Race and IQ differences

That is not what it actually said..

It also did not state that "blacks", as you are incorrectly labeling people, are not immune to "environmental variables".

I have asked you on page one, to please identify what you mean by the terms you are using, provide a definition and support this definition with scientific evidence that "race" exists. You need to provide evidence that "blacks" are a distinct race, and that "whites", are a distinct race.

We are on page 3 now and you are yet to do this.

So what does "blacks" even mean? From where? The same goes for "whites". Not to mention your use of people from Hong Kong to classify them as being one racial group that you seem to refer to as North East Asians.

Let's see, you have made ridiculous claims in this thread that you are yet to support.

You claim to have read the other discussion with Phill, yet you seem to not understand what was being discussed in that thread, so much so that you are making the exact same mistakes.

I have read the links provided and frankly, I cannot see how or where you came out with what you have come out with. And this is after you raised the expectation of what is expected of you on this sub-forum - since it was all very clear in the other thread. To wit, you need to support your claims. You do not have a right or reason to demand that everyone supports their claims while you provide absolutely none.

You keep using terms like "blacks" and "whites" and making ridiculous claims about race, without any scientific evidence that race exists, and without any definition or evidence to explain what you mean by "blacks" or "whites". You need to provide scientific support that race exists and that "blacks" and "whites" are distinct racial groups and from where.. If you fail to do this, then this thread will end up like the other ones of late. This isn't a blog site. It's a science forum and you are required to back up your claims with scientific data.

Let's look at your claims that people from Hong Kong would classify as North East Asians as a racial group, which encompasses the whole of China, Korea and Japan. Did you not read the genetic studies that were completed across Asia recently? It was provided in the other thread where this was also brought up by Phill and his ridiculous misrepresentation of maps he posted from studies he had not even read. Ethnic Chinese are fairly diverse and are closely related to other groups in Asia and while there is a close relationship genetically with Koreans and the Japanese, you have completely disregarded that the genetic links closely mirror the geographic spread across China. As such, people in North Western China are not genetically closer to Koreans or the Japanese. And the Japanese and Koreans are closer to each other genetically, than they are to other groups. You have lumped huge swathes of groups together, incorrectly, and you have determined that they are of the same race. The reality is that North East Asia and Asia itself is a genetic melting pot.

In particular, those population groups derived from Mongolia or near by provinces including Oroqen, Hezhen, and Daur show relatively large differences with Han Chinese. Similarly, two of the ethnic groups in the southeastern region of China, Lahu and Dai, also showed large paired Fst values with Han Chinese. With respect to population groups derived from very populous groups, the data indicate that Japanese and Korean were very closely related, as were Korean and Han Chinese but that these groups are much further from the south-east Asian populations (Filipino and Vietnamese). The Han Chinese and Japanese groups showed larger separation than either with Korean, although the paired Fst values were still small relative to Chinese/Filipino Fst. The Fst values also showed a close relationship between the Dai ethnic group in China and the Vietnamese population sample. Each of the groups had large paired Fst values with the Yakut from Siberia with the exception of the Mongolian, Hezhen and Oroqen ethnic groups that derive from north-eastern China or Mongolia. The relative size of the Fst values also generally corresponded to the geographical separation of the EAS population groups​

And I would encourage you to define the terms and labels you have assigned to population groups and define that race exists with scientific support. You have yet to do this. In fact, you have provided virtually nothing to support your claims.

You keep saying this, yet you keep posting and responding to everyone and you are still to provide any support for your arguments.

You have 12 hours. Failure to meet these demands will see the thread closed and sent to the Cesspool and you will be moderated.

Sooo..? Where is your scientific evidence that "race" exists?

Who do you mean by "blacks" and "whites"? Which white group are you looking at to make these determinations? Which groups of "blacks"? Or are you making generalised comments and assertions without providing any proof or definition to the terms you have decided to employ in this thread that go by colour alone?

