Regarding Race and Racism.

You're wrong. Racism is just the belief that the races are geneticly different. It has nothing to do with generalizing.

There is a way to distinguish race and socio-economic backrounds: compare IQ test results from blacks and whites from all backrounds (upper, middle, lower) and look for correlations. This has been done. It has proven that children with parents who had higher IQ scores will have higher IQ scores as well, reguardless of social and economic backrounds. To summarize: Nature > Nature.

No, it's not. Racism is simply the belief that there are differences in the various races in the world. You're adding more things to it than need be.

Anyways, yes, people can't control their skin colour, but they can choose to not immigrate to other countries.

Your arguments have all been based in fact but they make they all make the leap into moralist territory by the time you finish them.

No, it's not. It's the belief that the races have different geneticly different. That is all.

If you really want to question racism go spend atleast a week talking with the various racist groups. Here, I'll start you off with one: http://bbs.anus.com/ ('ANUS' is an acronym for the American Nihilist Underground Society) - I encourage you all to go there and argue with them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Webster's dictionary defines racism as a belief that one race is genetically superior than the other.

Even if blacks in general have lower IQ scores than whites, it would not make whites genetically superior. Statistics never can prove something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree with Websters then. If racism means the belief of racial superiority, then what word means the belief that the racists are geneticly different?

You're saying that these statistics only show that White people only score higher on IQ tests, and they can't prove that black people tend to stupider because their poorer scores could be the result of a "culture" (can one say there is a black culture in America?) that doesn't encourage individuals to strive mentally, or it could be the result of any other possibilities.

The problem with that theory is that these statistics prove stupidity and success in society is genetic. As in, dumb white parents who didn't succeed will most likely have dumb white children who won't succeed. You could have from two idiotic parents who became millionaires through dumbluck, who have children, and subject these children to the best possible environments for learning. These children will remain dumb. The same thing goes for children from idiotic parents who were adopted by rich, smart parents.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm always wary of statements with "statistics prove".

I'd like to see the statistics that "prove" this. Because statistics are *always* open to interpretation. I would argue, for instance, that parents that became millionaires by dumb luck would be less likely to encourage their children's learning. From the point of view of parents who were extremely successful without education, education is unnecessary for success.

These statistics are very questionable unless we actually have information about how they were obtained. How large was the sample group? What was the demographic makeup? How were "smart" and "dumb" classified? How many different IQ tests were used? How was the validity of the tests verified? and so on. I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but saying that "statistics prove" something doesn't prove anything.

 

Soldier, the bellcurve (the much maligned book) is supposed to have a great repository of statistics. Have I read it? No. But I've researched the internet enough to see correlations. http://www.eugenics.net/ - Guess what that site provides?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyways, I must clarify: I am not racist, but most people do not question whether or not the racists are right seriously enough. Most people use racists as a strawman to make themselves feel superior to others. I hate that.

 

Yes, a few years ago, on the advice of a friend, I read both "The Bell Curve" and "The Mismeasure of Man". Guess which one I found more convincing?

The website you linked to also provides little in the way of actual studies, and is more disposed to purely logical arguments, or similarly vague "studies prove" statements, and, just from their mission statement page, I've found enough fallacies that I don't trust their logic. Examples:

This is objectively impossible, since the benchmark for IQ is that the American average = 100

The bag of money anecdote is one of compassion, not of intelligence. And the US is actually economically stronger per capita than Japan, despite having "lower intelligence".

Straw Man. Most egalitarians I know argue not that poverty causes crime, but that economic disparities cause crime. By this (notably egalitarian) logic, crime should have if anything decreased during the great depression, as mass poverty yields mass parity (an extremely poor way of accomplishing it, obviously). In short, impoverished people don't steal from each other, only from people who they perceive as having more. In the great depression when nobody had anything, this was precisely nobody.

Furthermore, if egalitarianism is detrimental to civilization, would you perhaps mind explaining why we have built what is arguably the greatest civilization (and at the very least the most economically prosperous) on egalitarian principles? ("that all men are created equal" aside, the people that came to America from Europe did so to escape their position as an underclass in Europe).

