength and stamina.

Black males' higher levels of testosterone and presence of more fast-twitch muscle tissue has been scientifically proven. It is hardly debatable, and the fact that it was being debated in the old thread proves that some people will find ways to argue that the sky isn't blue. The higher testosterone levels may help explain why this demographic has such high rates of violent crime.


Ok chick-y. I'm going to talk down to you because you are a girl and statistically dumber than I am.

It's great you are using all those big numbers and stuff and using big words like "science" and "proves" but you aren't really "proving" anything.

All you are doing right now is convincing yourself you are right. jimore already pointed out your cute little strategy and it's not going to work.

No one here is going to be able to prove whether racism is right or wrong because no one has the capabilities. No one on earth does, at least yet. So this is becoming a matter of what you CHOOSE to believe. Since you've chosen to believe that all men were not created equal, and all women are somewhat less than men, that pretty much makes you a racist. In fact, one could argue that's a pretty simple definition of racism. But hey, just being objective, you know trying to get to the bottom of things.

But, enough with all the fun and games for you. You should probably start making dinner now.

Or you could choose to look at the world through more subjective eyes, realizing that the world isn't black or white, but pretty grey. In which case, I'll never talk down to you again.

[Lee]

Richard Lynn quote:
"The theory I have advanced to explain these race differences in IQ is that when early humans migrated from Africa into Eurasia they encountered the difficulty of survival during cold winters. This problem was especially severe during the ice ages. Plant foods were not available for much of the year and survival required the hunting and dismembering of large animals for food and the ability to make tools, weapons and clothing, to build shelters and make fires. These problems required higher intelligence and exerted selection pressure for enhanced intelligence, particularly on the Orientals"I don't know whether to be pleased or annoyed, because this was exactly what I almost suggested.... hmm.

I find most of your attack on Vale based on paranoid speculation. Maybe I am just naive, but I would expect most people on here are honest most of the time. Vale has no reason to be manipulative, and has not pushed any agenda very strongly, at least no more than almost anyone else. Besides, it is possible for people to simply make mistakes, they are not necassarily lying.

If nothing else, I will presume that people are telling the truth, if only because I have no way to find out otherwise, so such speculation is pointless.

[garak]

Ok chick-y. I'm going to talk down to you because you are a girl and statistically dumber than I am.

It's great you are using all those big numbers and stuff and using big words like "science" and "proves" but you aren't really "proving" anything.

All you are doing right now is convincing yourself you are right. jimore already pointed out your cute little strategy and it's not going to work.

No one here is going to be able to prove whether racism is right or wrong because no one has the capabilities. No one on earth does, at least yet. So this is becoming a matter of what you CHOOSE to believe. Since you've chosen to believe that all men were not created equal, and all women are somewhat less than men, that pretty much makes you a racist. In fact, one could argue that's a pretty simple definition of racism. But hey, just being objective, you know trying to get to the bottom of things.

But, enough with all the fun and games for you. You should probably start making dinner now.

Or you could choose to look at the world through more subjective eyes, realizing that the world isn't black or white, but pretty grey. In which case, I'll never talk down to you again.
You really do ride that line of F-ness.

Saying the world is grey seems like a bit of a cop out though. There are still answers to things. Especially when you're talking about a test that measures with concrete numbers.

My own conclusion from everything in this thread so far:

Perhaps black people really do have a lower average IQ. Maybe not, but it seems possible from everything I've read in this thread. What's that mean in real life? Not a whole lot. Either way there are still a lot of stupid and annoying people all around. And IQ really doesn't have much to do with a person's likeability, so what do I care? Supposedly I should really relate well with my INTP brethren, and I do with many, but at the same time there are a lot of douchebags too. Same goes for people with high IQs. The thought of joining something like Mensa makes me want to jump in front of a bus.

[Lee]

Where has THIS guy been all my life?Thomas Armstrong?

[Vale]

1. The very first objection I have with your post is your unsophisticated dishonesty.
One of the most common linguistic ploys of the unsophisticated thinkers is to fake the role of the "reluctant convert (I can no longer deny it)", typically followed by some claim of "moral imperative( my nature as an INTP)". Even worse you cloaked your syntactical dishonesty in the old "Fake damsel in distress scam (please prove me wrong/ save me from this overwhelming truth). And on the subject of comparative intelligence— how smart can you be to think I would be stupid enough to fall for such a simpleminded ploy?

Allow me to add a mark on the board for another poster who came in, guns blazing, and yet failed to prove anything. Why exactly did you post a quote that corroborated my point that the races evolved differently, with natural selection favoring different physical and intellectual traits? Go ahead, aim for my throat, but you have already proven yourself biased and closed-minded on this issue.

And mgbradsh, if I am racist for acknowledging that there may be genetic differences between the races, then very well. I've already resolved never to discuss this issue outside this forum, so this will be the only place where I'll ever be labeled as such. So be it. I'd rather be right and a racist in your terms than wrong and accepted by you. I thought most INTP's would be brave enough to explore an idea without being concerned about deviating from mainstream thought. I suppose the emperor will always be clothed to some people.

[kuranes]

Thomas Armstrong?

No. YOU!!

Just kidding. Yes, Thomas Armstrong.

["InsertNameHere"]

I think Vale is just a little "uncomfortable" with the fact that there are many more "Black" people in her state due to Katrina. It is ok, Vale! They won't steal your purse and beat up your old ailing white grandmother... Now try convincing Barbara Bush that!

[Master O]

It's not just about the lack of opportunities available to the majority of black people, primarily those that that are poor. There is a lack of good examples of how to expand your mind and how to gain the cultural experience to be well-rounded and have broad knowledge. There is a lack of the type of expectations from parents and authority figures that pushes so many white people to educate themselves in order to be considered intelligent and become 'successful' in society.

Beyond the basics, educating oneself becomes more of a luxury than a necessity when you're poor or disadvantaged. If you constantly worry about whether you can afford to pay rent or buy food or replace worn out shoes and clothes, then whether or not you're taking the time to read above and beyond what is required in school can seem trivial and unimportant. Reading is a large part of how well you can do on some IQ tests as you will be introduced to new vocabulary and new and different concepts and learn to see many situations and problems from different angles. It encourages lateral thinking which is a large part of one's IQ.

Another factor is ignorance - not due to race or ethnicity, but simply economic standing. White people in general are more wealthy than the other races (primarily in the U.S. and Europe) and have been for quite some time. Within white families there exists generations and generations of passed down knowledge and experience. Throughout these generations, parents have continually taught their children the sum of what their parents taught them and what they learned on their own. Many white families have decades or even centuries of collective experience and knowledge in managing and growing money, seeking advanced educations, acquiring vast cultural experiences from traveling and reading and indulging in the arts. What to do in life to advance oneself intellectually and financially is virtually automatic in much of the white culture.

The black culture (especially in America) has generations and decades of experience being: hated, told they were stupid, denied educations, restricted educations, told they were ugly and then suffering the resulting low self esteem. They have spent much of their existence struggling to survive, receiving no help, having no family wealth to fall back on, having no examples of how to be a success.

