This Ought To Get Some Replies [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

BluffTHIS!

12-20-2005, 03:52 AM

The phraseology of that poster clearly indicates racist attitudes. Nonetheless he does describe somewhat accurately many of the evident failings of black americans to prosper in their own country, a country in which many of their forbears were already living here in a state of slavery before those of many whites whose ancestors came over in colonial times (first slaves to US came to Jamestown colony aboard a Dutch slave ship).

This topic is very important to America's future though. Although many of the ills and failings of blacks to prosper in the US have to do with the legacy of racism which still continues to some degree, there are also evident defects in the dominant black culture.

So many black political leaders just ascribe everything to racism without having the courage to look inside their own coummunities for a large if not in fact majority cause of their problems. And when an influential black such as Bill Cosby does dare to make such criticisms, he is derided as little better than an Uncle Tom. Also those same black political leaders always reject such comparisons to the the Jewish and Asian minority coummunities which have thrived here so well.

The cultural defects that are most evident are young girls barely past puberty having children and having to raise those children mostly without a father around. And the drug and violence culture which is always blamed solely on poverty is also a large defect and accounts for the high proportion of black males in the 20s and 30s being incarcerated. The lessening influence of black churches has contributed to these problems. And too often when even black leaders fall prey to such problems like Marion Barry, they are partially defended by blacks who always see a racial attack, when they are the ones who need to take repsonsibility for corruption and cronyism in majority black cities and expel those leaders who are found guilty of such actions themselves.

And there is nothing to mind mind that greater exemplifies the cultural failings of the dominant black culture than the gang rap phenomenon. When you look at the contribution of black musicians to almost every genre of music from Blues to Rock, Soul to Jazz and even Country, then the true bankruptness of the so-called music that is rap is seen for what it is. And especially when it is a vehicle for promoting a gangster drug culture and one that encourages the abuse and degradation of women.

But there are two larger issues, and which are shown by those derided comparisons to other minority coummunities. The first is simply that there does not exist now in the black community an entrepreneurial business spirit and high regard for higher education. Although such comments run the risk of providing fodder for racists who like to batt around stereotypes such as "lazy N", they also need to be seen to have a kernel of truth.

The paradigm for the prosperous Asian immigrant is to come over to the US get a job and rent a bed in a shack with 10 other immigrants, and then get another job. And live cheaper than dirt and save money for a few years and start a business. And only then start a family. And once one or more families members are on this track, bring in more family members into those businesses and help others start new businesses. And then when they have children, insure they get a quality education in science or business with advanced degrees.

Part of the reason of course that blacks have not done this historically is indeed because racism limited their opportunities, but there is little reason such a paradigm cannot be adopted today.

The second issue is the black community's failure to build up themselves economically by concentration of their own resources. And it is the Jewish community which best shows this paradigm. Every Jewish friend and acquaintance I have had over the years has always to my knowledge used Jewish insurance agents, Jewish lawyers, etc. So economically they build themselves up. This is partly a stereotype as well, but it is true from what I have seen. And again as with the Asian community, a high priority is placed on education.

Yet so many racial problems in black communities have stemmed from a perception by blacks that Jewish and Korean retail store owners are "preying" on the black coummunity and offerring little in return. But the real question is, why doesn't a black man or woman own that large pawn emporium down the street or the neighborhood grocery? And why isn't the closest TV repair shop owned by a black? And why doesn't the black coummunity then support such black businesses even if it means paying a little more?

The black community needs a moral crusade (doesn't even have to be religious based) to evict and condemn the teen sex/drug & violence/rap culture that is killing their community. And they need to adopt the successful paradigms of other successful minority communities who came to these shores long after them and have prospered while their community as a whole is mired in economic deprivation.

Now I know that what I have suggested, as have others, will be challenged by the dominant blame-it-all-on-racism political position assumed by most black leaders, partly becuase they will say and have said that the black minority in the US is in fact so large that such measures cannot be adopted. But they can in fact be adopted a block and a neighborhood at a time. And it is important to America that they succeed in these things if they are willing to take on the challenges.

Anyway, that's one white man's long opinion.

12-20-2005, 04:12 AM

This quote makes it clear what group he's talking about:

[ QUOTE ]
Half of all murders (and much of the crime) in the U.S. are caused by a particular race

[/ QUOTE ]
This quote makes it clear that he's not being remotely objective:

[ QUOTE ]
Even the elite of this race fail to excel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally,

[ QUOTE ]
Compare this with any other minority and the results are clear to anyone without a bias. Asians routinely outperform whites and are disproportionately represented at elite universities, despite being a minority and in spite of poverty and limited integration into society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ignore for a moment that there are minorities that fair much worse in America than this "particular race".

Potentially, there is a lot to be learned by understanding why people of Asian decent do so much better than people a "particular race" (on average) in America. The idea that this is only/mostly to do with intellectual capacity of respective groups is "on the border of retardation" however.

Edit :
Actually, now that I look at this one more time, I'm starting to wonder if this guy really is talking about the "particular race" I thought he was. What ratio of murders and crime is perfomed by white people in the US? Of course, this still makes the "even their elites don't excel" utterly ridiculous.

12-20-2005, 04:19 AM

RE: Bluff. I should say that though what you said deals with many of the same issues as the original poster, I don't consider it remotely racist - and the reason for that is that you're addressing cultural issues. The original post is addressing issues of genetic inheritance relating to intelligence/work ethic etc - and that's just demonstrably false. Not only that but probably most importantly, the tone reflects your intention - the original post just reflects spite.

Nevertheless, I think much of what you describe is just poverty. The 'teen sex/drugs & violence' type culture is just one of poverty, it's exactly the same phenomena you find in the white underclass. And as far as what you describe for the black community: I think when you hear talk of the black community being too large to incorporate that kind of commercial nepotism - the reason isn't that the black community is too large logistically, it's that it's so large it doesn't have a common identity. And I don't think that's a bad thing, not having a common identity is indicative of a more complete integration, whites don't have a common identity either - in fact where whites exercise the ability to only shop at white stores, use white lawyers etc, we'd call that racism. I don't honestly think much needs done, it's truly unfortunate that we can't effect social change quickly, but it's an inescapable reality. There are more and more blacks entering the middle class, more blacks going to college, the first generation of black millionaires retiring. Simply I think the system is now in place, but it will take many many generations subsequent to the very recent history of racist segregation before blacks in poverty are not disproportionately represented. What percentage of whites in poverty enter the middle class every generation? Not that many.....

12-20-2005, 05:00 AM

If I'd known I was going to be quoted in a new thread, I would have taken the time to make my point more eloquently and with proper references, lest its flaws be used a diversion by people with narrow minded agendas. My attitude may well be considered racist, but the facts I state and the issues that need to be faced are real, and very relevant to American society.

For the guys who doubt my "over 50% comment", read this:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

[ QUOTE ]

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2002
Offenders
White Black Other
45.9% 52.1% 2.0%

[/ QUOTE ]

I will post SAT and intelligence scores when I get time (or someone else can). Suffice to say that those who claim that there isn't a huge difference are misinformed or straight out lying.

[ QUOTE ]
This quote makes it clear that he's not being remotely objective:

Quote:
Even the elite of this race fail to excel.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it makes it clear that particular comment is not objective. The point I was making is that even the elite of that race who attend university or are wealty don't excel in society. There are very, very few great CEOs, lawyers, writers, artists, politicians, scientists, nobel prize winners (lol), journalists, etc etc who are from that race. That's all I'm saying. Though they have made a notable contribution to bling bling gansta rap (girls in skimpy clothing and shiny man-jewellery, anyone?). I guess that could be considered art.

12-20-2005, 05:11 AM

Nobody was questioning the SAT or IQ scores. What people (like me) were questioning is that those differences could be accounted for by something inherently attached to race. There is every indication that there is no such connection <snip>. Put simply poor people score worse in SAT and IQ tests, always have and probably always will, for reasons too numerous and tangential to bother getting into in this thread.

I'd also suggest you consider the possibility that people were offended by your post because it was spiteful and derisive, not because of the position you were arguing.

Edit: Was wrong

12-20-2005, 05:16 AM

Um, brain size differences between races?? There is a strong correlation between this and IQ. The differences were reported a while ago (again) in New Scientist and elsewhere. I'll see if I can dig it up.

