Why do racists have low IQs?

I know/have met Miranda Mulch I can be pretty sure in saying that she doesn't have an IQ of 160 (if she does its well hidden!) although she may be able to translate into Russian...well she should do after spending 3/4 yrs at Uni studying it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[edit] Modern humans
See also: Behavioral modernity
Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia. But while modern anatomically, these humans continued to behave just as the hominids who existed before. They used the same crude stone tools and hunted inefficiently[15]. However, starting at about 100,000 years ago, there is evidence of more sophisticated behaviour, and by 50,000 years ago fully modern behaviour is thought to have developed in various parts of Africa.[16][10] After this point, stone tools show regular patterns that are reproduced or duplicated with more precision, and tools made of bone and antler appear for the first time. The artifacts are also now easily sortable into many different categories based on their function, such as projectile points, engraving tools, knife blades, and drilling and piercing tools.[11] Teaching offspring how to manufacture such detailed tools would have required complex language.[


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_language

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's your point?

Or more to the point...what race were they?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A user's response to my suggestion that Americans may actually do quite poorly on a Chinese IQ test, and that this may suggest that we are dumber than the Chinese.

I said something to the effect that "James Watson is proposing exactly that regarding the Africans" (paraphrase anyway)

My rebuttal...

I did, I delved as far as I could stomach into the bibliographic references regarding race and IQ. I have statistical as well as sociological issues with such testing. Given the opportunity I would love to get into these details with an intellectual peer willing to give me the respect of actually engaging me in adult conversation.

Comparing Chinese to American IQ was an editorial strategy of encouraging self-reflection amongst my readers, I had hoped that perhaps you might take the time to look in the proverbial mirror.

Also, it is not uncommon (though unspoken in polite circles) for American whites to harbor a stereotype that Asians are indeed intellectually superior. Plenty of test scores lend mountains of support to it, and ask any college student, "who set the curve with a 99% on the Chemistry test today?"

Invariably it's the Japanese kid, or the Pakistani, right? Seldom do we complain about "that damned Oklahoman" or "those pesky New Yorkers" setting the bar of academic competition high...at least that's the rumor around town. Trust me, I'm a college student. I hear this complaint all the time, "damned Asians" or whatever. No one really harps about it as racist, though, because its seemingly complimentary to its target.

Who's going to complain about being told they are smarter than everyone else?

:shrug:

So this racist belief (and it is a racist belief) has a lot of popular as well as "scientific" support - the same type of support that Dr. Watson's claims have. Conclusion? Perhaps this kind of support is insufficient as scientific evidence that a given "race" is superior to another. And it is.

Of course you refrained from providing additional insight yourself and simply took the high road of "briefly comment and skip away heroic," giving yourself, I'm sure, an egotistical pat on the back when you triumphantly pressed your Enter button, almost certainly with great gusto.

"Ha ha!" ...poor fools like me tremble in your midst.

The point of a post like this is not to assert my correctness and pat myself on the back as the knower-of-all. It is in fact an invitation for debate. I purposely suggested an incorrect, racist assumption may be true based upon the scientific evidence (and snicker-snicker, whisper-whisper dorm room gossip) waiting for someone to mull it over and realize - as you stated - that it is indeed incorrect.

And why?

For the same reason that Watson is full of it.

At one time it was believed that coffee was related to lung cancer because a significantly higher percentage of drinkers suffered from the disease. As it turns out they were also smokers.

This is called a Confounding Factor.

And if I was trained from a little bity baby to solve silly little puzzles on a piece of paper (and I was), and to perform mathematical operations and memorize bits of written English (and I was) with the reinforcement of a tasty, candy-sweet reward (again I was), then it stands to reason that I will do exceedingly well on a test of such abilities.

Better, I would expect, then someone who was not so conditioned.

And if you think about it, Asians have an even better system of academic condition than we Americans do. And they tend to have a higher rate of married families with a stay-at-home parent, they tend to be immigrants so they also tend to work harder for the same pay rate, etc, etc, etc.

Confounding factors abound. IQ tests mean nothing.

I'm sorry I had to spell it out for you, but alas contemplation and reflection is lost on us dimwitted Americans.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yep, one should always stop studying a subject when they get a stomach ache.

Well, if you have "issues" with such stuff, then you shouldn't enter into a discussion about it.

Well, do you have any peers? I mean, I don't have any "issues" or stomach aches over this subject, so I'm certainly not your peer.

Yep, we should always hold rumors in high esteem whenever there's any scientific discussions going on. Rumors are great sources of valuable scientific data.

You're a college student? Well, golly, that puts you waaaaay above Dr. Watson, don't it? You must feel that you know more than most people about racial issues, huh? No wonder you don't have any peers.

Well, perhaps you can explain why blacks are so far behind whites and other races all over the world? Sub-Shaharan blacks have thousands of years of head start, yet lag behind everyone else on Earth in achievements. Why?

Well, golly, why didn't you just say so at the beginning? You're a college student, so I know that I should trust you, right? So now ...hey, I trust you.

Don'tcha' just love good scientific debates ....with all that boring scientific evidence and data? Who needs that shit when we can just trust a college student. From now on, just tell me what I should know, and I'll leave the thinking to you.