One may argue that examples are all around them in the form of successful and intelligent white people, but looking at a doctor or a professor or stock broker and how they live, does not make one a healer, educator, or independently wealthy or well-rounded or show them how to accomplish the same. The one and often only thing most poor people know about bettering yourself for an improved life is 'get a college degree'. It stops there. There is no understanding of what to do with that degree or even which is the right one and why.

For so many white people, getting a degree is as automatic as knowing you need to brush your teeth at night. In fact it's often not even about IF you got your degree, it's about WHERE it came from - getting it is a given. The true knowlege that is passed to them is what are they going to do with it, how will they specialize, what will they do with the money that comes to them as a result of that degree in order to establish their personal wealth and continue the cycle of success within the family. Many young white children are learning more about how to be successful and intelligent by the time they're 6 or 7, than most black people currently seeking their degrees.

It's all about motivations and freedom. A wealthy person may think it's VERY important that their children learn to play an instrument to be a better, more substantial person. They have the luxury of security and time and money to think that. A poor person may think it is very important that their children just stay out of trouble and avoid the dangers of their neighborhood and don't open the door while i'm out all night at my second or third job. The money that could be spent on instruments and books and computers and tutors and museum entrance fees probably looks a lot more like rent money and food money.

The differences are so extreme at times that white society just can't understand what goes on in the black society - that being intelligent isn't necessarily as prized as one may expect. Not that it's not important, but when survival is your most dominant concern, intelligence can often only be as important as how you can use it for your immediate survival. When your whole life is on the line every day, more desirable traits may be strength and the willingness to work exceptionally hard and one's loyalty to family.

That type of environment and attitude doesn't often provide one with the belief that knowledge for the sake of knowledge or social stature is necessary or even worthwhile.

For poor groups including Blacks, it will take much time and a slowly growing collection of examples from their own community, before attitudes towards education and test results and IQ's begin to parallel those of Whites today. It's uphill for quite a while, but will speed up as time goes on.

The bottom line is though, that it's all about environment and motivations. People work with what they have, within the system they live in and often their desires or scope of what is important or what the world offers is as narrow as they are unwealthy.

[Lee]

No. YOU!!

Just kidding. Yes, Thomas Anderson.This guy?

http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/tom/

[garak]

rac·ism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

No one said any race was superior. It has been suggested that different races have different strengths and weaknesses, but that evens out. Society in general, I would say, considers IQ more important than physical aptitude, so you could say that if it can be proven that certain races have higher IQs, then society at large is racist.

Also, it says "belief." Not facts. If it can be be really, concretely proven that the races have higher/lower average IQs, then it's not really much of a belief. Belief in superiority is more like what Jim Bob racist klan member down in Arkansas (oh dear, there I go with stereotypes) thinks about black people.

[kuranes]

If "the establishment" didn't value math intelligence over, say, interpersonal intelligence, I wonder if we'd be having this discussion.

The traditional answer to this question I just asked is "That's how they BECAME the establishment, Kuranes; because those skills are inherently more valuable", but I don't think that necessarily has to be.

While we're being "open minded" etc. here, it would be interesting to speculate otherwise, and conflate this with the debate "points". And we can also speculate on whether not giving such people high priority in first world civilization may have led to problems concomitant with that slant.

[Lee]

If recognising the diversity of human beings is racist. Then I am proud to be a racist, since the alternative is to believe a lie.

Of course recognising differences in characteristics, need not mean that we also have different rights. That seems spectacularly lost on many.

[Tensore]

First off, whatever I say below is from pure experience. I wish to only contribute fact, and am truly sorry if I have offended anyone.

I have noticed stark contrast between race in sporting events. Basketball, Football, and the majority of my high school Track team is primarily black. While track is dominated by African Americans, the cross country team is ALL white.

However, I've also noticed the majority of the baseball team is white (The baseball team is notorious for being potheads, a rumour in which I have investigated found to be true). The soccer team, is comprised of hispanic, and a few white people.

Some backround information of the general area, mostly middle, to lower middle class. Were about 30 minutes south of Washington DC.

Some observations of mine, African Amerians tend to physically mature faster, and develop muscle quicker than most. There are 2 kinds of muscle, power muscle which gives a large, short burts of power. The second being endurance muscle, which is self explanatory. For the most part I see most African Americans develop power muscle. I play soccer and consider myself to be in shape. Most of the sport playing African Americans could easily dust me in a short sprint. The same could be said for me against most African Americans in 1 or 2 mile run.

I do see a pattern in which African Americans dominant sports. However, I cannot so sure that this pattern can be attributed to genetics. Environmental factors? I cannot be sure either, I leave the cause to be filled in.

As for intelligence, I know a few particularly intelligent African Americans. One of which who will probably become a programmer.

Having said all that, I wish to also point of THIS (http://www.nike.com/standupspeakup/index.jsp) website. I have been wearing these wristbands for a couple of months now. Although most have no idea what they stand for (the wrist bands have only been released in Europe, I was fortunate enough to get some myself), I find racism abound in my school...

[kuranes]

This guy?



http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/tom/

Ha Ha. Not wearing my glasses.

[mgb]

And mgbradsh, if I am racist for acknowledging that there may be genetic differences between the races, then very well. I've already resolved never to discuss this issue outside this forum, so this will be the only place where I'll ever be labeled as such. So be it. I'd rather be right and a racist in your terms than wrong and accepted by you. I thought most INTP's would be brave enough to explore an idea without being concerned about deviating from mainstream thought. I suppose the emperor will always be clothed to some people.

You see though, it's how you weigh the differences.

And you can't be a racist only in one spot. Whether you dicuss this outside of the forum or not, you still have beliefs.

And I really don't view this as an issue that is right or wrong. This is really about subjective opinions of people and trying to use objectivity as a crutch to prove whether or not you are right. The truth is, there isn't much objectivity in the whole thing. None of the scientists are right. The ones that are for race are wrong and so are the ones that are against race. Why? They can't even agree on the definitions of what race is. They can't agree on the factors, the causes, what the races even are, or how different is "different". So how do you, obviously not an expert, expect to uncover the answer on a forum of other not experts, when the experts can't even figure it out?

You are throwing out a bunch of subjective opinions based on subjuctive information, and telling us it's objective and that you should be applauded for being an INTP and dealing with the issue head on. But I haven't seen you capitulate to one single point yet, and there have been a lot of good ones.

So what does that mean? Treat people how you want to be treated. Even you want to make gross generalizations about people, expect it in return. But your post tells me you probably don't want that.

[ptGatsby]

Vale, I have done some reading and there are multiple studies supporting that as it currently stands, with our current IQ tests, there are ethnic differences. However, you automatically accredit that to race, rather than other factors.

I would welcome your comments on this overview, which was posted earlier;

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-inferiorIQ.htm

Specifically, I would like to know how you refute Poverty creates large IQ differences even between groups of the same ethnicity as less substantial than race. Multiple studies have shown this precise link, despite genetic lineage, while no studies have shown the opposite (that would be, divergence of race in educated areas). At least, not according to the American Psychological Association, those certifying the IQ test.