In the meantime Wikipedia has an interesting and well referenced article for anyone not familiar with the topic. There is more going on here than cultural or historic differences. Anyone without a bias can see this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_(Average_intelligence_gaps_a mong_races)

12-20-2005, 05:29 AM

I'm familiar with that study actually, I'd forgotten about it. There has only been shown to be a tenuous link between brain size and IQ - but setting that aside, say for the sake of argument there's a strong correllation, that's still missing the point entirely.

Higher IQ's will propogate where having a high IQ is advantageous. If you look at the racial history of America that possibly applied less to blacks at some point, since starting a business, going to college etc was not an option. It doesn't now - so if you can establish a lower average IQ in blacks it means absolutely nothing except that it references a historical reproductive pattern - that gap will close where a higher IQ becomes reproductively attractive. And there are numerous studies to the effect that this gap has been closing for decades. That all makes IQ nothing inherent to race - stupid people have stupid kids in every race, as far as I'm aware.

12-20-2005, 05:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The point I was making is that even the elite of that race who attend university or are wealty don't excel in society. There are very, very few great CEOs, lawyers, writers, artists, politicians, scientists, nobel prize winners (lol), journalists, etc etc who are from that race.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you make the standard high enough, there are very few "greats" of any race. You said their elites don't excel. Assuming we're talking about Blacks/Africans, they obviously do excel. You can argue if you want about how much they excel relative to whites or Asians, but to say their elites don't excel is obviously false. How, please tell me, do they become wealthy by not excelling somewhere along the line?

Since this is a poker site, do Phil Ivey and David Williams excel at poker or not?

[ QUOTE ]
Though they have made a notable contribution to bling bling gansta rap (girls in skimpy clothing and shiny man-jewellery, anyone?). I guess that could be considered art.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think that this is the limit of their contribution I don't think you're looking very hard at all. The idea that you can bring up modern music and not mention Jazz and Blues ... ahh, why waste my time.

12-20-2005, 05:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Higher IQ's will propogate where having a high IQ is advantageous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Such as Europe and North Asia during the ice ages?

OK so I'm joking, but to convince me of your theory you'd have to convince me that intelligent people have more kids than your average joe. Is there any evidence of this, because it's not the case today.

[ QUOTE ]
And there are numerous studies to the effect that this gap has been closing for decades.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's called interbreeding, which presumably has happened a lot more since America ended Apartheid. And the gap hasn't closed that much - see the graph in wiki.

And finally there's the point that poor Africans do horribly at IQ tests - just above retard - whereas poor Indians, Chinese, Middle Eastern, you name it get normal scores (in fact some do better than white scores). Go figure.

12-20-2005, 05:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
OK so I'm joking, but to convince me of your theory you'd have to convince me that intelligent people have more kids than your average joe. Is there any evidence of this, because it's not the case today.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about the intelligentsia being outbred here. I'm talking about the difference between a 95 and a 100 IQ, I'm talking about the guy who can figure out how to operate the tivo being more attractive than the guy who can't etc. That's clearly the case is contemporary society.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's called interbreeding, which presumably has happened a lot more since America ended Apartheid. And the gap hasn't closed that much

[/ QUOTE ]

Interbreeding, what's your evidence of that? Would test participants of mixed race qualify for these kind of studies on race related IQ? I don't know the answer to that - but I'm guessing not.

[ QUOTE ]
And finally there's the point that poor Africans do horribly at IQ tests - just above retard - whereas poor Indians, Chinese, Middle Eastern, you name it get normal scores (in fact some do better than white scores). Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is not an issue of race it's an issue of environment. If you visit sub-saharan africa you'll see exactly why IQ is not highly valued. Black Americans/Europeans etc do not live in Africa. If a high IQ is attractive, and a gap is present as a result of that history, it will close with or without interbreeding.

And just as a voice of reason, the gap isn't exactly very big as it is, and there's plenty crossover.

12-20-2005, 06:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Again this is not an issue of race it's an issue of environment. If you visit sub-saharan africa you'll see exactly why IQ is not highly valued. Black Americans/Europeans etc do not live in Africa. If a high IQ is attractive, and a gap is present as a result of that history, it will close with or without interbreeding.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're mixing up a couple of different factors here. One is that it is highly debatable what IQ actually measures. Most of the evidence that I've seen suggests that it measures a mixture of mathematical intellignece and education. You can teach people how to do better in an IQ test - it's not an inate quality. This suggests that the quality of education people recieve will effect their average IQ scores. Education in sub-Saharan Africa is by far the worst in the world and this is due to factors outside the control of individual Africans.

Second, all types of intelligence are always selected for in every society. The simple fact is that you need far more wits about you to survive in the poorest parts of the world than you do in the richest.

The real problem for sub-Saharan Africans is that most of them spend so much time surviving that they don't have any left over to create or educate themselves in the types of abstract problems posed in a typical IQ test.

12-20-2005, 06:14 AM

Mr.Sklansky,have you no shame? First the pope and "amazing randi" and now advertising a post like this. It's enough to drive me back to ebay. To quote Auntie Mame,"you need a little christmas." I expect better from this forum. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Peter666

12-20-2005, 06:14 AM

Why call the OP's OP a moron? It is obvious there are differences between the races that are genetic and not merely socio-economic, just like there are obvious psychological differences between men and women. The proportion of black athletes to white or asian athletes is disproportionate according to population. That is racism and that is also true.

As long as everyone of any race has the opportunity to make use of their particular talent, then there is no problem.

Calling a person a "moron" for bringing up race just shows that you have been conditioned by society to think and act that way. It is the politically correct thing to do when any issue of race is brought up.

12-20-2005, 06:26 AM

Mostly fair comment Acorns. Certainly the point that IQ testing is only one type of measure of human performance is very valid. As for IQ testing being a product of education - yes, a little bit even though it's theoretically education neutral. But really not that much. I believe 10 points is about the max swing education can provide.

That all types of intelligence and indeed human qualities generally are selected for in every environment is also true - but the stress given to each certainly varies. In the case of sub-Saharan Africa, it makes sense that attributes like physical agility, eyesight etc would be selected for the potential to solve differential equations.

All I was really getting at is that these IQ performances Phil was referencing are products of environment and circumstance, as oppose to anything inherent to race.

12-20-2005, 06:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's clearly the case is contemporary society.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very wrong and goes against the accepted wisdom. Dumb people have more kids, and have for a long time. See this reference - and there are many other more credible ones that I have read.

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Intelfert.html

"This paper reports the results of the first analysis of the relationship between intelligence and completed fertility (as well as partially completed fertility) in the United States which employs a large, representative sample of the population. The major finding is that the relationship has been predominantly negative from 1912 to 1982."

[ QUOTE ]
Interbreeding, what's your evidence of that? Would test participants of mixed race qualify for these kind of studies on race related IQ? I don't know the answer to that - but I'm guessing not.

[/ QUOTE ]
These aren't race related tests. They're tests for the military, school, etc where race is reported as a statistic along with other information.

[ QUOTE ]
Again this is not an issue of race it's an issue of environment. If you visit sub-saharan africa you'll see exactly why IQ is not highly valued. Black Americans/Europeans etc do not live in Africa. If a high IQ is attractive, and a gap is present as a result of that history, it will close with or without interbreeding.

[/ QUOTE ] You have a flawed understanding of reproduction in modern times.

[ QUOTE ]
And just as a voice of reason, the gap isn't exactly very big as it is, and there's plenty crossover.

[/ QUOTE ]
The gap between 100 and 85 IQ is massive in modern society. An IQ this low makes you incapable of holding many middle class jobs, running a business, going to college, adequately planning for your future, educating your kids, or finding creative solutions to your social or economic difficulties. Let alone excelling in those endeavours. Why do you think there's so much crime amongst this race? Poverty alone doesn't account for it, not any more.

There is some crossover. But you generally need a reasonable IQ to be successful in modern life, and less than 15% of blacks have even an average white IQ. Such a large population of semi-retarded individuals (50% below 85) results in cultural and family problems as well, such as gangs, drugs, and seeing violence as a solution to problems.

12-20-2005, 06:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why call the OP's OP a moron? It is obvious there are differences between the races that are genetic and not merely socio-economic, just like there are obvious psychological differences between men and women. The proportion of black athletes to white or asian athletes is disproportionate according to population. That is racism and that is also true.

As long as everyone of any race has the opportunity to make use of their particular talent, then there is no problem.

Calling a person a "moron" for bringing up race just shows that you have been conditioned by society to think and act that way. It is the politically correct thing to do when any issue of race is brought up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call him a moron for bringing up race! Or for referencing genetic differences between races. I called him a moron for saying blacks 'bred like rabbits' and were 'on the borderline of retardation'. Which is frankly offensive.

