Why black men have a bigger penis

**leopold** · 09-17-06, 03:26 PM

you never answered my questions i asked earlier.
what IQ test was used to get the results?

additional question.
did the responders grow up under identical conditions?
what i'm after here is did the researchers eliminate everything except brain size?

**TruthSeeker** · 09-17-06, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by samcdkey

It is not impossible to do this.

One can perform a multiple linear regression analysis.

A discrete variable will have a finite value, a continuous variable can be assigned a range.

Qualitative variables can be assigned a class.

All these can then be put into a model and multiple linear regression analysis done. One can write the program so as to obtain significance at all levels and with all variables and interaction effects.

It is very interesting to see how the addition of certain variables can completely change the data analysis.

Yes, I studied some statistics. A long time ago, though...

**TruthSeeker** · 09-17-06, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by leopold99

what i'm after here is did the researchers eliminate everything except brain size?

I thought this thread was about penises, not brains...

**francois** · 09-17-06, 09:54 PM

Read my post on the second page, TruthSeeker. It explains how the discussion got here.

**TruthSeeker** · 09-17-06, 10:07 PM

No, sorry. I'm too lazy.

It was fun to debate with you, however.

**~~spuriousmonkey~~** · 09-18-06, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by G. F. Schleebenhorst

Sub-Saharan africans generally have tiny ears though....and what about the women? Do they dissipate heat through their clitores?

They have hanging breasts which flattens them and expands their surface.

**cole grey** · 09-18-06, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by francois

Larger genitals can make you more equipped to have more children, if you're a male.

Not really.
Access to females willing to breed is determined by many factors - penis size would be a relatively minor one, assuming a bell curve. In the wild, the size of your body is a very strong determinant. In "civilized" human society the other factors almost always take precedence.
Your idea may work with a few random tribes who have gang sex, but the only gang sex rite I know about ends with the woman (and final suitor) being killed - not much chance of progeny there, no matter what your penis size is.
Also, once the egg is fertilized I don't think there is much chance of some other sperm unfertilizing and refertilizing it the next day.
Your reasoning involves some strange ideas about human, or even primate, sexual habits.

And about IQ - you are right about me making a good point.

Also, perhaps it has to do with the available population for selection to occur within - a tribal population has less chance for the best and brightest, or most cunning and aggressive, from around the world to continually reproduce and specialize for intelligence, or aggression. This idea shows that mixed race populations will eventually contain the best mix of genes, through such wide selection. I have to thank my mom and dad for putting me in the vanguard, if only in a minor way, haha.

Even assuming genetics as the major factor, you can't place the blame on race, but rather geographic luck. Just a thought - I'm not really trying to provide a workable theory there, just pointing out that I think your ship won't float.

**G. F. Schleebenhorst** · 09-18-06, 07:21 AM

Cole Grey, are you seriously suggesting that all mixed race babies are produced because the "foreign" parent was superior to its native competition?

**TruthSeeker** · 09-18-06, 01:35 PM

Yes, that's perfectly logical. If the natives were superior, then why the female chose me? Err... the foreign guy?

*proud*

**~~Roman~~** · 09-18-06, 03:57 PM

Look up research on MHC loci in mice, or the human analogue, HLA.

**cole grey** · 09-18-06, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by G. F. Schleebenhorst

Cole Grey, are you seriously suggesting that all mixed race babies are produced because the "foreign" parent was superior to its native competition?

Look, the reality that any discussion about human evolution must take into account, is that the best and brightest aren't necessarily having the most babies.
The real situation is that, when a male has access to many females, they also have access to contraception, and only rarely is a child ever produced.

NONE of our models have any "serious" value, unless someone can bring out a model for genetic progress based on LACK of descendants.

Regarding mixed race babies - of course my model has serious value.

**~~John99~~** · 09-18-06, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by francois

Well, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that high intelligence doesn't cause larger brains, don't you? Don't you think it's more likely that large brains cause higher intelligence?

After all, there must be a justification for all of the extra brain tissue as it is very highly resource intensive.

no it doesn't, this has been proven. my own observation's bear this out through my studies of fish, primarily the Pomacentridae genus. You can train them as well as say a dog whos brain is much larger, i dont mean train them to sit but a simple equivalent is easily achieved.

but this of course is a cross species example, in the context presented here it would be true.....just thought i'd throw that out there.

**Carcano** · 09-18-06, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by francois

You're probably right that if those poor people had better environments, they'd probably have slightly better scores.

The arguement is very often used that blacks in america score low on IQ tests because they have less money or are discriminated against, etc. IQ tests aren't supposed to be based on education but education in america is freely available to anyone with minimal effort.

But, even people from poor environments in the orient conform to the average IQ for their race, which is higher than caucasians...in spite of the fact that the tests were designed by caucasians.

The Jews of europe mostly came to america with very little money and were subject to all kinds of discrimination, and yet have done extremely well in academia...something like half of noble prizes in science and math have gone to people of jewish ancestry, in spite of their small numbers.