Baron Max

 

Gently,

How is the color of my skin determined by nurture?

How is the shape of my pancreas or liver or lungs or heart determined by my parents choice of schooling or conditioning? Why do I look like my father? Is it because of my parents expectations?

The brain is an organ like any other in the body. It's potential for development is locked inside it even prior to our conception but it can never exceed the bounds nature has set for it.

Perhaps if we plant carrot seeds in the ground we can - with the right conditioning and nourishment - coax trees from them? I suspect many humans would like this to be so - to believe that anything is possible and we are not tied to an inevitable destiny. But nature is a harsh mistress who does not bend her laws for anyone.

If you need a lesson in this visit a cemetery.

Should we reject out of hand the conclusions of the above study with the belief that such differences are merely the result of 'crow school'? Ignore the biological evidence relating to corvid brain size?

Considering all corvids don't live together and are separated by huge distances and vast tracts of evolutionary time how is a nuture explanation even possible?

The emphasis on nurture is a red herring.

Our desire for all humans to be the same is our imagination interfering with reality.

Plant a carrot seed and you get a carrot.

 

Great, this has degenerated into another "blaques r stoopid lawlz!!1!" thread. I mean, the sheer number of these types of threads, and the types of argument patterns found in them, are very good evidence that supremists/bigots/racists/right wingers are not only dumb but also incredibly intellectually dishonest/self-delusional.

Ever since I was in my mid teens, when I first starting learning about their mechanics, I decided that I wasn't going to take any IQ tests. It was obvious to me from that age that they were crap. I don't know -- perhaps I could score 120, 160, or even higher, but the value would be irrelevant and incredibly skewed.

I believe that it was on the "The Bell Curve" page on Wikipedia where I read that IQ tests had been administered to Khoisan people (so-called "Bushmen") and, not surprisingly, they didn't do very well. This is retarded; how are you going to give an African who lives in the desert, has minimal contact with most of modern technology, speaks Afrikaans (most people who speak Afrikaans are not Afrikaaners), and specialises in animal tracking an IQ test!? How do you test someone who doesn't speak English and is not a westerner? Do you ask them questions about nursery rhymes? Do you ask them to match flags with countries? Do you show them a picture of a bunny and see if they notice that it's missing a tail? THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANY OF THIS STUFF.

IQ, language, phrenology, the wino Moses and his son Hem, twisted Evolution: the racists bag of tricks is deep and rich, but like the tools of anyone group not worthy of being believed (eg. New Age religion) they are self-contradictory and easily replaced when they go out of fashion.

Now, would someone like to answer this question for me: How do you test someone who doesn't speak English and is not a westerner? It's a simple question.

 

How does one measure intelligence in relation to various societies? I would think it is the ability to use ingenuity and think creatively. Like the early Roman Empire, there should be no doubt that these were highly intellectual people and we are talking about thousands of years ago.

 

Zyxoas,

We're all afraid of IQ tests because nobody wants to find out they're a retard.
They expose our intellectual limits which can be quite frightening for some.

Well it would seem a pointless thing to do if the language of the questions wasn't in the language of those being tested.

Of course the bushmens way of life is completely different from people in the modern world. The IQ test would tell you nothing useful.

This thread isn't about 'black people being stupid'. It's ultimately about respecting the differences between people/cultures (or literally about why racists have low IQ's

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

 

@John99: How do you define "ingenuity" and "creativity"? Obviously you would think that Ancient Romans and Chinese were smart, since your particular culture and society owes a lot to them.

However, do any of the 20 Biliion or so overweight Americans know where Hoodia comes from? The practice of using it to "turn off" hunger signals was discovered by the Khoisan. Traditionally, being hunterers who lived in the desert, they had a very low calorie diet. The men would trek animals in the desert for several days, and eat the hoodia cactus-like plant to get rid of hunger and fatigue. Did you know that?

The fact that human beings, before even the invention of ships, are the only animals that managed to populate almost the entire planet (even isolated regions such as Easter Island) and live and adapt and survive in such vastly different cliamates and environments proves to me that everyone is "ingenious" and "creative."

Is it really surprising that members from the society which invented IQ tests tests tend to score highest on them?

 

Yep, it's obvious to you that IQ tests are crap. But isn't it just as obvious, when you look around the world at the cultures and the societies, and the accomplishments of some, and the lack of accomplishments of others, .....that some races are not as intelligent as others? Why is one so obvious to you, yet the other not?

Forget IQ tests. Look at the conditions of the present world in which you live. Why are virtually all black nations and cultures of the world so backward as compared to the whites?

Baron Max

 

Equally ingenious and creative? Or are some moreso than others? And if so, why?

Baron Max

 

"Separate, but equal." WRT you their ingenuity will be invisible and seemingly useless, but not all things in the world will ever make sense to you.

Also, you keep assert that "sub-saharan Africans" have few if any accomplishments, or that they are thousands of years behing the rest of the planet. Would you perhaps like to explain this further, maybe with coparative examples? Obviously, if you invent your own scales it is quiet easy to state "facts" based on them, so could you explain this particular point of yours further?