Chairman Wood

12-20-2005, 06:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm convinced they don't have the brain capacity to survive and contribute positively in modern civilisation. Despite many years and government efforts, the SAT scores of a certain race remain shockingly low. They are on the border of retardation. Even the elite of this race fail to excel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously HE (http://www.physics.lsa.umich.edu/department/directory/bio.asp?ID=245) is not the only example but just the one that came quickest to mind. I have tons of respect for the people of this forum but I am positive that this man, an old professor of mine, is more intelligent than 99.99% of the people that post here.

12-20-2005, 06:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All I was really getting at is that these IQ performances Phil was referencing are products of environment and circumstance, as oppose to anything inherent to race.

[/ QUOTE ]
So skin color, facial features, height, body build, bone density, onset of puberty, disease susceptibility, and cranial structure vary along racial lines, but brain size or shape don't? That's interesting.

12-20-2005, 06:38 AM

I can show you a white man who has an IQ of 160. Does this mean whites are, on average, smarter than asians? Does it mean they don't have an average of IQ of 100?

Peter666

12-20-2005, 06:39 AM

Ok, I understand your point now.

On a sidenote, it is interesting to see how breeding in modern times has become almost an insult, when it use to be considered a sign of good health and benefit. I encourage more breeding.

Chairman Wood

12-20-2005, 06:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I can show you a white man who has an IQ of 160. Does this mean whites are, on average, smarter than asians? Does it mean they don't have an average of IQ of 100?

[/ QUOTE ]
Hardly. But you said this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm convinced they don't have the brain capacity to survive and contribute positively in modern civilisation. Despite many years and government efforts, the SAT scores of a certain race remain shockingly low. They are on the border of retardation. Even the elite of this race fail to excel.

[/ QUOTE ] In which I responded by pointing to Prof. Neal. Clearly, this man has the brain capacity to contribute in modern civilization. In addition I would hardly say he has failed to excel.

IronUnkind

12-20-2005, 06:45 AM

Phil Ivey wants to play you heads up.

12-20-2005, 06:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I called him a moron for saying blacks 'bred like rabbits' and were 'on the borderline of retardation'. Which is frankly offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

But true.

12-20-2005, 06:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's clearly the case is contemporary society.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very wrong and goes against the accepted wisdom. Dumb people have more kids, and have for a long time. See this reference - and there are many other credible ones that I have read.

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Intelfert.html

"This paper reports the results of the first analysis of the relationship between intelligence and completed fertility (as well as partially completed fertility) in the United States which employs a large, representative sample of the population. The major finding is that the relationship has been predominantly negative from 1912 to 1982."

[ QUOTE ]
Interbreeding, what's your evidence of that? Would test participants of mixed race qualify for these kind of studies on race related IQ? I don't know the answer to that - but I'm guessing not.

[/ QUOTE ]
These aren't race related tests. They're tests for the military, school, etc where race is reported as a statistic along with other information.

[ QUOTE ]
Again this is not an issue of race it's an issue of environment. If you visit sub-saharan africa you'll see exactly why IQ is not highly valued. Black Americans/Europeans etc do not live in Africa. If a high IQ is attractive, and a gap is present as a result of that history, it will close with or without interbreeding.

[/ QUOTE ] You have a flawed understanding of reproduction in modern times.

[ QUOTE ]
And just as a voice of reason, the gap isn't exactly very big as it is, and there's plenty crossover.

[/ QUOTE ]
The gap between 100 and 85 IQ is massive in modern society. An IQ this low makes you incapable of holding many middle class jobs, running a business, going to college, adequately planning for your future, educating your kids, or finding creative solutions to your social or economic difficulties. Let alone excelling in those endeavours. Why do you think there's so much crime amongst this race? Poverty alone doesn't account for it, not any more.

There is some crossover. But you generally need a reasonable IQ to be successful in modern life, and less than 15% of blacks have even an average white IQ. Such a large population of semi-retarded individuals (50% below 85) results in cultural and family problems as well, such as gangs, drugs, and seeing violence as a solution to problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

The phenomena you're talking about, and the article you reference, concerns the intelligentsia being outbred. That is, the higher IQ, college educated, middle class etc being outbred by the less educated lower social classes. That's obviously real and happening, and the conventional wisdom you're referring to. But it's not what I'm talking about. As hard as it is to believe with all the stupid people crapping out kids, they are selecting IQ. This is evidenced by a steady increase in average IQ throughout the west over the last 50 years or so despite the lower socio-economic classes doing most of the breeding.

And RE: race studies. Test participants a poor language choice on my part, I just mean to say that I suspect being mixed race precludes being counted for the purpose of those statistics. Obviously it'd be a huge scientific flaw otherwise.

And RE: race inheritance. All those things are environmental also. They're a product of selection just like IQ, and as IQ becomes advantageous, which it clearly is in our society, that selection will take place, and the gap will close - which it clearly already is doing.

sledghammer

12-20-2005, 07:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I called him a moron for saying blacks 'bred like rabbits' and were 'on the borderline of retardation'. Which is frankly offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

But true.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Bred like rabbits' could be said about Irish Catholics, who have a 'cultural predisposition' to making lots of babies. In fact, the Irish-and other groups considered white today- where labeled 'black' during their dominant period of emigration. The original term 'black' was meant more for poor immigrants than actual skin color. It wasn't until later that the association between being labeled 'black' and African skin color was founded. Supposedly the association was promoted by industrial barons who wanted to divide the poor work force, in order to maintain lower wages. I don't have any evidence to back that up though, maybe someone else on here does.

12-20-2005, 07:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
...the article you reference, concerns the intelligentsia being outbred.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't. It examines the statistical correlation between all IQ levels in a society and the number of children produced. It's standard knowledge in anthropology/sociology that female completed fertility (i.e. number of kids) is inversely proportional to IQ in modern societies - over the entire population range. It's been an area of concern as it's believed people will get dumber (on average) as result of this trend.

[ QUOTE ]
This is evidenced by a steady increase in average IQ throughout the west over the last 50 years

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's not. This is happening in spite of the negative correlation (which is considered fact).

12-20-2005, 07:31 AM

OK, I maybe should have read the article /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Is there the same correlation with males?

purnell

12-20-2005, 09:35 AM

It has nothing to do with "race", whatever that is, and everything to do with poverty and substandard basic education. I know the anarchist types here don't feel like they have any responsibility in this regard, but the fact is we can't just lock them all up. It is in wealthy people's own interest to try to break the cycle of poverty.

12-20-2005, 09:58 AM

That was kinda my starting point purnell, though I'll admit to having found out a few things I didn't previously know as this thread has progressed, particularly with regards to physiological differences in brain structures.

Nevertheless, I still find the original post idiotic. Not because of the subject matter or the assertion, I wouldn't restrict anything from intelligent debate, and this is a pretty interesting subject. But offensive because of the insulting and racially denegrating way his view was expressed.

On the issue of IQ, there seem to be a number of contradictory facts floating about, but there's enough evidence that some kind of claim about a racial factor in IQ can be reasonable. That said, there are a lot of other factors outside of race involved in this, a lot of mixed views in research from what I can tell, and every evidence that the recorded gap is closing (for whatever reason). On top of which, low intelligence was only one of a number of charges Phil made. The others were poor coping skills, aggression and anti-social behaviour. All of which are anecdotal and/or based on fuzzy statistics where race is only one of a score of variables. Mainly it's offensive because the OP presents himself as just plain not liking blacks.

Jeff V

12-20-2005, 10:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Since, in the long run, the busier these forums are, the more money I make,

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh cander. Thanks.

RJT

12-20-2005, 11:16 AM

When phil153 was OOO with the umlats, I thought he had some good posts. I can’t figure out what happened when he devolved into phil153. Witness the following statements of his:

[ QUOTE ]
I question whether he (Jesus) ever existed. I know that sounds insane in a culture built on the certainty that he did (and Christmas movies presented as fact), but the more you actually look at what historians and Catholic apologists write about the issue, the more you realise the evidence is very scant. Without the bible, there would not be enough evidence for a historian to consider him a real historical character.

As the only evidence, the new testament comes under scrutiny. The first parts of what would become the New Testament were written around 40 years (the absolute minimum according to even religious scholars) after his death. Later parts were added up to 100 years after his death. In a time of myth and superstition, without widespread education/writing, TV, or reliable press, such a story could very well be a complete fabrication. Certainly there were excellent reasons for religious powers to write a story which combined the prominent pagan myths of the day (as the bible suspiciuosly does).