This is a common mistake often made by racists and when challenged to provide support for their definitions, they clam up, become defensive and aren't able to support anything.

Glad to have amused you. But if you are incapable of understanding that your brain will grow as your body grow and that your growth will affect your brain size, then the joke really is on you. Your brain size is dependent on many things, from nutrition to foetal development in your mother's uterus, to other genetic and environmental factors. In short, not everyone's brain will be the same size and brain size is not indicative of one's skin colour. One's brain size is dependent on one's body mass. "Race" as you are trying to argue, as little to do with it.

Or do you think that you still have the same sized brain that you had when you popped out of your mother? Your brain will grow as your body grows. Environmental factors can affect this, and this is pretty much determined at the point of conception and affected by one's environment.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the encephalisation quotient is not important to this topic? You are the one who tried to argue that one's race determine's one's brain size, when you declared that the brains of "blacks", whoever you determine them to be, are smaller than "whites", whoever you determine to be and you have argued that this directly correlates to the IQ difference between the two. You have failed to factor many many variables that affect brain size, such as growth, gestation, genetics, sex, nutrition (maternal, gestational nutrition, nutrition throughout the person's life), drugs and medications (maternal, paternal and the child's).. To name a few. Instead, you made a broad generalisation that had little to no thought. You argued that brain size correlates to intelligence. To put it simply, males have larger brains than females. Why? Because men are generally larger than their female counterparts. If we were to take your claims seriously, it would suggest that males are more intelligent than females, when the reality is that IQ are fairly evenly matched between sexes.

I would suggest that if you do not want to have your claims about things like brain size scrutinised (and mocked), that you do not try and then claim that it is irrelevant when your claims are clearly proven incorrect.

Well, sorry to break this to you, but there are many things you have posted in this thread that needs to be explained and supported with scientific proof. As yet, you have failed to do this.

 

I'm sorry, you posted data?

Where?

A study in Hong Kong about lead poisoning which you then attributed to "blacks" by a connection known only to yourself? And which you then incorrectly attributed to IQ testing?

Is this a joke?

I had assumed that you had read the other thread.

Environmental effects on intelligence is widely accepted as being a major factor. Even the other thread, which you linked in your OP, clearly showed this in the survey that was linked in the OP of the other thread. Are you now suggesting that environmental factors have no bearing on intelligence? Please support this contention.

You mean studies like this one? http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8416

Which looks at the different work and education ethics of American Asians as an explanation as to why they are doing so much better than everyone else?

Or how about in Japan, which has a history of putting so much emphasis on education and high achievement, and yes, along Confucian values? http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/736/Japan-HISTORY-BACKGROUND.html

Or China? http://www.chinaeducenter.com/en/chistory.php

An excellent paper and break down of the education system in China and compares the Confucian education system to the West, by Don Starr, an academic who has studied it in detail: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...3MdJMVC3Qr5sRd9NOX_Umg&bvm=bv.120551593,d.dGo Which you need to download to read..

Well considering you have been posting solidly this whole time, can you post it now please?

Oh please do. But bear in mind that this site has tended to frown on threads like this. So the result of the report may not end up as you desire.

Also, it has been 3 pages and you are yet to provide anything to support your claims. Considering everyone else has supported their arguments, and you have yet to do so.. Report me or don't report me, the end result for you will not be the best.

As per the link you posted to a blog site called "Human Varieties" (the site itself, good grief man! This is the sort of rubbish you read?) which scanned what appears to be the pages of the thesis in question, most of which was so fuzzy, the words were barely discernible, did you actually read the thesis? Because she says nothing of "race" affecting intelligence. What she did find was that children adopted into families who place a greater emphasis on education has a huge influence on the IQ of children. She also noted that "black" and "white" children in America, who were adopted by families who have a good home education environment with a large emphasis on academic achievement also saw their scores rise in line with that of adopted Korean children. Not to mention the fact that she touches on racial stereotyping of the children by the parents themselves may have set up an expectation that they would do better, as well as the fact that the studies did not factor into how racism could try to encourage the children to do better because they may feel they have something to prove to their adopted parents.