Not necessarily, because social evolution is not the same as biological evolution. Social evolution involves each generation learning what the previous generation knows and building on it. Therefore, society continues to advance as long as it's members are capable of conscious thought, because the knowledge of the previous generation is the starting point for the next one.

 

Besides those who do not believe race exists, everyone who believes in race believes there are genetic features which separate the different race.

Well, culture is a big thing, but a test cannot measure every intellectual endeavor. Even if the test did measure intellectual capacity, someone's intellectual superiority does not necessarily imply general superiority.

It matters alot, especially at a young age.

No, they don't. If a parent is more intellectually inclined than another parent, don't you think the former will be better equipped to teach their children reading and writing at an early age when it matters most?

 

Racism is an interesting historical progression. In ancient times there was no real concept of 'race', but people were generally referred to by their color: Nordics called the Africans "blue men", Romans called people by their nationality, Native Americans called people black, white, or red. Arabs had more sophisticated classification for races. When races first became defined, they started to have names like Caucasoid, Africanus, etc. In ancient times, any outsider was considered inferior by ethnocentric standards, but generally this was based on culture, not race (think of the patchwork of races in Egyptian times, for example.) This situation was different in Asia, where racism was very strong. This continues today, where the West is still demonized and race mixing is outlawed.

Not until colonial times did the concept of racism equate to racial supremacy. More often then not it was the English who spread this doctrine. Often times they would even invent races based on nothing simply to suppress a people: The Irish were considered a different and inferior race, despite their Anglo-Celtic ancestory.

Racism today is more or less considered an abomination, but you must remember that in retrospect there was nothing morally wrong with it. This makes it difficult for anyone to speculate on racial differences (or racial existence for that matter) without being shut down. Abraham Lincoln for example, beleived that slavery was horrible, but he had no problem calling blacks inferior. When he met Frederick Douglass, he changed his mind.

Here is a good example of what I mean:

http://www.friesian.com/racism.htm

 

Note that I said, "I consider racism to be..." If I had followed that with "a species of trout" I would still have not been wrong if its what I believed.
Definitions are not static, and eventually they change in accordance with what people consider them to be.
At this point in time most people(and most if not all dictionarys) consider racism to imply more than simply the belief that races are genetically distinct

There is a way to distinguish race from economic background easily enough, but not from social background. You would need to find individuals who had been raised in exactly the same manner, had exactly the same education, and were subject to the exact same societal conditions.

 

Cambodian refugees scored relatively close to their well-educated asian neighobors on most IQ tests despite the tremendous environmental differences. I would certainly guess that asiatic peoples have a hereditary-ily high IQ. No matter how much stuff people throw at me about "nurture" or "self-fulfilling prophecy" I'm going to be skeptical. And I'm white.

 

Hastein,
That is interesting. Can you provide a link?

 

Here you go. http://www.friesian.com/racism.htm

Although, as the article points out, innate mental abilities probably have to be fostered by particular cultures in certain ways. I know that different races can be equally intelligent, but I'm not sure that each of them is equally as able.

 

I also use the term 'race' here very loosely, since that is a question for another time. Perhaps the term 'population' would be best. Whites might be the smartest people in North America, but their southern friends might be dumb as rocks.

 

That doesn't actually say that poorly educated cambodian refugess scored similiarly to their well-educated asian neighbors, it says that asians in general score higher than blacks, which could certainly be the result of cultural factors.

 

Why are the IQ scores of African Americans extrapolated to fit that of other "Black" populations? Has anyone calculated the IQ scores of Burundians?

 

I would like them do conduct more studies. There is no sense hiding from this IQ situation. If the races are equal as they say, then let's do the tests and see if it's true. Certainly, I know many a black man who is my intellectual equal, if not superior.