Anyway, the point is that even if he did exist, we can't reliably say anything at all about him or his life, as none other than the religious powers of the day wrote anything historical about him.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

I had always suspected part of your motivation for posting some of the things you do had to do with your (probably, mostly tongue-in-cheek) comment that “…Since, in the long run, the busier these forums are, the more money I make…”.

I would suggest, though, that in the long run (even though, we are all dead) it might be better for you to keep some integrity to 2+2. While I understand that your motivation for posting this thread might also be attributable to not wanting thoughts like this to go unchallenged (irrelevant whether one concurs or not), I think it would be more valuable for 2+2 to not compromise its quality.

Perhaps, it is already too late. Once you made atheism all the rage there wasn’t much hope of maintaining control of the beast you created. (I am not talking about atheism, per se; just the brand we often see here on this forum. You must admit it is often not very flattering to itself.)

But, this is your domain. Who am I to suggest how you should guide it? I apologize for not responding to your OP directly. I just can’t bring myself to do it. As Lillian Hellman said, “ I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashion.”

RJT

Jeff V

12-20-2005, 11:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When phil153 was OOO with the umlats,

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmphh. I did not know this.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, it is already too late. Once you made atheism all the rage there wasn’t much hope of maintaining control of the beast you created. (I am not talking about atheism, per se; just the brand we often see here on this forum. You must admit it is often not very flattering to itself.)

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a RGPish feel here once in a while.

RJT

12-20-2005, 12:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When phil153 was OOO with the umlats,

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmphh. I did not know this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I liked him when he was OOO.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a RGPish feel here once in a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the cold weather here has my brain a bit frozen - RGP is what?

RJT

12-20-2005, 12:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can’t figure out what happened when he devolved into phil153. Witness the following statements of his: "I question whether he (Jesus) ever existed."

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it's shocking. It was to me when I first started investigating it. So tell me (in the other thread if you prefer)

1. Who wrote the books of Mark, John, Epistles, etc? (Hint: It wasn't his apostles - lol)
2. What independent historical evidence of Jesus is there?
3. Why did no contemporary Jewish or Roman historian mention Jesus (there a quite few surviving histories from that time)?

Christian scholars themselves can answer these questions for you. Until you can answer them, it might be better to avoid deriding my posts.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be more valuable for 2+2 to not compromise its quality.

[/ QUOTE ]
2+2 is about high quality POKER and gambling information. This forum is in the other topics section.

Jeff V

12-20-2005, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
RGP is what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Used to be a phenominal poker forum with the best players in the world posting, and analyzing hands. Unfortunately it degenerated into an ugly arguing rumor mill, and the great posters left.

andyfox

12-20-2005, 01:02 PM

"Since, in the long run, the busier these forums are, the more money I make . . ."

Alas, another reason for me to regret my 12,000 posts . . . /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Rduke55

12-20-2005, 01:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Um, brain size differences between races?? There is a strong correlation between this and IQ. The differences were reported a while ago (again) in New Scientist and elsewhere. I'll see if I can dig it up.

In the meantime Wikipedia has an interesting and well referenced article for anyone not familiar with the topic. There is more going on here than cultural or historic differences. Anyone without a bias can see this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_(Average_intelligence_gaps_a mong_races)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there are a lot of problems (including technical, statistical, and design) with many of the studies you're quoting here (actually I guess it's "the studies your quotes are quoting"). And the interpretations are suspect. One that jumps to mind is attributing genetic causes to that which is better explained by environmental causes. Maybe you should look in greater detail instead of googling for ten mninutes and finding something that supports your crazy assertations and taking that as gold.

Aldous Huxley's quote defining philosophy seems to ring true here:
Finding bad reasons for what one believes for other bad reasons /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

12-20-2005, 01:47 PM

This is unbelievable. Have you actually read this link at all? Here's a quick summary for anyone that missed it:

All of the diverse studies show that Asian > White >> Black on the measures of:

1. IQ
2. Test scores including school results, GRE, SAT, etc
3. Brain Size
4. Reaction Time (which the authors conclude is due to neurological differences in the Asian/White comparison)

In addition, I will add:

5. Highly advanced cultures and technical achievements, both in modern times and ancient history.
6. Contributions to science, literature, philosophy, etc, both in modern times and ancient history (though Whites > Asians on this in modern times, but not by much)
7. Attendance of elite universities
8. Representation in professions requiring intelligence.

These results cross cultural and economic boundaries, and the borders of countries. 5 & 6 span millenia.

Please, have a look at the graphs for each of these traits, the actual test results of each race, and the diagrams of skull shape. Isn't it obvious what's going on here?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should look in greater detail instead of googling for ten mninutes

[/ QUOTE ]
I have been reading about this for a couple of years. Wikipedia just provided a convenient and authorative source with references to much of the information.

[ QUOTE ]
There are problems with some of the studies

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, there are. But look at the trends, look at the diversity of the studies and test scores; look at the complete lack of contradictory evidence. Even though the degree of difference may vary from test to test and study to study, the trend is always the same. Is there ANY test of ANY mental ability where Black > White > Asian? No. It's always the other way around, regardless of the test, regardless of country or socioeconomic status. What does that tell you?

Rduke55

12-20-2005, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have been reading about this for a couple of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where? Wikipedia, Scientific American, and other pop science reviews? I'm trying not to insult magazines like SA - I like them a lot - but you can't have a lot of this argument if those are your only sources. For example, you seemed to miss the entire Peters - Rushton (and others that spawned off because of it) debate in the 90's.
You may read on it while you're on the can or drinking at the Klan meeting but this stuff is my career. Look at some original research.

12-20-2005, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Where? Wikipedia, Scientific American, and other pop science reviews? I'm trying not to insult magazines like SA - I like them a lot - but you can't have a lot of this argument if those are your only sources. For example, you seemed to miss the entire Peters - Rushton (and others that spawned off because of it) debate in the 90's.
You may read on it while you're on the can or drinking at the Klan meeting but this stuff is my career. Look at some original research.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read New Scientist and the New York Times. Most of my basic understanding comes from there. I have read some of the Peters-Rushton letters (which are over a decade old BTW), and they're the typical psychology journal [censored] - each side attacking the results and conclusions of the other until further research is the only way to settle the dispute. Well, further research has been done. Multiple times.

The results speak for themselves. Did you even read the points in my post (or the Wikipedia article - FULLY REFERENCED WITH LINKS TO THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH), or did you instead decide to attack my credibility and sources without addressing any of my (very valid) points? If this is your career, I hope this isn't an example of how you conduct yourself in your teaching or debates.

RJT

12-20-2005, 02:34 PM

There are different theories on who wrote each Gospel and in what order they were “written”. They were not written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In fact, they all probably have co-writers so to speak. One "author" of Matthew and Luke is commonly known as Q; but isn’t even a person at all. Q is rather a source “quelle”.

Rduke55

12-20-2005, 02:53 PM

Are you kidding with the "decade old" statement? Some of the problems with the research (design and statistics to name two) haven't changed that much since then. And you read the letters? Did you notice the articles they were talking about? And what further research have you seen since then? There's only been a handful of studies, most of which deal with either gender differences, handedness, or one that I can recall using twins.
Do you know how the brain works? Anything on brain development? Brain evolution? Besides the problems with measuring brains size, etc. if you did know anything about these subjects you'd see how strange it is to use a measure like overall brain size for determining these things (that's why there aren't as many studies) and you'd probably have a better appreciation for the role epigenetic factors (nutrition, etc.) play in not only brain size but also intelligence, etc.

You are basically taking soundbites from popular media that support your point. All I'm doing is pointing out that that's useless for debate on a subject like this. Luckily the funding agencies and scientific journals don't weigh my
findings against a 2 page article in the NYT.

Weak crack on me too.

12-20-2005, 02:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They breed like rabbits and exhibit widespread features of low intelligence, poor coping skills and aggressive, anti social behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess he's talking about Asians (over 1/2 the world's population), but I always thought they did well on the SAT's. Geez, now I regret copying off that Indian fellow in calculus...Now as for aggression, the most aggressive races are without a doubt, whites (beginning with the Greeks, Romans, Hapsburg Empires (spelling?), the European colonial era, the world wars, the American Vietnam action, we killed millions. Second would have to be the Mongolians, who sacked Europe and had a holocaust bigger than the Germans' in WWII.