 

You can't tell by looking around at the world? Really?

Baron Max

 

Man your good at avoiding it when people call you out

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, it seems kinda' silly to give examples, etc when it's so obvious that even little kids can see the difference in cultures and societies from the sub-Sahara to the some place like England or the USA.

I mean, what do you tell little kids when they ask such questions?

"Daddy, why are the blacks in Africa still living in mud huts?"

"Oh, honey, they just haven't had the opportunities that we have, that's all."

"But how long have they been trying, Daddy?"

"Oh, about 600,000 year or so."

"How long have we been trying, Daddy?"

"Oh, about 300 years or so."

"So ....ahh, when are they gonna' catch up, Daddy?"

"Ahh, well, .....ahhh, gee, honey, ain't it time for you to go to bed?"

Baron Max

 

It is stupid crap like this from stupid people who love saying stupid things that makes me wonder if I am dreaming (in the "Immigrant first brought AIDS..." thread):

Are you dumb? No such thing as "military power"!!? Have you heard of the Battle of isAndlwana?

No "specialized divisions of labor"!!?? So there weren't any herd boys, blacksmiths, hunters, shamans, chiefs, kings, elders, etc. in their societies?

No "technological developments"!!?? So all those 1700 year old pieces of pottery found in the Northern parts of South Africa are a great big Afrocentrist conspiracy? Were there no axes, spears, hoes, bows, arrows, hunting poisons, medicines, building materials, clothing, beer, forges, etc.?

Well, I'm afraid I have no idea what "political-spiritual realization" means, but I get the idea that you were wrong there too...

It's really quite impressive the depths some people will stoop to just to show that others are worthless. Luckily, this is one form of "ingenuity" and "creativity" that seems to be missing from African society (see Ubuntu (philosophy)).

 

To Baron Max: I am no one's superior. That was my point.

I have plenty of peers, many of them are doctors. Some are octogenarians like Dr. Watson. Some of my peers are PhD's, some have Master's degrees, and yet some of my peers have been quite poor and (by our standards) ill-educated.

But I respect them equally as long as they respect me, too.

I will not, however, waste any more time on you as you have not even addressed my argument, only attacked me personally. That, psychologically speaking, is childish, immature behavior.

When you can grow up enough to actually respond to what I'm saying versus expressing your dislike for my person, I will be happy to discuss this matter with you.

Well, scientifically speaking your body's melatonin-producing cells will adapt to an environment in which it is exposed to higher levels of UV radiation. Therefore nurture does indeed affect skin color. If a non-albino person were raised in the African savannah versus Scandanavia they will most likely express a darker skin tone.

In my case it would be tan versus lily white. :shrug:

So what's your point?

Genetics, the field which Watson is quite unfairly credited with pioneering, has shown us that there is absolutely no biochemical (read genetic) foundation of race.

Example: Indian or Pakistani (or Bangladeshi for that matter) people often express a darker skin tone than some Africans yet they are what has traditionally been called Caucasians, or "white." What accounts for this? Well, environment (it's sunny over there,) but possibly sexual selection?

Dark skin is more attractive perhaps?

100 generations hence you might find a higher percentage of blonde hair/blue eye females in America for the same reason. Who knows?

Race is a fictional divide between human beings who have all descended, genetics has shown us, from a common ancestor. In certain species, lions and tigers, a common ancestor has produced speciation - a different matter entirely, and tigers and lions are barely sexually compatible. You get a liger - a sterile, unviable offspring.

In the case of people you can mix anyone with anyone else and get a viable human being. Black-white, Asian-latino. It doesn't matter. And often times the mixed-race people have a lower instance of some cancers and other gentic diseases related to having genetic origins too close together.

This would not be possible if all humans were not related genetically.

Further there is nothing in the current cladogram structure, which replaced the older Kingdom-Phylum-Family-Genus-Species taxonomy, to account for anything resembling race in ANY species, including humans.

The closest analog would be animal breeds, but pure bred animals are gentic anomalies, the results of genetic engineering in the form of inbreeding, selection for certain traits and so on. A German Shepard is weaker, dumber and more susceptible to disease than a more genetically diverse wolf or fox - related species which have not been purposely manipulated by humans.

Where such manipulation has occured, we see problematic animals which have lower intelligence (making them more susceptible to "domestication") and higher rates of a variety of diseases.

Nothing of the sort is seen in any human population outside of Arkansas. There it's anybody's guess.

 

Another bullet dodged...man you are good

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Blacks in Africa" are not living in "mud huts." Like in the UK, etc., rual people live in old-style housing, and some cultures do have houses made of mud. There are also houses made of stone (Zimbabwe means "big house of stone", due to the Zimbabwe ruins; it can't be seen from the Wiki article, but the techniques used to put the flat slate type stones together -- gathered by burning wood over hard stone groung and extracting the material when the heat caused it to split -- were very intricate), and plant fibres. When the Afrikaners embarked on their "Great Trek" (and invented the myth of an empty South African enterior), many of the poorer ones lived in houses made of plant fibre and animal hide panels, like their Khoisan slaves did.