[Lee]

You see though, it's how you weigh the differences.

And you can't be a racist only in one spot. Whether you dicuss this outside of the forum or not, you still have beliefs.

And I really don't view this as an issue that is right or wrong. This is really about subjective opinions of people and trying to use objectivity as a crutch to prove whether or not you are right. The truth is, there isn't much objectivity in the whole thing. None of the scientists are right. The ones that are for race are wrong and so are the ones that are against race. Why? They can't even agree on the definitions of what race is. They can't agree on the factors, the causes, what the races even are, or how different is "different". So how do you, obviously not an expert, expect to uncover the answer on a forum of other not experts, when the experts can't even figure it out?

You are throwing out a bunch of subjective opinions based on subjuctive information, and telling us it's objective and that you should be applauded for being an INTP and dealing with the issue head on. But I haven't seen you capitulate to one single point yet, and there have been a lot of good ones.

So what does that mean? Treat people how you want to be treated. Even you want to make gross generalizations about people, expect it in return. But your post tells me you probably don't want that.Just because each person may have a subjective opinion does not mean that each opinion is equal, or even possible. And because their views may have a direct effect on all of us, we have a reason to desire the best solution to the problem.

Most people actually want the same thing from this issue, we just differ on what we think is possible and how to achieve it. But thankfully the universe (yes, that objective thing we experience) doesn't care what we think is possible or is the best route to take, and will punish us through a mistake if we fail to learn from it.

[floyd]

i have a question?

if it were true that there were differences between asians, caucasians, and blacks in terms of ability to handle intellectual complexity ON AVERAGE, do you think that this truth would be more damaging than valuable and better left unspoken? i have known some very cool intelligent people who happened to be black. i feel odd classifying any one as black or white or blue. however, in some contexts it has some relevance. maybe as with the recent socialist/communist vs. capitalist thread, its better to refer to one's race as something you are living with, rather than something you are. i don't like people who think their gender defines them, however, i still have some perspective on what it's like being a male (if only because others treat me as male, although there are some biological differences) and little to no perspective on what it is like to be female. i think intps, of the mbti types, are the most likely to feel like outsiders which connects them to some degree to any outsider group. how many caucasians here relate to that many other caucasians?

for non-intps race may be a bigger self indentifier and influence just like gender probably is for some. personally, i think genetics while profoundly influential on how most turn out, is idealistically just our starting point. i think in the future as humans evolve darwinian influence may at some point be surpassed by individual will in the general population. who knows how long that will take, but i think until then most are, on average, limited by their 'probable' genetic potential.

[headfonez]

the truth is intelligence is relative.

[headfonez]

and the other truth is, we (as in people) just like to talk about race stuff.

[mgb]

rac·ism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

No one said any race was superior. It has been suggested that different races have different strengths and weaknesses, but that evens out. Society in general, I would say, considers IQ more important than physical aptitude, so you could say that if it can be proven that certain races have higher IQs, then society at large is racist.

Also, it says "belief." Not facts. If it can be be really, concretely proven that the races have higher/lower average IQs, then it's not really much of a belief. Belief in superiority is more like what Jim Bob racist klan member down in Arkansas (oh dear, there I go with stereotypes) thinks about black people.


The basic conclusions are that, on average, the highest IQ's are held by Asians (106), whites have slightly lower than that (100), and blacks have significantly (a standard deviation) lower than whites (85)...Low IQ is directly linked to lack of success, criminality, broken marriages, and early pregnancy.


On the contrary, I believe IQ is extremely important. It is probably the most effective measure of intelligence we have.

I believe that there is an underlying value system present in those statements.

I guess my point is, if they found a correlation between huge nose size and low IQs, would you treat everyone with a big nose like they were an idiot? Or would you choose, and yes it's a choice, to treat everyone the same regardless of nose size.

[headfonez]

I guess my point is, if they found a correlation between huge nose size and low IQs, would you treat everyone with a big nose like they were an idiot? Or would you choose, and yes it's a choice, to treat everyone the same regardless of nose size.

i would

[mgb]

the universe (yes, that objective thing we experience)

I believe that as soon as we experience it, it becomes subjective. And therefore the universe is alogical.

[Madrigal]

Black males' higher levels of testosterone and presence of more fast-twitch muscle tissue has been scientifically proven. It is hardly debatable, and the fact that it was being debated in the old thread proves that some people will find ways to argue that the sky isn't blue. The higher testosterone levels may help explain why this demographic has such high rates of violent crime.

God you guys, open your eyes. This is what you're arguing against.

Someone said this girl came in here as a damsel in distress in an attempt to hide her 'unsophisticated dishonesty'.

Since her first post, I have watched on the sidelines (okay, after calling her a redneck racist) as she first 'innocently' released a tidbit of controversial 'data' to spark up a debate.

Following that, some of you bought into the idea that it was the only 'evidence' provoking her guilty 'affliction'.

And since then, I have watched many bright people provide a variety of extensive, well-thought out and considerate replies, in response to which she has progressively produced arguments that unveil the initially unsuspected, unimagined depth of her racism.

Evolution may be a stimulating topic. But don't fool yourselves into thinking you are going to pull this weed out. Just try not to vote people like her for President (and I bet I know who Vale voted).

[headfonez]

Just try not to vote people like her for President (and I bet I know who Vale voted).
Will you campain for election?

[Madrigal]

Will you campain for election?

For yours? I know you could do better than Bush.

[garak]

I believe that there is an underlying value system present in those statements.

I guess my point is, if they found a correlation between huge nose size and low IQs, would you treat everyone with a big nose like they were an idiot? Or would you choose, and yes it's a choice, to treat everyone the same regardless of nose size.
Sure. Whether or not various groups have higher or lower average IQs, and however important IQs may or may not be, that still says nothing about what an individual chooses to do with that knowledge. Personally, I will continue to assume that most people are of roughly average intelligence, until they prove me otherwise. And in most social interaction in day to day life, IQ really doesn't matter that much anyway.

[headfonez]

For yours? I know you could do better than Bush.
I think you can do better than Kerry.

[Madrigal]

I think you can do better than Kerry.

Nah, I'm a woman. Black people and women don't get to be President.

[floyd]

Vale - if the work of Rushton is accurate, do you think that asians should get a majority of the jobs that require intellectual complexity?

[headfonez]

Nah, I'm a woman. Black people and women don't get to be President.
I think you can do better than...Mrs Heinz

[Madrigal]

Vale - if the work of Rushton is accurate, do you think that asians should get a majority of the jobs that require intellectual complexity?

*entering minefield of practical consequences*

["InsertNameHere"]

But don't fool yourselves into thinking you are going to pull this weed out. Just try not to vote people like her for President (and I bet I know who Vale voted). Hey, you never know! Kerry might have been racist and voiced his comments only on anonymous forums, also :whistle: ...
On another note, I find this thread highly amusing, especially since there has been noting new said on here that has not been stated on other previous race related threads. And yet I'm enjoying myself much too much!