[ QUOTE ]
Half of all murders (and much of the crime) in the U.S. are caused by a particular race...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the homicide by race stats, but I do know from Criminology and Sociology that 80% of this country's homicides occur when the perp, victim or both have been drinking alcohol. Maybe it's malt the liquor (just kidding here posters...lol) That said, I have trouble believing this statistic, is it accurate?

[ QUOTE ]
Despite many years and government efforts, the SAT scores of a certain race remain shockingly low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if he's referring to Africans and not Asians (see above) this fact is off. It's a given that the predominantly African-American schools in this country see less money per child than those high SAT-scoring white MOFO's

[ QUOTE ]
Asians routinely outperform whites and are disproportionately represented at elite universities, despite being a minority and in spite of poverty and limited integration into society."

[/ QUOTE ]

This fact is a misrepresentation. Foreign born and educated Asians outscore whites on the SAT's. Seems their highschools are better than ours.

Let's sum it up, these statements are pure ignorance. Moreover, all of the above doesn't even address the most crucial reason the African nations are in utter despair, which is that the white-sponsored slave trade literally ripped wounds in these countries that will take 100's of years to heal.

Rduke55

12-20-2005, 03:07 PM

But what the hey:

1) Overall brain size (in non-pathological cases) is a terrible measure for just about any ability you can think of especially something as complex as "intelligence"

2) Even throwing that idea out, overall brain size is highly influenced by epigenetic factors such as nutrition, enrichment, etc.

3) Throwing that out, many of the measurement studies on overall brain sizes and race are confounded by (off the top of my head - there's more) a) selection bias, b) statistical problems such as the "regression effect", and c) the problems of grouping into races (perhaps an offshoot of a?), and d)problems in using traditional IQ tests.

Lestat

12-20-2005, 04:02 PM

Just curious who YOU believe wrote the gospels. Isn't this incredibly important? You are putting a major amount of your faith and very being into all of this stuff.

Not knowing who wrote the gospels in addition to the wacky stories that fly in the face of reality, are big reasons why I'm an atheist. Perhaps if I knew and trusted those who wrote the gospels, I could overlook some of the tales that defy all reason. Nah... I probably still couldn't overlook it. But I would at least make more of an effort to understand Christian beliefs.

12-20-2005, 04:29 PM

Frankly, I think there is a very valid point here. The current status of the black race genuinely appears to be bad, as far as mental capability is concerned. However, I don't believe that it's inherent to the race. That is, I believe that someone could, in principle, embark on a selective breeding campaign to turn the black race into the (statistically) most intelligent race after many generations. This might, of course, be evil and involve the "removal" of the bottom end of the bell curve, but it emphasizes the point that the mental capability of any given race is a dynamical variable and not a fixed, inherent trait.

Jeff V

12-20-2005, 04:49 PM

"Perhaps if I knew and trusted those who wrote the gospels, I could overlook some of the tales that defy all reason. Nah"

So why answer your question? Just to here you say nah?
Nah.

Lestat

12-20-2005, 05:37 PM

I want to know how Christians (or any other denomination for that matter), "trust" their beliefs. Especially since there are many more reasons to disbelieve, than to trust.

I said that if I could trust the source, I'd have to at least try and make an effort to understand. I'm being honest in saying that I'm probably incapable of coming to grips with how people lived to be 900 years old, or how someone can rise from the dead, and I know you hold that against me. Yet you somehow HAVE come to grips with believing in these very far-fetched stories. So I'm asking who you believe wrote them and where does your trust in these people come from? What makes you give these writings merit and credibility? I think that's an important question.

Rduke55

12-20-2005, 05:44 PM

I thought we were talking about race and the brain?
Can we let a couple of threads go without the same religion argument?

Lestat

12-20-2005, 05:54 PM

Yeah, you're right. Sorry.

peritonlogon

12-20-2005, 07:23 PM

Based on Internet IQ tests, which I know aren't really reliable, however, compared to most IQ tests administered before 15-20 years ago they're probably more reliable, My IQ has varied from 160 to 138... that's 22 points, or varying by 11, nearly 1 standard deviation (which is 15 or 16 points depending).

BTW the case of natural selection is pretty minor. And the fact that IQs have been increasing at an average rate of 3 points per decade (the Flynn effect) shows pretty clearly that something other than race and natural selection is at play with IQ test scores.

einbert

12-20-2005, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are very, very few great CEOs, lawyers, writers, artists, politicians, scientists, nobel prize winners (lol), journalists, etc etc who are from that race. That's all I'm saying. Though they have made a notable contribution to bling bling gansta rap (girls in skimpy clothing and shiny man-jewellery, anyone?). I guess that could be considered art.

[/ QUOTE ]
This guy is obviously a dumb, racist troll. I don't think anyone should waste their time trying to "debunk" him. Just ignore him.

FlFishOn

12-20-2005, 11:17 PM

So much to say, so little time.

Race matters.

If you're US educated and under 40 your view is polluted with PC garbage and you will unlikely be able to get past your indoctrination to examine the evidence objectively. If you're a Democrat/liberal you won't be able to address the issue honestly under any circumstances.

atrifix

12-20-2005, 11:30 PM

Yes, let's get back to what's really important: eugenics.

hashi92

12-20-2005, 11:36 PM

nelson mandela, malcom x, jhonny chochran

12-21-2005, 12:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When phil153 was OOO with the umlats, I thought he had some good posts. I can’t figure out what happened when he devolved into phil153. Witness the following statements of his:

[ QUOTE ]
I question whether he (Jesus) ever existed. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Phil is a bit looney... but I agree with this quoted statement of his. I mean, I'm sure SOME guy named Jesus existed... and some of the details are probably accurate... but which ones, and how many... that's definitely questionable. And, in the end, if you don't know which details of the Biblical Jesus are true, it's hard to say that that Jesus actually existed.

PS: I really liked your first reply in this thread. I agree with most of it, too. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

12-21-2005, 05:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Based on Internet IQ tests, which I know aren't really reliable, however, compared to most IQ tests administered before 15-20 years ago they're probably more reliable, My IQ has varied from 160 to 138... that's 22 points, or varying by 11, nearly 1 standard deviation (which is 15 or 16 points depending).

BTW the case of natural selection is pretty minor. And the fact that IQs have been increasing at an average rate of 3 points per decade (the Flynn effect) shows pretty clearly that something other than race and natural selection is at play with IQ test scores.

[/ QUOTE ]

Internet IQ tests aren't a little bit unreliable, they're very unreliable.

But beyond that, with regards to the differences you mention in score. Different IQ test types yield different scores, their only commonality RE scoring is that the 50th percentile is set to 100.

Which is why it means next to nothing when someone says 'I have a 160 IQ', unless they tell you which test they used. If you look at Mensa membership criteria for example, the admittance level is a 138 on WAIS or a 150 on Cattell B, both well respected and widely used tests - those two scores are considered the SAME score. I approximated those numbers from memory, I can't be bothered to google it while multi-tabling lol, but they're roughly right. Point is only that there is no such thing as having an IQ of x unless a test is specified, so the deviation you mention doesn't mean anything unless you had a properly administered IQ test AND it was the same IQ test type each time. It's always surprised me that this nugget of info has managed to keep itself outside of popular knowledge, considering the amount of really smart people I know that tell me 'I have an IQ of 150'.

Edit:

Dug this up from the Mensa website. These are all well respected IQ tests and the scores below represent the top 2% of the population (so eligible for Mensa). So these scores are considered the 'same':

* Cattell III B - 148
* Culture Fair - 132
* Ravens Advanced Matrices - 135
* Ravens Standard Matrices - 131
* Wechsler Scales - 132

peritonlogon

12-21-2005, 06:20 AM

I should be more clear...I do do a bit of reading on the subject, I put those out as a small example, and rather than stating "the test said I had X" I overstated... "has" sorry... But one of the biggest differences in scores was on the same test (oddly, worse the second time through).... my SAT varried nearly 200 points with no prep in between.... my point is that within a given individual IQ varies quite a bit and that, coupled with the Flynn Effect, IQ and even intelligence in general is way more complex than one might think. And, the Flynn Effect alone shows that any speculations on natural seleciton and IQ are worth very little. Further the fact that there is statistical coralations over cross sections of people who share very little geneticly (ie, "Black" is a heterogenous mixture of European, African, Native American, Indian and even Asian decent) shows that the most likely correct interpretation of this data is that being an underclass in a society has a negative affect on IQ... reread some of Phil's "studies" that he links to, and you will see this strong coralation.... the imigrant Chinese and native Malaysians for example.

