Blacks Less Intelligent Than Whites?

Oops. Didn't finish your thoughts again.
I agree with that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm wondering what constitutes intelligence

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No... its very true. the gene is linked microcephaly (i think its called), and it turns out there is an old intelligence gene, and one advanced one. There was a big documentary about it recently.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Me too. I voted "what is intelligence?". I've never heard a coherent explanation of just what intelligence is.

 

Well, a gene for a specific defect, like microcephaly, is hardly a "gene for intelligence".

 

Actually, quite the contrary. They found that subjects without this gene, had a skull size three times smaller. With the gene, scientists precluded, invites intelligence, and increases cranial size and structure. The gene has everything to do with intelligence.

 

Not only that, but everyone has a copy of the old gene - this is why this thread makes no sense.

 

Wiki:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

Richard Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis" 2006 Table 16.2 (indigenous populations)

Estimated average IQ

Arctic Peoples ----------------------------- 91
East Asians ------------------------------- 105
Europeans -------------------------------- 100
Native Americans (north & south) ----- 86
Southern Asian & Northern Africans -- 84
Bushmen (southern Africa) ------------ 54
Africans (subsaharan) ------------------ 67
Native Australians (aboriginals) ------- 62
Southeast Asians ------------------------- 87
Pacific Islanders -------------------------- 85

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_(test_data)



http://www.nutri.com/wn/gp.html

WHERE'S AMERICA'S GENE POOL HEADING
by Oscar Falconi
I.Q.
Jew (European, American). ..... . . . . . . . 115
Asian (in the U.S.) . . . . . . ............ . .. . . 108
East Indian (from India, in the U.S.) . ... 108
U.S. White (Northern European, Urban) 105
U.S. White (Southern European). ... . . . 100
U.S. White (Rural, South) . . . . ....... . . . 95
U.S. Black (North and West). . . .. ....... . . 90
Hispanic-American . . . . . . ......... . . . .. . 90
U.S. Black (Rural, South) . . ......... . . . . . 85
Hispanic, Illegal Immigrant . . ........ . . . . 80
American Indian . .... . . . . ........ . . . . .. . 80
Laplander . . . ........ . . . .. . ...... . . . . . . . 75
Australian Aborigine (full-blooded) ..... .. 70
Equatorial Guinea . . . . . . .. . ......... . . .. 59

 

Education perhaps? Drug culture? Gang Culture?

All very high in todays young black peeps. This is what slows them down. Not inherent stupidity.

 

A large and solid correlation would still lack a mechanism.

And supposing you wanted to find one. How smart would it be to lead off by classifying your research subjects on the basis of self-identified "race"?

Wouldn't it be a lot less likely to screw your results up, if you left out the sociological labels and simply investigated the relevant physical circumstances? The problem is that you have introduced bias into the investigation, without knowing if it will affect the results.

The racial stuff would - and quite possibly has - obscured the obvious lead connection for many years in the US, for example. If people had not started out looking for racial differences, and instead simply looked at the physical health and circumstances associated with violence and crime (with race as just another variable in the ordination), the lead level correlations might have jumped at them long ago. They are not hard to spot.

 

an examination of blacks in britain might be an eyeopener
perhaps i shall oblige

 

One could always pretend there is a linkage disequilibrium in the vicinity.

 

Every once in a while some scientist comes out with a theory so short sighted that it betrays his or her credibility. From what I read, Dr Watson is a genealogist not a sociologist, and his remarks on Black people seem to come from a genetic point of view, which is quite simply...with all due regards...daft. Black people are less intelligent than probably all other races because of stagnant education and general poverty, not because of genes, there is no such thing as inherit intelligence, though there are rare inherent retardation and hyper intelligence. But all conditions being equal, which it usually is, there is no such known gene for intelligence. Intelligence has 90% to do with the environment and 10% to do with genes. This is also the biggest reason why developed nations almost always seem to defeat undeveloped nations in sporting events. If you ask Dr Watson whether he has ever been to Africa, where 1 in 1000 household owns a computer, and where teachers are constantly on strike, he would probably give you a Kangaroo and Marsupial story. There are some relatively retarded whites who can barely put together a sentence much less pass a math test, and if you look at this people they usually come from same unfortunate parents and background. In conclusion, socio-structural norms affect intelligence but motivation is probably the biggest factor. Intelligence is one of the most amazing things in history.