**Back to Lurker mode**

[floyd]

*entering minefield of practical consequences*

it's just a theoretical discussion.

[headfonez]

it's just a theoretical discussion.
Yeah. Its just a discussion that inspires actions.

[Lee]

Vale - if the work of Rushton is accurate, do you think that asians should get a majority of the jobs that require intellectual complexity?Nobody has said anything about unequal oppurtunities/rights.

To recognise that a person is better at a particular task than another need not mean we award such people better rights, or oppurtunities to achieve. If asians are capable and willing to pursue that kind of career, and their ethnic group is more likely to carry genes making them predisposed to that skill, then asians will disproportionately occupy those positions anyway, just a women dominate childcare.

What is important is that nobody should be discriminated against because they are not asian, and that anybody who is capable and willing is given equal oppurtunities (or at least as equal as possible) to achieve it.

This is also best for everyone, because it ensures we get all the best people, regardless of race.

[Madrigal]

it's just a theoretical discussion.

None of this is theoretical. Which is what makes it so tragic. Carry on, I am anticipating Vale's dodging the issue of stating what those practical consequences should be. Another worthless endeavour for us.

[Madrigal]

Yeah. Its just a discussion that inspires actions.

Headphonez, sometimes you make me wonder. Is it all an act?

[headfonez]

Headphonez, sometimes you make me wonder. Is it all an act?
I like you. I dont know if its an act or not.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Nobody has said anything about unequal oppurtunities/rights.

To recognise that a person is better at a particular task than another need not mean we award such people better rights, or oppurtunities to achieve. If asians are capable and willing to pursue that kind of career, and their ethnic group is more likely to carry genes making them predisposed to that skill, then asians will disproportionately occupy those positions anyway, just a women dominate childcare.

What is important is that nobody should be discriminated against because they are not asian, and that anybody who is capable and willing is given equal oppurtunities (or at least as equal as possible) to achieve it.



I have to say I am impressed with your persuit of knowledge and while I do not agree with some of what you are putting out there - I do respect the integrity of your discussion methods. I cannot say the same for others (like vale - who I think may be swift).

[Lee]

I have to say I am impressed with your persuit of knowledge and while I do not agree with some of what you are putting out there - I do respect the integrity of your discussion methods. I cannot say the same for others (like vale - who I think may be swift).Thank you.

And that is a wonderful conspiracy theory... hehe.

[Madrigal]

Wow, I was going to suggest they hook up on the first page. What stopped me?

[NoahFence]

OK Vale. The crime rate among mentally retarded people is almost identical to that of society as a whole.

Oh wait, that doesn't help prove your "Low IQ = Greater Criminal Tendency" theory? Better rub that data off the sheet...

Just let me ask you this, Vale. If Black America got its act together and its crime rate became lower than that of caucasians...would you wave this about as proof that blacks were superior to whites, or would you suddenly say "Oh, I guess that argument is meaningless after all"? Somehow, I don't see you ever arguing for your own inferiority, no matter what data is presented.

The crime rate is not higher because IQ is lower. The nose does not cause the tail! Both are a product of greater poverty. The greater poverty is not a result of inferior genetics. It's a result of having had only about 30 years of anything even remotely resembling a fair shake, and even now not having what I would call 100% a level playing field. Wail about affirmitive action and aid all you want, they don't even come close to leveling the playing field.

Let me put it another way. Your ancestors have probably been here for a long time, and when they arrived, they set up shop and began building a dynasty, which you now inherit. Don't think by dynasty I mean only Wealth. I'd lay good odds that your grandparents had a proper education, and if you think that doesn't affect your chances in life, you're fooling yourself.

Their ancestors came here in chains, which they wore for hundreds of years, were freed but prevented from developing any dynasty for a hundred years, were then allowed to develop a dynasty but prevented from fair acquisition of the resources necessary for another 30, and are still contending with the kind of crap like what you've posted here.

Offhand I'd say we're about five generations minimum from them being "up to speed". Sad but true...it won't be until one's grandmother remembers her grandmother having such opportunities that the culture of prosperity has permeated one's existance as it has yours (which, I might add, you have totally taken for granted and ignored).

So I guess what I would say is, are black people inferior? I dislike that word, too many value attachments for scientific reasoning. Do they have a higher rate of crime and poverty on the whole? Yes. But not because of genetics...it's because we insisted they be that way, and insisted it rather forcefully.

[headfonez]

OK Vale. The crime rate among mentally retarded people is almost identical to that of society as a whole.

Oh wait, that doesn't help prove your "Low IQ = Greater Criminal Tendency" theory? Better rub that data off the sheet...

Just let me ask you this, Vale. If Black America got its act together and its crime rate became lower than that of caucasians...would you wave this about as proof that blacks were superior to whites, or would you suddenly say "Oh, I guess that argument is meaningless after all"? Somehow, I don't see you ever arguing for your own inferiority, no matter what data is presented.

The crime rate is not higher because IQ is lower. The nose does not cause the tail! Both are a product of greater poverty. The greater poverty is not a result of inferior genetics. It's a result of having had only about 30 years of anything even remotely resembling a fair shake, and even now not having what I would call 100% a level playing field. Wail about affirmitive action and aid all you want, they don't even come close to leveling the playing field.

Let me put it another way. Your ancestors have probably been here for a long time, and when they arrived, they set up shop and began building a dynasty, which you now inherit. Don't think by dynasty I mean only Wealth. I'd lay good odds that your grandparents had a proper education, and if you think that doesn't affect your chances in life, you're fooling yourself.

Their ancestors came here in chains, which they wore for hundreds of years, were freed but prevented from developing any dynasty for a hundred years, were then allowed to develop a dynasty but prevented from fair acquisition of the resources necessary for another 30, and are still contending with the kind of crap like what you've posted here.

Offhand I'd say we're about five generations minimum from them being "up to speed". Sad but true...it won't be until one's grandmother remembers her grandmother having such opportunities that the culture of prosperity has permeated one's existance as it has yours (which, I might add, you have totally taken for granted and ignored).

So I guess what I would say is, are black people inferior? I dislike that word, too many value attachments for scientific reasoning. Do they have a higher rate of crime and poverty on the whole? Yes. But not because of genetics...it's because we insisted they be that way, and insisted it rather forcefully.
How fast can you type?

[NoahFence]

How fast can you type?
80 words per minute. More if I don't care about spelling.

[eyebyte_atWork]

80 words per minute. More if I don't care about spelling.



WOW - thats fast.

[Ivy]

So I guess what I would say is, are black people inferior? I dislike that word, too many value attachments for scientific reasoning. Do they have a higher rate of crime and poverty on the whole? Yes. But not because of genetics...it's because we insisted they be that way, and insisted it rather forcefully.

I have to protest your use of the word "we." It only reinforces us vs. them, and I doubt anybody here has personally oppressed anybody. Nitpicky? Probably. But language matters.