Cyrus

12-21-2005, 06:45 AM

The original poster, whom Sklansky is quoting, is confusing racial characteristics with cultural characteristics. Then he concludes that culture is tied to race.

It's all one big, long, very long, fat turd. I've seen longer and fatter turds but I don't bother telling about them enthusiastically on public forums, like Sklansky does!

Of course, Sklansky has a reason to be interested in human manure:

[ QUOTE ]
The busier these forums are, the more money I make.

[/ QUOTE ]

12-21-2005, 08:21 AM

I agree Cyrus,

Race is a meaningless concept, there is no concensus about its meaning. There surely are no scientific definitions for it. Phil, is, in this rare instance, lacking rigour. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

And the post which could have been interesting from a cultural viewpoint (ie comparing advanced cultures that have eliminated the death penalty and allow homosexual marriage for instances, against more retarded cultures that do not).

I for one enjoy taking the best of any culture and, as far as as appearnce are concerned, whether the black hair are curly or straight, the eyes, blue, green or brown etc... I like them all and indeed have married a few, much to my delight. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Warren Whitmore

12-21-2005, 08:33 AM

In sir Francis Galtons book "Hereditary Genius" He worked very hard at this question. He traveled Africa extensivly in many cases being the first European to have been seen by the various tribes. His data suggested (in shock from the scientific community at the time) was that the disparity among the various tribes was huge. Some tribes being equal or smarter than Europeans and some barly functional. Given that he was a great statistician and scientist (he developed the math for regression to the mean). I suspect he was right.

12-21-2005, 08:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
... the disparity among the various european tribes was huge. Some tribes being equal or smarter than Africans and some barely functional...

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

CORed

12-21-2005, 07:33 PM

I think you raise some valid points ab out African American culture. I think a lot of the problems with African American culture stem directly from the slave culture. Among slaves, a work ethic wasn't much use. No matter how hard a slave worked, he would still be a slave. Also, understandably, slaves who tried to gain an advantage by kissing up to the master were resented. A remnant of that exists today. African Americans who try to be successful in education or business are often accused by their peers of "selling out" or "trying to be white". This resentment may be part of the reason that African Americans don't support businesses run by other African Americans. We need to be careful not to over-generalize or stereotype, but I think you raise some valid points about the culture of African Americans.

hashi92

12-21-2005, 07:40 PM

its been less than a century since african americans even had rights. they need some time to catch up.

highlife

12-21-2005, 09:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So much to say, so little time.

Race matters.

If you're US educated and under 40 your view is polluted with PC garbage and you will unlikely be able to get past your indoctrination to examine the evidence objectively. If you're a Democrat/liberal you won't be able to address the issue honestly under any circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

what the hell do political views have to do with interpreting scientific and statistical evidence? you are from sub-saharan africa aren't you?

12-22-2005, 12:20 AM

Lets say one race is physically more gifted than another. WHy is it one race cannot be more mentally gifted than another.

I actually don't believe this. It is only really in the USA you see this. This is quite simply because of who was immigrated over to the United States. African Americans were immigrated due to their physical traits and Asian Americans have come over here (especially lately) due to their intellectual capabilities.

doggin

12-22-2005, 02:54 AM

It got DS's attention. Hell, after I posted the original
Hitler reference, I thought I'd be banned from here.
I'm glad it's a fairly open minded site.

FlFishOn

12-23-2005, 12:35 AM

"what the hell do political views have to do with interpreting scientific and statistical evidence? "

Everything related to this topic is interrelated with much bigger political issues. Spin is everywhere, much like the global warming/cooling debate. Few are strictly analytical.

scalf

12-24-2005, 04:43 PM

..the elite of all races excell;

there is a fallacy there;

and why wasn't this guy censored.??

lol

gl

bisonbison

12-26-2005, 08:26 AM

Rduke55, any recommended reading? I've read Steve J. Gould's refutation of the Bell Curve work, and I'm always on the lookout for more good nuanced science/sociology stuff.

Shandrax

12-26-2005, 08:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Since, in the long run, the busier these forums are, the more money I make, I couldn't let this comment from Phil153 get buried in another thread. So I repeat it here:

"The fact is that some races and cultures just aren't cut out for civilised society. They breed like rabbits and exhibit widespread features of low intelligence, poor coping skills and aggressive, anti social behaviour. Half of all murders (and much of the crime) in the U.S. are caused by a particular race, and as a minority group, I'm convinced they don't have the brain capacity to survive and contribute positively in modern civilisation. Despite many years and government efforts, the SAT scores of a certain race remain shockingly low. They are on the border of retardation. Even the elite of this race fail to excel. Compare this with any other minority and the results are clear to anyone without a bias. Asians routinely outperform whites and are disproportionately represented at elite universities, despite being a minority and in spite of poverty and limited integration into society."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually a funny quote, because it contains some sort of forbidden truth. Everyone knows that there are racial differences amongst humans, but we don't talk about it.

Just watch track&field sports. It is obvious to everyone that black athletes dominate running. I mean you can't argue against all the world records and all of the white guys coming in last. Same with boxing. We all know the quote "never bet on the white guy". This is a rule made out of experience. Look at the french soccer national team. 1 white guy as goalie, 9 black guys + Zidanne and that despite the fact that France has basically a white population. In other sports it is different. For some reason you only see white swimmers set records.

While this is all more or less accepted, people don't like to talk about the possible difference in intelligence. It is similar to breaking an unwritten codex. Still there is evidence also. Did you know that there is only one black chess grandmaster (Maurice Ashley, USA) in the whole world and his actual playing strength is currently below GM level?

I call myself a racist, but not in a negative way. I don't hate other races and I don't fight them. I just think that there are small differences amongst races which make them a favorite or an underdog in certain areas. Some run faster, some swim faster, some score higher averages on IQ tests, some grow taller and so on. Basically this doesn't have to be bad, just know your strengths and make the best out of it.

12-26-2005, 09:08 AM

Shandrax,

You are making the mistakes that most ignorant racists make altough trying to coach it in palatable terms.

You see, red heads have stronger phrenomes, olive skins don't get as sunburnt as white skins. I am sure there is a correlation between eye color and color blindness. Blod type is more important than apperaances when it comes to blood donations. Those are all superficial features, like saying tall people are better at basketball. It means very little. It is the concept of race that strangely enough is odd.

malorum

12-26-2005, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Since, in the long run, the busier these forums are, the more money I make

[/ QUOTE ]

How come you need more money. Woulda thought youd be able to retire.

joel2006

12-26-2005, 05:28 PM

if there was any need to prove that there clearly are environmental influences on IQ, the wiki are contains proof, it says:
"Neither Head Start nor most other (more intensive) programs have been able to produce lasting gains in IQ or school achievement.[7] Gains are lost after the programs end. Supporters note that they continue as long as the programs continue." The fact that gains were made and lost indicate that at least part of the gap IS due to environmental influences. Note that this article uses data from US blacks only, who have been for the last 400 years subjected to horrific oppression (300 years of chattel slavery and another 90 of legal discrimination). Why anyone would chose to ignore that is a very interesting question. There is no evidence that these differences are solely due to innate racial differences. Genes and the environment interact and always must. If one took 2 types of plants, where one was genetically due to be taller than the other and then limited it nutrionally for 400 years, then compared its offspring to the other, its offspring would be shorter, but that says nothing about its genetic potential.

12-26-2005, 11:21 PM

Of course there are environmental influences on IQ. No one is debating that. What I'm saying is that there's a huge body of evidence from a diverse range of studies that support the theory that innate intelligence potential varies with ethnicity.

I don't buy the poverty idea. Asians in America score almost the same as Asians in China and other poor (second and third world) countries. And yes, this number is HIGHER than the comparatively affluent white countries with better nutrition, education and childhood health care. Chinese score the same as Japanese in their own countries, even though Japan is one of the most affluent and educated countries in the world. Clearly, something is going on here. Africans (and African Americans) score far worse in every country they live in, and pure breds in sub saharan africa score worst of all. In the north of Africa where there's some of the worst poverty imaginable, they score higher than sub saharan africans (closer to the American score - a standard deviation below whites).