 

Even without knowing you outside what you present on sciforums, I can assert I know countless "Black" men more intelligent than you Hastein. The issue, the overriding issue, the issue that most pisses me the fuck off, the issue that is most fucking ignored, is that a lot of these bloody IQ tests are done in the bloody USA-- where the cultural biases ferment the miseducation and the intellectual famine of the so called black man. I tire at laughing at morons always spewing the inferiority of 'Blacks' when at one point the Jewish population because of cultural and environmental biases had one of the lowest IQs around-- they have the highest amongst the 'White' population now.
Morons.

I enjoy purposely fucking up on IQ tests and claiming my race as "White" and then choosing violet as my race when I ace the pathetic junk. IQ tests are stupid. The higher your education, the better you do. Any moron knows that access to the best education is situational and economical. Anyone who can think knows that proverbs and other cultural nuances that are implied or sometimes even directly asserted are moronic. Anyone who can think knows that 'intelligence' cannot be quantified without a bias. Was Beethoven any less intelligent than Newton because he was a master in music and not physics? Bah. I'm bored.

 

Such tests would have to begin with creating a controlled group of mixed race infants who would be raised in an identical fashion and insulated from knowledge of racial differences. Thats quite a lot to show that skin color isn't linked to test-taking ability, a link there is no good reason to think exists.

 

And you are certainly not one of those intelligent 'black'* men, since you reply to my post with vengence and anger where none is due. While I'm trying to have a rational conversation you come out of nowhere and 1) assert I am unintelligent 2) assume I am being some sort of hate monger for adding a bit of knowledge to the topic and 3) shout some nonsense about the US that has nothing to do with the topic. For all you know, races don't exist. Yes, these tests are probably done in the US. Thank you for pointing that out. I'm sure some are done outside of the country too. Thanks, have a nice day.

* Now I suppose you are offended by the term 'black', what would you like?

 

"“ Japan has an average IQ of 104, compared to the U.S. average of 100 (Lynn, 1991). A small shift in the average makes a big difference in the tails of a bell-shaped distribution. (The tails in this case represent the very intelligent, and the very unintelligent.) So is it any wonder Japan is a an economic powerhouse, despite being a tiny country with virtually no resources? It's also a peaceful and predictable place in which to live. In Tokyo, a bag of money left on a park bench will probably sit there a while, and eventually someone will turn it in to the authorities. ”


The bag of money anecdote is one of compassion, not of intelligence. And the US is actually economically stronger per capita than Japan, despite having "lower intelligence"."

I WANT TO SLAP YOU COOLSOLDIER!!!

"And the US is actually economically stronger per capita than Japan, despite having "lower intelligence"."" <---- THAT ISN'T TRUE. There are several other facts that need to be accounted for before making such a narrow-minded statement. Where ever you pulled that out of your ass needs to be reassessed please. Since I really don't want to take more time to type this I will summarize the facts and expose your mind to something that you wouldn't even have concieved of that ALL affect the MEAN IQ and amount PER CAPITA a country makes.

-The fact that Japan is smaller than the US <--Can't argue that. :bugeye:
-The fact that there are people that are not as inclined intellectually. People DO learn more from their parents especially if their parents are smart. Children pick up habits by watching and learning what their parents do, and their parents habits become intuitive to the children by seeing them in repitition.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

<--Confused? Email me @ mls_hopeful@msn.com[/email] and I will send you the paper I wrote on it.
-What about the fact that the US has a higher diversity? DIVERSITY = LOWER NATIONAL MEAN IQ, however diversity also means more people for jobs. Which means there is a greater workforce. Japan's population has a majority of old people in the country, a majority so large that it is becoming difficult for current workforce to contribute enough to social security for the old people to live off of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Send me another email if you have questions.


The list goes on and I would be glad to talk to you about it but typing is really incovenient so I don't want to :/ Anyways, I am sure you didn't consider any of these when you said that. Also, the anecdote you have can also be one of intelligence, but you didn't see that because you felt like you should just belt out your opinion instead of examining the logic behind it. But it is ok if you didn't see it because some people just aren't as smart as others. --;