Aside from that, I agree. It's just not a level playing field.

[mgb]

80 words per minute. More if I don't care about spelling.

You've encouraged it.

You are bad.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I am not sure how fast I type. I know that when I do not care I can go fast but when I do it goes down to like 1 work per minute. Do not know why.

[Master O]

You really do ride that line of F-ness.

Saying the world is grey seems like a bit of a cop out though. There are still answers to things. Especially when you're talking about a test that measures with concrete numbers.
the numbers may be concrete, but what exactly is measured, is not.

[Vale]

I think Vale is just a little "uncomfortable" with the fact that there are many more "Black" people in her state due to Katrina. It is ok, Vale! They won't steal your purse and beat up your old ailing white grandmother... Now try convincing Barbara Bush that!

You need a new schtick. These jabs at my state of residence are getting awfully tiring.


Vale - if the work of Rushton is accurate, do you think that asians should get a majority of the jobs that require intellectual complexity?

I think people who are best suited to jobs that require intellectual complexity should get them. If that happens and it turns out that the qualified people are mostly Asian, then so be it.


None of this is theoretical. Which is what makes it so tragic. Carry on, I am anticipating Vale's dodging the issue of stating what those practical consequences should be. Another worthless endeavour for us.

No, I'm not. I thought I made that clear, but I guess not. So here goes: I do not endorse, in any way, any practical application of this information. For the last time, I just want to know the truth.


Just let me ask you this, Vale. If Black America got its act together and its crime rate became lower than that of caucasians...would you wave this about as proof that blacks were superior to whites, or would you suddenly say "Oh, I guess that argument is meaningless after all"? Somehow, I don't see you ever arguing for your own inferiority, no matter what data is presented.

We can speculate all the livelong day, but it doesn't mean anything. Nothing I say will ever convince you that my motives are purely intellectual, so I won't even bother trying.

Master O-- Thank you for not resorting to mudslinging. As I have said before, if it were possible to take a black child (or several, for a more accurate study), raise him or her in a well-off family with a good education, completely away from the influences of society, and then test his or her IQ, then we might truly know if any innate racial disparities exist. However, as that isn't possible, we'll have to rely on similar studies on trans-racial adoption:


The best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed- race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.

One well known trans-racial adoption study is Sandra Scarr's Minnesota project. The adopted children were either White, Black, or Mixed- race (Black-White) babies. The children took IQ tests when they were seven years old and again when they were 17.

In their initial report, the authors thought that their study proved that a good home could raise the IQs of Black children. At age 7, their IQ was 97, well above the Black average of 85 and almost equal to the White average of 100. However, when the children were retested at age 17, the results told another story (reported in the 1992 issue of Intelligence).

At age seven, Black, Mixed- race, and White adopted children all had higher IQ scores than average for their group. Growing up in a good home helped all the children. Even so, the racial pattern was exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture theory. Black children reared in these good homes had an average IQ of 97, but the Mixed- race children averaged an IQ of 109, and the White children an IQ of 112.

The evidence for genetic theory got stronger as the children grew older. By age 17, the IQs of the adopted children moved closer to the expected average for their race. At age 17 adopted White children had an IQ of about 106, Mixed- race adoptees an IQ of about 99, and adopted Blacks had an IQ of about 89. IQ scores are not the only evidence in this study. School grades, class ranks, and aptitude tests show the same pattern.

When Sandra Scarr got the results of her follow-up study at age 17, she changed her mind about the cause of why the Blacks and Whites differed. She wrote, "those adoptees with two African American birth parents had IQs that were not notably higher than the IQ scores of Black youngsters reared in Black families." Growing up in a White middle-class home produced little or no lasting increase in the IQs of Black children.

Some psychologists disagreed with her. They claimed "expectancy effects," not genes, explained the pattern. They argued that the Black and White children were not treated the same. Even if parents took good care of their children, the schools, classmates, and society as a whole discriminated against Black children and this hurt their IQs. Because we expected Black children to do poorly in school, they lived up to our low expectations.

Is there any way to decide between the genetic theory and the expectancy theory? There is. A special analysis of the Scarr study compared parents who believed that they had adopted a Black baby but, really, had adopted a Mixed- race (Black-White) child. The average IQ for these Mixed- race children was just about the same as for other Mixed- race children and above that for adopted Black children. This was true even though the parents who adopted these Mixed- race children thought their babies really had two Black parents.

Chart 9 summarizes the results for Oriental children adopted into White middle-class homes. Korean and Vietnamese babies from poor backgrounds, many of whom were malnourished, were adopted by White American and Belgian families. When they grew up, they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in. Trans-racial adoption does not increase or decrease IQ. The three-way pattern of race differences in IQ remains.

If anyone else would like to contend with the results of these studies, please do so...


Vale, I have done some reading and there are multiple studies supporting that as it currently stands, with our current IQ tests, there are ethnic differences. However, you automatically accredit that to race, rather than other factors.

I would welcome your comments on this overview, which was posted earlier;

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-inferiorIQ.htm

Specifically, I would like to know how you refute Poverty creates large IQ differences even between groups of the same ethnicity as less substantial than race. Multiple studies have shown this precise link, despite genetic lineage, while no studies have shown the opposite (that would be, divergence of race in educated areas). At least, not according to the American Psychological Association, those certifying the IQ test.

I was planning to get to this (along with another link that was posted earlier that I'll have to go back and find)...This topic swelled to 200 replies in less than 24 hours, so I'm trying to keep up here.

The Bell Curve addressed the issue of poverty and IQ with some charts and statistics (Unfortunately, I just dropped it off at the library, so I'll have to search the 'net) where the races were analyzed IQ-wise and narrowed down to the same economic level. The disparities still existed. I'd also like to see numbers for the comparisons of other discriminated groups; I'll search for them myself if you don't have a link.


if it were true that there were differences between asians, caucasians, and blacks in terms of ability to handle intellectual complexity ON AVERAGE, do you think that this truth would be more damaging than valuable and better left unspoken?

Yes. That's why I resolved never to speak about this subject outside this forum.


I guess my point is, if they found a correlation between huge nose size and low IQs, would you treat everyone with a big nose like they were an idiot? Or would you choose, and yes it's a choice, to treat everyone the same regardless of nose size.

I've already made it clear that I will treat everyone I meet on an individual basis, as I always have.


God you guys, open your eyes. This is what you're arguing against.

Someone said this girl came in here as a damsel in distress in an attempt to hide her 'unsophisticated dishonesty'.

Since her first post, I have watched on the sidelines (okay, after calling her a redneck racist) as she first 'innocently' released a tidbit of controversial 'data' to spark up a debate.

Following that, some of you bought into the idea that it was the only 'evidence' provoking her guilty 'affliction'.

And since then, I have watched many bright people provide a variety of extensive, well-thought out and considerate replies, in response to which she has progressively produced arguments that unveil the initially unsuspected, unimagined depth of her racism.