Note that this happens across a range of tests (including reaction speed tests), and is supported by anecdotal evidence such as cultural sophistication, technological achievement, university scores, contributions to science, literature, etc. It's always Asian > White >> Black (though in a couple of these areas it's White > Asian, but not by much). The point is that EVERY indicator there is shows this trend, in EVERY country. I think it's clear what's going on here.

I was going to let this thread die but it seems David was right.

Shandrax

12-27-2005, 05:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Shandrax,

You are making the mistakes that most ignorant racists make altough trying to coach it in palatable terms.

You see, red heads have stronger phrenomes, olive skins don't get as sunburnt as white skins. I am sure there is a correlation between eye color and color blindness. Blod type is more important than apperaances when it comes to blood donations. Those are all superficial features, like saying tall people are better at basketball. It means very little. It is the concept of race that strangely enough is odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just going with statistics and I am actually trying to be as objective as possible. It is simply a fact that african americans outrun all white athletes from the US and Europe combined. In France and the Netherlands for example black kids get free education just like white kids, but almost none of them ends up studying physics or math. Now every once in a while one will make it and prove the statistics wrong, but is that really the case? I think it is all within the usual variance.

In my opinion it is ridiculous to assume that racial differences only apply to the likelyhood of getting sunburns. Still you can't have a reasonable discussion about the subject. I remember the heart-medication that only worked on black people and all the discussion about it in the media. The subject is simply forbidden.

P.S.: Before I forget it. If someone ever makes a study about the spread of ADS (attention deficite syndrom) amongst races, I predict that asians have the lowest percentage.

Shandrax

12-27-2005, 07:35 AM

I guess, this one fits it best /images/graemlins/wink.gif

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2004/m-danger-seekers-p1.php

12-27-2005, 09:08 AM

shandrax,

you are stil making the mistake... race is not a scientific definable concept afaik. Correct me if I am wrong.

By the way gene pools doesn't do the trick as its boundaries are not aligned with anything like what people are trying to say when they use the word "race".

12-27-2005, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
race is not a scientific definable concept afaik

[/ QUOTE ]
MidGe - How about ethnicity? Everyone knows what we're talking about when we say 'race' - population groups that have developed distinct traits after long periods of reproductive isolation. No different to the term 'breed' amongst dogs - no one would claim a rottweiler and a labrador can't be meaningfully categorized into separate groups. Or that intelligence and behavioral differences don't exist as well as physical ones. Both apparently derive from the same wolf like ancestor not that long ago. Why can't it be the case for humans?

12-27-2005, 11:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
race is not a scientific definable concept afaik

[/ QUOTE ]
MidGe - How about ethnicity? Everyone knows what we're talking about when we say 'race' - population groups that have developed distinct traits after long periods of reproductive isolation. No different to the term 'breed' amongst dogs - no one would claim a rottweiler and a labrador can't be meaningfully categorized into separate groups. Or that intelligence and behavioral differences don't exist as well as physical ones. Both apparently derive from the same wolf like ancestor not that long ago. Why can't it be the case for humans?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you know the answer to this. Because people can be/are insulted.

Shandrax

12-27-2005, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
shandrax,

you are stil making the mistake... race is not a scientific definable concept afaik. Correct me if I am wrong.

By the way gene pools doesn't do the trick as its boundaries are not aligned with anything like what people are trying to say when they use the word "race".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a native english speaker, so I can't go into detail about the subleties of the true meaning of the word "race", but I assume you are recurring to something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Race_and_ethnicity

As mentioned in the article, it is a matter of perspective. Some scientists say A, others say B and I bet you can even find one for C.

12-27-2005, 07:53 PM

Hiya Phil,

I may be wrong, but to me ethnicity always had a cultural if not linguistic connotation. That makes it incompatible with the way "race" is trying to be used. BTW, I see great differences in cultures and I find some cultures not vey salubrious in parts. But I am not racist in the sense, that whatever the culture a child adopted by a different culture from birth, he will pretty much tend to fit the norms of the adaoptive culture. I have seen this often enough and believe there are citations available for this should someone really be that interetested.

Breed amongst dogs, is a slightly different issue. Usually interbreeding is degenrative, where it seems to me anyway, that chilkderen of "mixed" parentage, seem mostly the display strength and beauty.

The better correspondence for breed when refering to human, may be such caharacteristics as average weight, colour of hair and eye, skin type. But again none of those sufficient to be classify as a race. Some of of one so called "race" can, and will, display characteristics associated with another. Again pointing out that "race" as is it is used is an abstract concept with no correspondence in reality.

Shandrax

12-28-2005, 07:11 AM

This kinda reminds me of the discussion about gay people. Historically being gay has always been seen as a psycho-disorder. Gay people were simply regarded as abnormal or sick. Then the gay-movement hit on a brilliant idea. Why not stop discrimination by changing the definition of normality? Normal people don't get discriminated, so once the status of normality has been archieved, gays will be fully accepted by society. Finally on some US national congress of psychiatrists, being gay was VOTED as being normal. Voting as scientific method of verification! Why didn't the pope hit on that before? There is a god, we have voted on it and god won 28:4!!

What worked for gays is now supposed to work for other minorities also. Historically the definition of races was absolutely clear. Nowadays the ethnic-lobby amongst scientists is trying to soften it up. Once they archieved their goal, the word "race" in it's historical meaning either doesn't exist anymore or it contains a mixture of everything so that you cannot define it anymore. If that happens, nobody cannot be discriminated based upon his race anymore, at least that's the logic behind it.

Isn't this a bit cheap? I mean, when will they vote that black=white and show Michael Jackson as proof? Aren't we betraying ourselves by adjusting our language for the sake political correctness? Does this really have anything to do with science or is it just a nice gesture?

12-28-2005, 09:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This kinda reminds me of the discussion about gay people. Historically being gay has always been seen as a psycho-disorder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how long ago (No, I do know /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) the notion of psycho-disorders was actually coined. I just find your notion of history soemwhat lightweight.

[ QUOTE ]
Gay people were simply regarded as abnormal or sick. Then the gay-movement hit on a brilliant idea. Why not stop discrimination by changing the definition of normality? Normal people don't get discriminated, so once the status of normality has been archieved, gays will be fully accepted by society. Finally on some US national congress of psychiatrists, being gay was VOTED as being normal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that the way you think it happened. Have you have researched the bercail of your civiisation and its attitude to gay people? Dude, you have either very little education, or at least a very selective one, it seems.

[ QUOTE ]
Voting as scientific method of verification! Why didn't the pope hit on that before? There is a god, we have voted on it and god won 28:4!!

What worked for gays is now supposed to work for other minorities also. Historically the definition of races was absolutely clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now, you are equating gayness with race. Interesting (in the bizarre sense), but very odd view point, and probably correct /images/graemlins/smile.gif (not that you would get it /images/graemlins/smile.gif ). LOL. Historically the definition of races was never very clear. It was a word that had no scientific or real meaning but could be used as a porte-manteaux for any prejudice.

[ QUOTE ]
Nowadays the ethnic-lobby amongst scientists is trying to soften it up. Once they archieved their goal, the word "race" in it's historical meaning either doesn't exist anymore or it contains a mixture of everything so that you cannot define it anymore. If that happens, nobody cannot be discriminated based upon his race anymore, at least that's the logic behind it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It never did have any scientific meaning and science has caught up with the fact in its endeavours. But you need to watch language itself, it often lags understanding and wisdom.

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a bit cheap? I mean, when will they vote that black=white and show Michael Jackson as proof? Aren't we betraying ourselves by adjusting our language for the sake political correctness? Does this really have anything to do with science or is it just a nice gesture?

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason for gestures, just look at the facts without blinkers, however culturally painful it may be to you.

You seem to have a development arrested somehow at the cro-magnon age. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But there is hope, there is freedom of expression and science can publish its facts. It is for you to educate yourself, unfortunately.

Shandrax

12-28-2005, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is that the way you think it happened. Have you have researched the bercail of your civiisation and its attitude to gay people? Dude, you have either very little education, or at least a very selective one, it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what sort of research you did before you posted your answer, but please accept it for a fact that on 15th of Dec. 1973, the APA (American Psychiatric Association) voted on the question if or if not to declassify homosexuality in DSM-II (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

If you don't believe me, just look it up with Google or Wikipedia or whatever source you like and trust most!

Besides that, I am not mixing up homosexual and ethnic issues, I used the example to show what I think is a recurring scheme amongst many minority groups in the attempt to rehabilitate their social status -> the re-definition of normality in a way so that it includes them also.