 

Let us suppose that there turns out to be some correlation between race and IQ, if we somehow manage to control all the other variables. For example, suppose we find out that the average "white" IQ score is 5 points below the average "black" IQ score.

What then follows? Why would this be important?

 

Tick tock.. You need to start supporting your claims.

Attacking others is not a good way to go about it.

Why not? If you are going to make claims about "race", then you have to be able to support this claim with scientific evidence. You claim race exists. It is up to you to support this with scientific evidence.

This isn't your private blog. If you cannot be bothered to support your claims and arguments with scientific evidence, then this thread will go the way of the dodo.

Evidence was provided. You just weren't able to comprehend it.

And on this site and in this sub-forum, you are required to post scientific evidence to support your argument. Your say so means diddly squat here, I'm afraid.

I was going off the half arsed pdf file you provided.. Did you not even read your own links?

Precious!

That is what she actually stated in that paper. Perhaps you should get beyond the first page and stop skipping to the conclusion and actually take time to read the whole thing.

The links on the education systems in Japan and China were in response to your scoffing about the Confucian education system in those countries. One of those papers also provides a detailed explanation and history of the education system in China with a comparison to Western style education..

Perhaps you should go back and read what you say and the direct responses to your comments. You know, so you stop wasting everyone's time.

Your argument about exposure to lead in Hong Kong in the OP had nothing to do with the IQ of "blacks".

Which leads me to question what exactly you wish to discuss here?

Since you are wholly incapable of understanding what you are linking and since you are making connections to things that do not exist and since you are still, even after repeated requests from myself and other members, to define what you mean by "race", "blacks", "whites", and to support your claims with scientific evidence, I have to ask, what is the whole point of this thread?

You have proven that you barely grasp even a minute understanding of biology, to the point where you tried to argue that brain to body size ratio does not exist.. Not to mention you tried to connect lead exposure to people in Hong Kong to the IQ of blacks and don't even get me started on your claims that blacks are somehow immune to environmental variables (that one had us rolling in the aisles with laughter), or the fact that you believe that all Chinese people, Japanese and Koreans are genetically distinct people.. Despite proof of the genetic distances that exist in China itself..

Have you considered a more simple non-scientific forum? Because what you are posting here wouldn't even get you a "C" in grade school because even in grade school, you would be expected to do some research and provide some evidence to back up your claims and at the very least, you would be expected to be able to define and support the labels you use.. You have yet to do any of this.

So do better. Stop wasting everyone's time. Stop trolling and demanding everyone provide evidence when you cannot seem to be bothered to do the same.

Or this thread and you will be no more on this site.

No they haven't.

Everyone here is expecting you to support your argument and provide clear definitions with scientific evidence to the terms you have employed in this thread.

Your version of winning this debate is tantamount to you 'winning the internetz'.. In short, you just look foolish and somehow slow and dim.

And there is only so much that we will pander to your inability to understand what you are posting, and your inability to be able to explain and support your arguments. So tick tock, tick tock..

How about you start supporting your claims before you make any demands.

You only have a few hours left to do so.

Provide scientific evidence that race exists and that one's race affects one's intelligence. Define and support your claims about "blacks", "whites" and explain, with scientific evidence, that they are somehow different races. In other words, stop trolling. From this site's rules:

Trolls tend to follow certain patterns of behaviour that may include:

• Posting of similar responses and topics repeatedly.
• Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them.
• Never attempting to justify their position.
• Demanding evidence from others while offering none in return.

​

You fit each of those points. And if you continue to do this, we won't tolerate you here. And we also do not tolerate or allow racial stereotyping and racist arguments here. So you had best get to supporting your arguments or I will apply the rules to you as they were intended to be applied. This is your last chance.