Evolution may be a stimulating topic. But don't fool yourselves into thinking you are going to pull this weed out. Just try not to vote people like her for President (and I bet I know who Vale voted).

I wasn't even old enough to vote during the last election.

You seem determined to condemn my motives...Are you sure you're not an F? I don't see how bringing up scientific facts and statistics qualifies me as a "redneck racist." Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it false.

[Snowflake]

This thread is hilarious, thanks for the entertainment everyone, keep the good stuff coming. 8O

[panda]

WOW - thats fast.
I know a guy who can reliably type around 140 wpm.

I usually type 80-90 wpm on a good day.

[Madrigal]

You seem determined to condemn my motives...Are you sure you're not an F?

Hell no! Fs are all inferior to us Ts! *punches a hole in the wall*

[Madrigal]

I wasn't even old enough to vote during the last election.
.

Don't worry, you'll get your chance to vote Republican. :)

["InsertNameHere"]

You need a new schtick. These jabs at my state of residence are getting awfully tiring.


Yes I know but it is still very funny, well to me anyways! Cheer up kiddo! I believe that everyone has racist tendencies, ahem, even moi, or for you naysayers "prejudice tendencies". Don't be ashamed. Embrase it and move on. I for one don't take any of this seriously and I guess thats why I'm not offended even though I should be (being a female of African descent and all). Then again my IQ is probably below 70 making me a big retard, so what do I know?

[Lee]

I wish I could vote republican :(

["InsertNameHere"]

I wish I could vote republican :(
whats the equivalent of republican in England, or is there anything like it? I'm sure you vote for that...

[Lee]

whats the equivalent of republican in England, or is there anything like it? I'm sure you vote for that...The Conservative Party. I don't like the idea of them being in power though, to use a cliche 'they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery', nevermind run a country.

I'll just have to start my own political party I guess *sigh*

[meshou]

I wish I could vote republican :(I sorta wish I could vote Liberal. And have sneators shout death threats. It seems so much more pleasant than the cordial turn taking on our side.

[joft]

Is it wrong that I'm intellectually turned on by this post (specifically that it features a female arguing in a debate against all odds?) Oh no, I too am no more than a product of my patriarchical nurture (and/or nature!)

now I'm sad inside

[Zephyrus055]

I'm egocentric.

[Jacque]

'Intelligence': misuse and abuse of statistics (http://www.abelard.org/statistics.htm)


Plomin, page 34 – 35, reads as follows: “the second is the adoption study, which separates genetic and environmental influences. For example, when biological parents relinquish their children for adoption at birth, any resemblance between these parents and their adopted away offspring can be attributed to shared heredity rather than to shared environment, if there is no selective placement. In addition, when these children are adopted, any resemblance between the adoptive parents can be attributed to shared environment rather than to shared heredity.”

Now this is the most incredible, egregious nonsense. Let us analyse part of this quotation from Plomin in order to appreciate the full enormity of this idiocy. According to the statement above, any resemblance of the adopted children to their new parents must be due to environmental influence, if they have two hands and five toes and the adoptive parents also have two hands and five toes; well, obviously that is an environmental effect!! (see varieties of genes). However, if the child turns out to have an inclination to brush their teeth in the mornings just like their original parents, that then must be a genetic effect.


High measured ‘heritability’ within a group does not imply that average measured differences between groups are due to genetic differences between groups. The average measured differences between groups could be due solely to environmental differences even when measured ‘heritability’ within both groups is very high. (Note that I have removed the word ‘necessarily’ from the first version).

Note also that ‘heritability’ is a statistical calculation, it does not imply inheritance. Calling the calculation ‘heritability’ tends to insert an assumption; doing this is not careful scientific analysis or language. However, it remains that Plomin’s original statement is accurate, if read carefully. Unfortunately such statements are generally not read carefully; and in my view they are not written carefully.

It is by such rhetorical obfuscation that ‘arguments’ concerning supposed ‘heritable’ differences between groups are promoted, even though a careful interpretation of the words used carry a very different (lack of) meaning. Such texts must be read with great care. Statistical relationships do not ever imply causation, the most they can do is indicate possible connections.

Note that there is a 2% correlation of genes in those with a high IQ - regardless of race - though these genes are thought to be inactive (evolutionary junk). So you have genetic correlation without genetic causation.

[Vale]

Don't worry, you'll get your chance to vote Republican. :)

You know, that's really funny. 'Cause all Texans vote Republican, duh. :rolleyes:


Yes I know but it is still very funny, well to me anyways! Cheer up kiddo! I believe that everyone has racist tendencies, ahem, even moi, or for you naysayers "prejudice tendencies". Don't be ashamed. Embrase it and move on. I for one don't take any of this seriously and I guess thats why I'm not offended even though I should be (being a female of African descent and all). Then again my IQ is probably below 70 making me a big retard, so what do I know?

It might've been funny the first time, but you're about the...oh...11th person to bring it up. And I'm not going to say this again...The average IQ of 70 in Sub-Saharan Africa is an average. As in, there are African geniuses and Africans with IQ's even below that. But on average...70. It's well-documented. I for one wish it weren't the case, but it appears to be.

[Jacque]

You know, that's really funny. 'Cause all Texans vote Republican, duh. :rolleyes:

You know there are correlations on intelligence and party affiliation. It's never looked well for Republicans.

Perhaps, ideology and racist tendancies are better indicators of IQ. Have we dared to look?

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

[Vale]

You know there are correlations on intelligence and party affiliation. It's never looked well for Republicans.

Perhaps, ideology and racist tendancies are better indicators of IQ. Have we dared to look?

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

If you're implying I'm a conservative, you're off...I'm a moderate through-and-through. Never could come to a conclusion about much of anything (damn "P").

There also seems to be an implication that all conservatives are white supremacists. On the contrary, white supremacists seem to just hate everybody, conservatives included. Yes, and certainly Bush as well.

But then I'm straying away from the debate...

[Nighthawk]

You know there are correlations on intelligence and party affiliation. It's never looked well for Republicans.

Can you link me to any? I'd love to see them.

[Helios]

Yes, I do realize this could be faulty data, which is why I constantly asked for contradictory data, which so far no one could provide. All data can be faulty, but we'd never learn anything if we didn't trust at least some of it.

And you might have a higher IQ than me by virtue of being male...if I were an average girl, which I'm not. And IQ and knowledge are two different things. Knowledge can be changed and expanded; IQ generally stays the same throughout one's life.



This has nothing to do with whether a race is "better," however it seems clear that some races are adapted better to certain environments and civilizations.



Ok, lemme rephrase. The 'data' could be 'correct'. Black score lower on IQ tests. Black people in general perform lower over all in N. America,Europe and even in Africa! So as you said
some races are adapted better to certain environments and civilizations.

But who's civiliazation? Mine! That is right I am white,male,protestant, and for fun I am young and blond too! Everything about this world was made by and for my kind. The closer you are to me the better you will earn,score,live,be treated, etc. Your female, that is a notch down, the tests are built by and for male brains. Oh uh, your black too? Another demerit. Oh your Asian? Well your culture does very well in analytical subjects. But your art,culture and even your sexuality are muted and almost laughable.