12-28-2005, 12:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think is a recurring scheme amongst many minority groups in the attempt to rehabilitate their social status -> the re-definition of normality in a way so that it includes them also.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are an ignorant bigot. But, I'm too kind. Re-definition of normality? Like blacks aren't normal? Or homosexuals? Unfortunately, ignorant bigots are far too common.

Shandrax

12-28-2005, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think is a recurring scheme amongst many minority groups in the attempt to rehabilitate their social status -> the re-definition of normality in a way so that it includes them also.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are an ignorant bigot. But, I'm too kind. Re-definition of normality? Like blacks aren't normal? Or homosexuals? Unfortunately, ignorant bigots are far too common.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, this is the normal reaction and a recurring pattern on message boards. You have not read all of my postings, just the last one and you feel somewhat offended by it. That's the impression one can get if he reads and comments stuff out of context.

You call me ignorant, but that's wrong, because I have read lots of publications about the subject and formed my opinion based on that. Ignorant people don't care and usually refuse to inform themselves about the issue. That's the reason why ignorant people don't know about the latest discoveries of modern science. I know about these theories, but I think they are wrong. That's a difference.

Besides that you got two things wrong. First of all, I am not claiming that blacks aren't normal. It is normal that human beings belong to one of the many races and it is normal that there are many races. Other than that blacks are neither normal nor abnormal. This cathegory simply doesn't apply to races. Blacks are neither better nor worse whites, so there is no deviation from normality.

Second, you called my theory about homosexuals and their attempt to re-define normality ignorant, bigot, whatever. If you don't like to hear it from me, because you don't give me any credit for my education or studies, maybe you like to hear the same from a more or less respected scientist (at least he was member of the committee).

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.

His paper describes psychiatry's attempt to adopt a new "adaptational" perspective of normality.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html

12-28-2005, 11:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html

[/ QUOTE ]

NARTH - National Association for Reasearch and Therapy of Homosexuality.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Blacks are normal. Homosexuals are normal. I don't care what Dr. Ihatefags says -- he's an ignorant moron too.

12-28-2005, 11:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Homosexuals are normal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's play a little game...tell me where in this list things stop being 'normal'

People with a foot fetish
People with ADHD
People with a vomit fetish
People with dyslexia
People with personality disorders
People who get off on scat porn
Middle aged men who like to be dressed up in nappies and spanked (I know you're reading this mr. Skalansky, you naughty boy).
People with schizophrenia
People who can't get an orgasm without choking themselves during the act.
People who partake in consensual cannabalism (of deceased carcasses)

Shandrax

12-29-2005, 04:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what Dr. Ihatefags says -- he's an ignorant moron too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be ignorance thy choice, where knowledge leads to woe.

mapen

12-29-2005, 05:13 AM

The above post resembles the philospohy of General Nathan Bedford Forest.

12-29-2005, 11:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Homosexuals are normal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's play a little game...tell me where in this list things stop being 'normal'

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll answer after you do:

People with Asymetrical facial features
People with Blonde hair
People with Detached earlobes
People with Left-handedness
People with Color-blindness
People with Type O- blood

PS: Just because something isn't "common" doesn't mean it's not "normal".

12-29-2005, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Just because something isn't "common" doesn't mean it's not "normal".

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=169

12-29-2005, 02:40 PM

you should kill yourself. racism is out of style now, pops.

Riverman

12-29-2005, 03:02 PM

I think the best treatment if this topic was done by Herrnstein and Murray in the Bell Curve. The book was very controversial but ultimately rooted in complex research and careful reasoning. Kind of sad though.

12-29-2005, 05:35 PM

All that needs to be said is that a major factor in the IQ of a new born child is the genetics he inherits from his parents.

If a brilliant white man and a brilliant black woman have a child, there is an excellent chance that child will have a very high IQ and be extremely intelligent.

With this said, if a particular race already has a higher overall IQ (and this has already been tested) then it follows that the offspring of this race will ALWAYS retain the higher IQ based on genetics.

Someone made a point earlier about different breeds of dogs, and I think it is exactly the same here. Some dogs are more athletic than others and other dogs are much more intelligent than others. I see no reason why this cannot also be true in humans.

Rduke55

12-29-2005, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All that needs to be said is that a major factor in the IQ of a new born child is the genetics he inherits from his parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pre and postnatal nutrition, enrichment, etc. play no role?

[ QUOTE ]
With this said, if a particular race already has a higher overall IQ (and this has already been tested)

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some flaws in those studies you are referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
then it follows that the offspring of this race will ALWAYS retain the higher IQ based on genetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, IQ is not just genetics.

[ QUOTE ]
Someone made a point earlier about different breeds of dogs, and I think it is exactly the same here. Some dogs are more athletic than others and other dogs are much more intelligent than others. I see no reason why this cannot also be true in humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it may be a cute analogy, you do see large differences between race of humans and breed of dog, don't you? While you can imagine a reproductively isolated group of people where they are selected for mathematical reasoning, etc. could eventually develop into a breed of Sklanskys, there are major, major differences with that and the evolutionary history of the races. Each race (if you can even define them) has elements of it that have evolved in wildly different niches with wildly different selection pressures (I'm reminded of the east africa/west africa running skills post in the race and athleticism thread) and there has been a large amount of confounding factors (outbreeding, culture, etc.) that really ruin the analogy.

Do genetics play a role in nonpathological intelligence differences? Most likely. Can you apply these genetic differences to race? No way.

12-29-2005, 06:56 PM

Genetics is responsible for over 50% of a child's intellectual ability.

If these IQ studies are true, then it logically follows that on average white children will always be smarter than black children.

Rduke55

12-29-2005, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Genetics is responsible for over 50% of a child's intellectual ability.

If these IQ studies are true, then it logically follows that on average white children will always be smarter than black children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you joking with this post? What are your sources for any of these statements (78.2146% of statistics are made up on the spot)? Understanding, defining, or testing intelligence is a pretty complex subject on it's own which makes it difficult to link to genetic mechanisms. you really shouldn't make ridiculous statements like that without backup sources.

And, even if the first part was true, that doesn't mean the second part of your past must follow. For the 109432482756 time, there are serious problems with defining "race" ESPECIALLY at the genetic level. Very few alleles (especially the constellation of general ones that are probably neccessary for "intellectual ability") are localized to one "race" or another.

12-29-2005, 07:53 PM

Genetics IS responsible for over 50% of a child's intellectual ability.

This IS fact, there have been numerous scientific studies done on this subject and I don't have the time to quote the sources, do the research on your own.

hmkpoker

12-29-2005, 08:54 PM

12-30-2005, 12:56 AM

If that is what the studies and tests show then it is undeniable.

hmkpoker

12-30-2005, 01:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If that is what the studies and tests show then it is undeniable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You put a little too much faith in social sciences.

12-30-2005, 02:16 AM

Well let's see:

You have alot of indepdent research being performed and they all come to the same conclusions.

You have other people who have not done any research or tests and they try and refute the findings because of varied motivations.

I will let you choose.

Rduke55

12-30-2005, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Genetics IS responsible for over 50% of a child's intellectual ability.

This IS fact, there have been numerous scientific studies done on this subject and I don't have the time to quote the sources, do the research on your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, the funny thing is, I am a neuroscientist and none of the research I find corroborates your statement.
Don't hide behind the "I don't have time to quote the sources crap." If you are going to make statements as off-the-wall (not to mention wrong) as what you've been saying then you need to back it up with these mystery data. That's how scientific debate works.

Rduke55

12-30-2005, 12:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You have alot of indepdent research being performed and they all come to the same conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That we have yet to see.

[ QUOTE ]
You have other people who have not done any research or tests and they try and refute the findings because of varied motivations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the motivation of science?

hmkpoker

12-30-2005, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well let's see:

You have alot of indepdent research being performed and they all come to the same conclusions.

You have other people who have not done any research or tests and they try and refute the findings because of varied motivations.

I will let you choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the credibility of the study. The most common refutation to the "whites being smarter than blacks on average" is the presence of a third variable, often socio-economic status. There are more blacks per capita of lower SES than whites. Populations of low SES almost always show poorer IQ performance on average than those of high SES. The variable needs to be isolated.

One of the more amusing studies we covered two years ago was the one that showed that religious teens are more likely to smoke than non-religious teens. This probably had something to do with the fact that the study interviewed teens in the northeast/metropolitan area, and a number of teens from the southeast USA, where Jesus is more popular, and coincidentally, so is tobacco. These studies can often produce funny illusions like that.