Why do racists have low IQs?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Looks to me like you've been playing Civ.

Regardless, could the people who invented all that crap fly faster than a bird, swim faster than a shark, run faster than a cheetah, and erase entire cities from the world? They just gave the Europeans (yes, that includes the ones that went off to america) the bricks and mortar and we built the palace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, but none of it was invented in sub-Saharan Africa, was it.

Now let's see what kind of excuses you can make for that, Fraggle. Ahh, perhaps Diamond's "Guns, Butter, and Germs" or whatever it was? ...LOL! One more excuse in a long, long line of excuses for the lack of black African initiative .....so try not to use that excuse, Fraggle, think up another one.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It wasn't invented by the Australian aboriginals, either.

 

Yeah, but they stuck around 70,000 years- ultimately if you aint alive, it don't matter.

 

Oh, hello S.A.M. Do you have the p value for that graph you posted? Any measure of statistical significance at all?

 

There is a link in the OP with the Biblio. Help yourself.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Shifting the burden of proof.

 

Not my problem you dunno how to read the spread of a distribution curve. quad has explained it in the thread.

I can show you the data, but you gotta do your own thinking. /wags finger

 

Language, apparently. Controlled fire and cooked food. Tools. Fabric. The carry bag. Medicine and various treatments for injury and disease.

Trivial modifications of secondhand technology. The Olmecs had palaces and irrigation systems, plumbing and specialty bred cotton and corn, invented after the Americas were settled, while the Europeans with their thousands of years of head start were still working on the brick business.

The Olmecs, btw, seem to have had flat noses, heavy brows, and thick lips - unless they just made their statues that way because they liked the impressive features.

White people were behind the curve of intellectual achievement for quite a while there - several thousand years. Do you suppose the tendency to overcompensate and boast can be from some kind of inherited inferiority complex?

 

Good point. IQ is hardly a reliable indicator of how wise, how smart, how capable a person actually is.

We all probably know of the intellectual with a sky-rocketting IQ and next to zero life skills.

 

greenberg. There was a woman on a BBC site several years ago (miranda mulch) who lost argument after argument in debates with me. Finally she whined that she had a 160 IQ and when she listed all her attainments, like being able to translate Russian, they were all things that would come from a good memory rather than any analytical skills. Some people do think a good memory is a good intellect.

 

Of course, the key term has not been properly defined. But I can predict with great certainty that attempts to define it would be eventually futile, because in order to define what a racist is, we'd first have to know his characteristics, which we don't know unless we observe him, but we can only observe him if we know him ...

This is not a problem of the phenomena of racism, but of scientific definition as such. The golden days of science, where definitions were strict, finite and aprioristic, are long gone.

Instead, we now only have

which change with time (because of new findings), context and perspective.
So that's what we're dealing with.

 

Okay, generally. But what does it mean to speak "negatively" about a genetically defined group of people? That they are "stupider", "less intelligent", "shorter", "taller", "have bigger noses", "are of brighter skin", "are of darker skin" etc. than the speaker's group?

This "negatively" is relative to each such speaker. So I wonder how to define a racist, when it's not clear in advance what it is that he finds negative about the other group.
Take, for example, members of two different neighboring African tribes who can't stand each other (both black and genetically closely related). How to design a test to find if they are racist? Because the earlobes of one tribe are narrower and lengthier than the earlobes of the other, and each think that only their own earlobes are of a pleasing shape and everything else is inferior? A trivial example, yes, but apparently in order to define whether someone is racist, we'd have to study their values as well.

And also, simply because someone speaks negatively about a genetically defined group of people, doesn't necessarily make them "racist". I would say that being racist includes wanting to subdue or even kill the other group.

Many Asians find that Caucasians have big noses and that this is ugly. But they don't think us inferior because of this, much less want to do away with us because of it.

I doubt compassion was the actual motivating force behind that definition.
The second sentence is more likely This implies that nothing negative should even be stated about anyone, lest one would have to consider oneself a bad person.
All that about not wanting to hurt others is mostly just blackmail to get those others to withold their aggression.

Of course it does. And this is one source why it continually reviews and amends its theories.

 

What I find amusing in this is the premise:

People who observe differences between racial groups are 'racists'.

People who claim 'racists' (and specifically selecting caucasion examples) are stupid are intellectual superior.

Anyone read in the linked article the conclusions regarding Christians, Conservatives and Republicans? All unsupported claims of a biased and perjorative nature.

And these same nitwits are claiming everyone who doesn't follow their political regime are 'stupid'. Those who don't sit in their indoctrination meetings and drink the koolade are 'conformists'.

You've got to be kidding.

 

Uh, the mind-body problem and everything connected to it ...

You yourself said earlier -

Praising others can be a common way to deliver insult at the one spoken to or about, without directly saying anything bad about anyone.
"Orientals are good at math [which implies we suck at it]," or "Tony makes $50,000 a year [and you are a loser if you don't make at least that much]".

Also, saying "Orientals are good at math" does not carry the same implications for us as saying "Orientals are good at cooking snakes and rats". The latter one can be used as a cynical insult and as a way to elevate ourselves.

My point is that it is not universal what "uncomfortable negative facts" are.
For example, traditional Arabs find a round woman appealing; her being fat is not an uncomfortable negative fact to them, but it tends to be to us in the West, for example.

Well, many people are like that, but certainly not all.

I think the line between them is not so clear, at least not in practice.

I don't see how you arrived at those questions, based on what I said.

 

Fraggle, I'm accepting the sociological definition of "white" - equivalent to "Caucasian" or "European" - that is clearly in vogue on this thread. Of course it makes little sense - the working definition here of "black" makes even less sense.

Substitute "European" throughout, if necesssary.

Or less, if recent datings of Paleoindians hold up.

But enough for the point: Europe was until recently, for thousands of years was, an intellectually low-status, comparatively non-contributive, backwater place. Are we to conclude that the Europeans of the time - the genetic ancestors of the "whites" of today - were stupider than the Asians, the Middle Easterners, the PaleoAmericans, the Africans, et al ?

Or do we recognise instead that technological superiority ahs other causes and sources, and means very little in this matter ?

 

Besides biological issues human culture is also a product of time and space.

It's as if every race/culture had a latent intelligence which they carried with them through darker ages until the right time and place created the conditions for its flowering.

Comparisons of the types you are making only serve to highlight the differences in my opinion.

 

You would have to test an equal amount of "normal people" as "racist people".

Test a group of a hundred persons, see the results.

Then test another group of a hundred persons and see if the results differ, it could just be a standard variance, or perhaps the racist people are more immature so that their IQ hasn't fully developed yet. Many racist people become normal after a while (not all but) and it seems like they have matured then. Think American History X.