 

LOL @ Poll Results,

An identical number of people think that whites are more intelligent as think there is no evidence pointing either way.

But zero people think blacks are more intelligent than whites.

Whats wrong with the liberals on here... can't blacks be more intelligent than whites?

Nope!

 

only around 30% of IQ is under genetic control.

end story.

 

This liberal fear of admitting the truth is absurd. Blacks score lower on IQ tests, on the SAT, on basically every measure of intellegence. They also tend to have dark skin, kinky hair, and thick lips. I wonder what possible mechanism there could be for so many blacks having kinky hair? Hmmmmm. It must be the lead paint. Yes, that's it. The lead paint is causing kinky hair.

There's nothing racist about noticing something that's obvious. It doesn't mean every black is stupid, just that the bell curve is shifted to the left a bit. Big deal.

 

Reiku,

When you see a group of black people dancing together you will notice how perfectly synchronized and fluid their movements are. Much more so than a group of whites or Asians who look clumsy by comparison.

It's fascinating to watch... we do not have this instinctual ability to move 'as one'. But what we do have is a much greater sense of ourselves as autonomous individuals... this individuality is what gives us our greater powers of discrimination and therefore higher IQ levels.

Its beyond genetics and culture.

 

strange that lack of instinctuality afflicts just a portion of the caucs
the male half that is

anyways
as the foremost member and representative of the black power defense caucus here in sciforums, i can most assuredly assert, with utmost confidence, your white bitches got it going on!
ja

poetry in nigger loving motion

i mean!
your sweet young daughters are growing real asses for chrissakes

 

Gustav,

What you refer to as a 'real ass' - a highly protruding 'black ass' - is actually a genetic throw back to our distant ancestors.

Such enormous derrières are common on primates and one instinctively feels that such women are more comfortable bent over, ie, with their hands touching the ground so that the derrière is less obtrusive.

 

And you can say, truthfully, blacks are better athletes.
But woe to anyone who tells the truth about intelligence!

Give just a few Blacks a golf Club? Tiger Woods.
A Tennis Racquet, Ashe and the Wiliams sisters. Blacks don't even play these sports usually- but gives you an idea what would happen if they did- when a true athlete takes up 'golf'.

And what makes better sense evolutionarily?
You all believe in evolution-- but you don't when it's not PC?
ie
Take two groups at the opposite ends of the chart.
'Successful' blacks for the last few thousand years were the best hunters- the best physical specimens able to have more progeny and be more dominant in the culture. Enhanced even further perhaps by who survived/thrived (and were even selectively bred) in Slavery.

Whereas in the case of Ashkenazi Jews, they were ghettoized in Europe, denied land ownership and other restrictions; becoming merchants and scholars. The Most 'fit' evolutionarily in his environment was the most intelligent. Dumb ones less successful in every realm, including finding mates.

There's just no way one can account for the fact Jews have won 28% of the Nobel Prizes and comprise Half the World Chess Champions.
Jews do not account for anything like that amount of junior or aspiring Chess players relative to the total- even within one country- Russia.

And similarly, Blacks account for a far higher percent of Professional athletes than they are of College and High School Athletes.
There are Far more White Athletes by a Good Multiple in every sport before the best get culled in college- Blacks are the best and make up 80% of the NBA, and probably half the Professional Football and Baseball players- and they are 10-12% of the population.
Of course, Blacks also account for Half the countries 2,000,000 prison population. (including a few of the athletes)


Poverty stricken Hungry Indian sub-continent and East Asians, just as deprived nutritionally as Africans, score Much higher on IQ tests.
"Environment" Fans?

These differences can be verified both Intra- and inter- continentally.
They can be verified within the same socioeconomic strata of society where the only difference Is race.