So I think really we are fighting about results that only show that for the past 500 years my people have done a charming job of casting the whole world in their image. Deviation from the template will impede your ability to integrate, and will show as a failure on your part. Maybe I'd feel guilty, but I don't give a fuck, 'casue I have no Fe! But it doesn't mean I don't know the truth!


Oh, plus all black people are flithy ignorant niggers!

[Architectonic]

IQ generally stays the same throughout one's life.

Isn't Intelligence Quotient defined as the ratio of tested mental age to chronological age? One of a few issues I have with the concept...

Either way, IQ is a totally outdated concept and a more complex method (to take into account more real world variables) should be used if you want significantly improved predictivity.

[Jacque]

If you're implying I'm a conservative, you're off...I'm a moderate through-and-through. Never could come to a conclusion about much of anything (damn "P").

That's like calling you black for being stupid. Though, given your position, it should seem appropriate.

You should also know that moderates aren't agnostic or apolitical. To be a moderate is not have a lack of convictions, but a balance of extremes. Perhaps, your stance on race is balanced by a liberal position regarding the the legalization of pot.


There also seems to be an implication that all conservatives are white supremacists. On the contrary, white supremacists seem to just hate everybody, conservatives included. Yes, and certainly Bush as well.

:thelook: :rofl:

I've yet to see a conservative Republican dragged for miles by chains from the back end of a pickup truck. I think you've more than strayed from the topic...lol.

And what makes white supremacy different from what you believe? (Besides the Asians) The hate? You find that pretty much everywhere. The means? The violence? That's pretty much everywhere too. Only one thing by itself identities white supremacy, which is the same which gives it its name, and that is the belief in the racial superiority of one race, whether it be in regard to intelligence, dexterity, or destiny.

[cjs55]

So one could be a black supremicist when it comes to football running-back mastery? Sweet.


Perhaps, ideology and racist tendancies are better indicators of IQ. Have we dared to look?

The latter is the place everyone has been looking for quite a while. It is the only proposition I have ever heard concerning this fact in school. I have never once heard a 'racist' explanation by any teacher I have ever had in all public schools. This certaily extends into the higher realm of academia as well, with very few exceptions.

I think yes, we've dared to look. And found very very little evidence in proof of recent discrimination, which is why the focus has moved towards disproof of ethnic groupings cooresponding with genetics (which is a issue which doesn't seem to stand still for very long.), or the assumption of a subconsciously racist white majority (despite the fact that none of us seem to actually find any racist people in positions of power).

And we've gone too far in the wrong cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematicsplaces), and will continue to do so until we realize the only measure of enforcing equality is to drag the achievers down (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html).

It's funny though, your explanation of IQ distrubtion coorelating with ideology is actually the first reaction I had to that link posted supposedly attackig the claim of IQ differences relating to ethnic background. That posited because the mainstream group always had a higher IQ and this didn't have to do with ethnicity in many cases, obviously ethnicity can have nothing to do with differences in IQ.



But who's civiliazation? Mine! That is right I am white,male,protestant, and for fun I am young and blond too! Everything about this world was made by and for my kind.

You make the sad mistake of assuming the current western world (initially created [over time] by europeans, yes, whatever that entails) is the only one there is.

[Jacque]

Can you link me to any? I'd love to see them.

IQ and Politics (http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm)

It was the same in 2000 election. They were further supported by the level of education of each voter, the Democratic candidate recieving more educated votes, literally.

Bush voters were more likely believe the assertions about WMBs and a Saddam-Al Qaeda link - still 2004 mind you. Today, of course, polls have shown that number to have decreased, implying that Bush voters have changed their positions.

[cjs55]

To Lee: All of the obvious features of evolution that you mentioned I was in entire agreement with (environment including other organisms, diseases susceptability never actually being selected for unless for other more beneficial causes...). It was my fault for not being clear on those matters.

I certainly didn't allow enough for adaptability in my framework. Fair enough.

However, to say that humans have not changed at all over time because of technology seems impossible to me. Very poor eyesight is one such case: I would most likely never would have survived without glasses. So today there are more people with very poor eyesight being born then there could have been without the technological development of glasses. There are more cases, from medicine to difference in desired sexual traits due to ideology merging with technology that I would have a hard time conceptually just ignoring. The last case is the one I would push most strongly.

The creation of technology requires certain environmental resources and conditions, yes, but are there not traits necessary to tap those resources and create the technology as well? And yes, maybe human adapatability is at cause, but what is left then to explain why some humans migrated to different places more condusive to the development of technology? Would not genetic differences be a distinguisher, that is to say, those least pleased with their current situation looking to find another? And then, when resources were found, would there not be traits necessary to take over said resources from others? (this is part of your theory you briefly presented I think)


To Eyebyte: I seriously can't find what you are talking about with a google. If you are talking about Lewontin, people don't really buy him currently as far as I know.

http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf

If you could send me some links that support your claims sometime, I'd appreciate it. Just a name of an author or title would do as well. Hell, just tell me what to type in the google box (I'm too dumb to figure it out.)

[cjs55]

OK Vale. The crime rate among mentally retarded people is almost identical to that of society as a whole.

Oh wait, that doesn't help prove your "Low IQ = Greater Criminal Tendency" theory? Better rub that data off the sheet...

Just let me ask you this, Vale. If Black America got its act together and its crime rate became lower than that of caucasians...would you wave this about as proof that blacks were superior to whites, or would you suddenly say "Oh, I guess that argument is meaningless after all"? Somehow, I don't see you ever arguing for your own inferiority, no matter what data is presented.

The crime rate is not higher because IQ is lower. The nose does not cause the tail! Both are a product of greater poverty. The greater poverty is not a result of inferior genetics. It's a result of having had only about 30 years of anything even remotely resembling a fair shake, and even now not having what I would call 100% a level playing field. Wail about affirmitive action and aid all you want, they don't even come close to leveling the playing field.

Let me put it another way. Your ancestors have probably been here for a long time, and when they arrived, they set up shop and began building a dynasty, which you now inherit. Don't think by dynasty I mean only Wealth. I'd lay good odds that your grandparents had a proper education, and if you think that doesn't affect your chances in life, you're fooling yourself.

Their ancestors came here in chains, which they wore for hundreds of years, were freed but prevented from developing any dynasty for a hundred years, were then allowed to develop a dynasty but prevented from fair acquisition of the resources necessary for another 30, and are still contending with the kind of crap like what you've posted here.

Offhand I'd say we're about five generations minimum from them being "up to speed". Sad but true...it won't be until one's grandmother remembers her grandmother having such opportunities that the culture of prosperity has permeated one's existance as it has yours (which, I might add, you have totally taken for granted and ignored).