**G. F. Schleebenhorst** · 09-18-06, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker

Yes, that's perfectly logical. If the natives were superior, then why the female chose me? Err... the foreign guy?

*proud*

Today's moronic hedonistic culture? Stupidity? Political correctness? Inherent cockyness of certain races?

**TruthSeeker** · 09-18-06, 07:10 PM

WHOA! Where did that come from?

What a non-sequitur!

**francois** · 09-18-06, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Carcano

The arguement is very often used that blacks in america score low on IQ tests because they have less money or are discriminated against, etc. IQ tests aren't supposed to be based on education but education in america is freely available to anyone with minimal effort.

But, even people from poor environments in the orient conform to the average IQ for their race, which is higher than caucasians...in spite of the fact that the tests were designed by caucasians.

The Jews of europe mostly came to america with very little money and were subject to all kinds of discrimination, and yet have done extremely well in academia...something like half of noble prizes in science and math have gone to people of jewish ancestry, in spite of their small numbers.

Thank you, Carcano.
That is something I had difficulty articulating, but you did a fine job at it.

What I find a lot of people here do is this: They try to make the fact that different groups or different "races," develop in different environments, is insignificant. For example, "Subsaharan blacks only have such low IQs because they live in Africa and have such low education." Of course the implication is that if those blacks were given access to education, their IQs would be the same as other races, or close to it. They try to make it that simple. The truth is, they live in the environment that they live in because they created it. The same is true for all races.

It's pretty ridiculous how condescending a lot of people are to blacks. Like people think they're completely powerless and not responsible for their own actions. Oops. Sorry, well that's a different topic.

**cole grey** · 09-18-06, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by francois

The truth is, they live in the environment that they live in because they created it. The same is true for all races.

Your statement is such a joke - if Plato had been born in sub-saharan africa he wouldn't have had access to as much information, and perhaps would have had to spend his time chasing down food, instead of bullshitting with his friends about the meaning of life. By your standard, a true genius would need to be unaffected by the environment and rise above that situation to start a school of philosophy in the desert, and by not doing so would be creating the environment his future descendants live in????
Bullshit.
Great civilizations rise and fall and those who have had access due in large part to geography can use these innovations.
Take the vikings - they were smart enough to build nice boats, and kill everyone they fought with for a while, but they weren't able to create trade over the whole of europe, america, and the near and far east. Maybe if they had been born in the mediterranean... whatever.

**francois** · 09-18-06, 10:28 PM

You completely missed my point, dude. Your whole post was a strawman, even if you didn't realize it as you were typing it up. That's fine. But try understand my point again.

I'm saying ALL humans create their environment. This is defining fact about humans. Other animals do it too, but not nearly to the same extent as humans.

I'm saying it's not insignificant that a white child will grow up in a society of white people. The fact that we develop as people with other people like ourselves is not insignificant. You make it out to seem like something arbitrary when you say, "Yeah, but if blacks lived in a white society, they'd have the same IQ, lol!"

**cole grey** · 09-19-06, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by francois

You completely missed my point, dude. Your whole post was a strawman, even if you didn't realize it as you were typing it up. That's fine. But try understand my point again.

I'm saying ALL humans create their environment. This is defining fact about humans. Other animals do it too, but not nearly to the same extent as humans.

I'm saying it's not insignificant that a white child will grow up in a society of white people. The fact that we develop as people with other people like ourselves is not insignificant. You make it out to seem like something arbitrary when you say, "Yeah, but if blacks lived in a white society, they'd have the same IQ, lol!"

There is no "white society" when it comes to intellectual achievement. The society that created IQ tests developed from various influences, from all over the planet.
Your concept of social development is warped.
Any number of factors could have been different, and would have resulted in much different social systems and situations on this planet.
This is reminiscent of sir francis Galton, who

Originally Posted by http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_detailed_history_of_the_iq_test/aceviper_long_detailed_history_of_the_iq_test.html

surmised that human talents could also be genetically passed from generation to generation. In Hereditary Genius which he published in 1869 (Carroll, 1982) he presented a list of almost one thousand individuals who represented three hundred different families (Fancher, 1985). He collected data on family performances over several generations in a variety of fields. The most comprehensive study involved eight generations of the Bach family, and he did find that families with a talent such as music tended to produce musicians (Galton, 1952).

Wow. So the Bach family had a bunch of musicians in it due to genetic factors - hahaha.
No, humans don't create their environment through their genetic disposition- it is a feedback loop dependent on the environment created by many factors (not just human activity), and a basic human ability to be "intelligent".

**Carcano** · 09-19-06, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by francois

For example, "Subsaharan blacks only have such low IQs because they live in Africa and have such low education." Of course the implication is that if those blacks were given access to education, their IQs would be the same as other races, or close to it. They try to make it that simple. The truth is, they live in the environment that they live in because they created it. The same is true for all races.

Its a little tricky because there is an environmental feedback loop as Cole described, but this feedback loop only works to support and sustain whats already there - the genetically determined pre-disposition, whatever it may be.

Its a bit like a campfire.