So I guess what I would say is, are black people inferior? I dislike that word, too many value attachments for scientific reasoning. Do they have a higher rate of crime and poverty on the whole? Yes. But not because of genetics...it's because we insisted they be that way, and insisted it rather forcefully.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods32.html

Just some countering thoughts to this conceptual framework. Not to say that I entirely agree with it. I'm sure there are a few things wrong with it. Gotta keep my nose clean.

P.S. Yeah, I'm mainly posting links from one side of the story. Not that I don't read about the other side, just that the less popular-due-to-ideology side doesn't get much airtime.

[Serotonin]

IQ and Politics (http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm)

I

Sorry Jacque, but that list is bogus.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
I'd like it to be true, but truth comes before bias

[Helios]

You make the sad mistake of assuming the current western world (initially created [over time] by europeans, yes, whatever that entails) is the only one there is.



Ok, say your Tchad, you want to develope your nation. Who do you go to? Western Oil companies, The World Bank, etc. What indigenous source of finance,technolgy, modern education, and so on do you have? None. So regardless of the value of your culture,which maybe ideal for living in your niche the modern world will devalue it, and replace it with what we have.

Yes, there was and is a myriad of other culture created by mankind, but these have all been supplanted by the Western Model.

[cjs55]

Here we are agreed. There are 'tribal' models still surviving in current time, but they are rare and getting phased out. This is an effect of globalism in western dogma, which has to do with the removal of difference amongst the human species (whether it is culturally, genetically, whatever, who cares at this point) across the globe. This is a very sad thing, to me at least.

In history at least we can potentially find other models, once the western one has fully gouged away the spirit of humanity as a whole.

[Helios]

Well my point never was about the merit or lack of in the 'Western Model'. Only that you can't hold other "races"/peoples accoutnable to our model then berate their shortfall when that can't match it as well as we do ourselves.

[Jacque]

So one could be a black supremicist when it comes to football running-back mastery? Sweet.

That depends on whether you consider physicality to be superior to mental faculties. If you are indeed INTP, it's a safe venture to assume that you are no football running-back supremacist.


I have never once heard a 'racist' explanation by any teacher I have ever had in all public schools.

You mean you were never taught history? The Holocaust? Jim Crow? No, you just mean you never heard anything pleasant about it.


And we've gone too far in the wrong cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematicsplaces), and will continue to do so until we realize the only measure of enforcing equality is to drag the achievers down (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html).

When have you ever had sandbags and bird shot hung around your intellect? This is assuming that you would've ended up where you are without the handicapping of the elite. Can you be so sure that you wouldn't have turned out a moron?

You know what's worse than morons blaming the intelligent for their stupidity. It's the intelligent blaming the morons for not being any smarter than they already are. They should know better, which happens to make think that they are indeed stupid.

All manner of "achievers" are dragged by something, but that is never to say that we don't reach our full pontential. In improving IQ, it seems the biggest gains have come from the bottom. With geniuses, it's seems a matter of diminishing returns. Invest where you make the biggest gains. Isn't that the more intelligent thing to do?

[Jacque]

Sorry Jacque, but that list is bogus.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
I'd like it to be true, but truth comes before bias

:( Deja vu...I think I remember seeing it on that site once.

Maybe you can look up some data on voter breakdown by education while I get some sleep...maybe the Sun Sentinel was wrong about that one.

Edit: Here we go: http://www.ginandtacos.com/forums/000145.html

In 2004, however, the Democrats gained New Hampshire, so things are pretty much the same.

[cjs55]

Only that you can't hold other "races"/peoples accoutnable to our model then berate their shortfall when that can't match it as well as we do ourselves.

I would simply that the model falls short in alot of ways, and this is yet another one, because it forces said accountable when it shouldn't be acceptable.



You mean you were never taught history? The Holocaust? Jim Crow? No, you just mean you never heard anything pleasant about it.


Sorry, I am often unclear. I meant that I haven't heard anything in the school system at any level other than the acceptable view of human equality (well, maybe not in height and skin color and other external characteristics, but when it comes to what's inside of us, we're all the same, and that's what counts). Anything other than this acceptable view would be 'racism' and thus is not allowed to enter the discussion.




When have you ever had sandbags and bird shot hung around your intellect? This is assuming that you would've ended up where you are without the handicapping of the elite. Can you be so sure that you wouldn't have turned out moron?

You know what's worse than morons blaming the intelligent for their stupidity. It's the intelligent blaming the morons for not being any smarter than they already are. They should know better, which happens to make think that they are indeed stupid.

All manner of "achievers" are dragged by something, but that is never to say that we don't reach our full pontential. In improving IQ, it seems the biggest gains have come from the bottom. With geniuses, it's seems a matter of diminishing returns. Invest where you make the biggest gains. Isn't that the more intelligent thing to do?

Of course I am not suggesting that severe handicaps are currently imposed on smart kids to bring them down. There's nothing wrong with more help going to less 'intelligent' kids. As you stated, the smartest most likely don't need the help, they'll figure things out on their own. This is possibly evidenced by the lower college-attendance rates of people with genius level IQ.

My point is merely a hypothetical: If no positive means to correct the gap between success of various ethnicities in western culture, at what point would the current liberal ideology stop trying to enforce it? What is discriminatory will move from the blatant, to the hidden, to the subconsious. Eventually it will be decided that there is no way to get rid of it, because nothing is working. At that point is where the trouble would begin.

It probably won't get that far though.

[Helios]

I would simply that the model falls short in alot of ways, and this is yet another one, because it forces said accountable when it shouldn't be acceptable.






Well, yeah that was my point from the start. Perhaps I lost it in hyperbole?

[cjs55]

Nah, I think we may just be agreeing with each other from very different points of view.

[Helios]

Well I'll guess here, I suspect you respond more negatively to the inequity than I. I can see it, I think it is sad waste, but so is all of mankind, before and since.

[Madrigal]

You know, that's really funny. 'Cause all Texans vote Republican, duh. :rolleyes:
.

Oh, but you'll vote them for all the Right reasons. ;)

[eyebyte_atWork]

Oh, but you'll vote them for all the Right reasons. ;)


Hey Madrigal - how;s it going?

[Madrigal]

Hey Madrigal - how;s it going?

Off to a bad start today, those goddamned Burger King slaves put some milk in my coffee, which I like black.

I'm hoping Vale can entertain me today with a "Please prove me wrong about Hispanics", as I suspect we might be as stupid as black people. Can't even make a decent cup of black coffee.

[Zephyrus055]

You know, while the races are intellectually and socially equal in their genetic potential, I still question the utility of cultural and intellectual autonomy among groups.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Off to a bad start today, those goddamned Burger King slaves put some milk in my coffee, which I like black.

I'm hoping Vale can entertain me today with a "Please prove me wrong about Hispanics", as I suspect we might be as stupid as black people. Can't even make a decent cup of black coffee.


I think you got my coffee - I likeit with milk

[Nighthawk]

I'm hoping Vale can entertain me today with a "Please prove me wrong about Hispanics", as I suspect we might be as stupid as black people. Can't even make a decent cup of black coffee.
Priceless ... simply priceless.