Blacks Less Intelligent Than Whites?

[Exhumed]

Nicely said. The taboo's on the left must be adherred to with all the strictness of religious dogma.

Would you point out some examples of that in this thread, specifically?

 

[Baron Max]

Would you point out some examples of that in this thread, specifically?

Easy ....read the thread. And if you can't pick 'em out easily, too, then you must be one of those liberal doo-gooders who hide behind that dogma of human "equality".

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

So. You all insist that there is no mechanism imaginable for a possible genetic basis, within a subgroup with some obvious and some subtle genetic distinctions, for a difference in average group performance on intelligence tests. Not remotely possible. And you have conclusive proof for this assertion.

Interesting. How were you allowed to conduct such forbidden research? Do tell?

It would be more useful to first have a standardised method that was universally applicable. It would be even more useful to know what exactly we are measuring. If it is merely the ability to complete an IQ test in your native language, thats fine.

Other than that, generalisations based on correlations are just that.

Another example:
That also applies to the risk factor for colon disease associated with a Taq polymorphism. It does not, in any way, mean anything, other than an association of a Taq polymorphism with colon cancer, unless you can indicate a cause-effect mechanism.

Physicists pretending to understand biology.

 

[superluminal]

Now you're not finishing your thoughts two posts at a time. Funny!

 

[Exhumed]

Easy ....read the thread. And if you can't pick 'em out easily, too, then you must be one of those liberal doo-gooders who hide behind that dogma of human "equality".

Baron Max

Could you do it for me? I'm lazy.

 

[S.A.M.]

Now you're not finishing your thoughts two posts at a time. Funny!

I never stop thinking :shrug:

 

[superluminal]

It would be more useful to first have a standardised method that was universally applicable. It would be even more useful to know what exactly we are measuring. If it is merely the ability to complete an IQ test in your native language, thats fine.

I completely agree.

Other than that, generalisations based on correlations are just that.

I super-completely agree.

That also applies to the risk factor for colon disease associated with a Taq polymorphism. It does not, in any way, mean anything, other than an association of a Taq polymorphism with colon cancer, unless you can indicate a cause-effect mechanism.

I super-duper-completely agree.

I think we're past the argument about whether there really is a correllatable difference either way (at least I am). The argument now is about the value of actual research into the question and whether it should be summarily disallowed based on some liberal PC conception of racial or intergroup sensitivity. Do we need a group hug now?

 

[Nickelodeon]

Are Whites Less Intelligent Than Asians?

 

[S.A.M.]

I completely agree.


I super-completely agree.


I super-duper-completely agree.

I think we're past the argument about whether the really is a correllatable difference either way (at least I am). The argument now is about the value of actual research into the question and whether it should be summarily disallowed based on some liberal PC conception of racial or intergroup sensitivity. Do we need a group hug now?

No problem with that. As long as its clear what exactly we are researching. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who look at a graph and pretend they understand what the data means.

 

[peta9]

Are Whites Less Intelligent Than Asians?

Probably a different type of intelligence. Culture influences not just your intelligence but how your intelligence takes shape.

 

[superluminal]

No problem with that. As long as its clear what exactly we are researching. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who look at a graph and pretend they understand what the data means.

Right. The masses are ignorant. And some not-so-ignorant could use it to forward an agenda, right? Just like they always have. Do you know the extent to which darwinian evolution was and is still used to support eugenic and racial superiority ideas? Idiotic. It's just a factually supported theory regarding how organisims evolve through natural selection. That's it.

 

[superluminal]

Culture influences not just your intelligence but how your intelligence takes shape.

IMO that's a very accurate general statement given what we currently (and limitedly) understand "intelligence" to be.

(is "limitedly" a word? :shrug

 

[peta9]

I see the light and you people don't. Pfft!

This is boring. Who cares about intelligence. We just need more hot men and women and lots of entertainment so we can be happy and have world peace to fill up our time when we're not hibernating, eating, and defecating. There is too much bitching. LOL.

 

[superluminal]

I see the light and you people don't. Pfft!

This is boring. Who cares about intelligence. We just need more hot men and women and lots of entertainment so we can be happy and have world peace to fill up our time when we're not hibernating, eating, and defecating. There is too much bitching. LOL.

Right on brotha! Testify!

 

[Carcano]

Probably a different type of intelligence. Culture influences not just your intelligence but how your intelligence takes shape.

They actually do significantly better on western designed IQ tests...debunking the idea that tests are culturally biased towards europeans and americans.

Intelligence shapes culture in fundamental ways.
Simply compare the cultures of Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens.

 

[Carcano]

Those things you mentioned have no evolutionary explanation?

Thats correct.
Even Dawkins has no evolutionary explanation for his own high ethical standards, and has admitted as such on video during a lecture in Virginia.

He goes around the world trying to convince people that all human behaviour is determined by genetic programming geared towards the optimal survival and reproduction of gene pools...in the style of ant colonies.

And yet he admits that this cannot explain even his own thoughts, emotion, and behaviour.

Nevermind all the other elements I mentioned.

 

[superluminal]

Thats correct.
Even Dawkins has no evolutionary explanation for his own high ethical standards, and has admitted as such on video during a lecture in Virginia.

He goes around the world trying to convince people that all human behaviour is determined by genetic programming geared towards the optimal survival and reproduction of gene pools...in the style of ant colonies.

And yet he admits that this cannot explain even his own thoughts, emotion, and behaviour.

Nevermind all the other elements I mentioned.

Entirely untrue.

 

[Count Sudoku]

Interesting stuff... 8 people, at the time of posting, think whites are more intelligent (you can identify them by clicking the number of votes). Still, of course, no evidence has been furnished to indicate a genetic basis in support of these opinions.

It seems many people here (not everyone, of course, some are on the right track) are confusing social circumstance with genetic influence. Big difference.

As was stated elsewhere, statistics can be the biggest lie when trying to classify people on an individual basis. I don't think the world is ready for classification or races based on intelligence, however. Not if we want social stability.

On a lighter note, regarding sport: one of my favourite movies, "Cool Runnings" is based on a true story where a bob-sledding team of Jamaicans (black guys) beat the US, Russia, Italy, and France, among other nations in a Winter Olympics in Lillehammer '94. There's no snow, or ice, in Jamaica. They train on a wooden thing, in Jamaica.

Black men building a wooden machine in Jamaica to train for bob-sledding on ice, beating all those countries who have so much ice and snow, and bob-sledding rinks to train on... maybe it's too much... Is that physical prowess in sports, or downright intelligence?

[Racist website link removed]

IS SCIENCE HATRED or IS IT REALITY ?
THE BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RACES

A race is a major division of the human species. Its members, though differing from one another in many minor respects, are nevertheless, as a whole, distinguished by a particular combination of features, principally non-adaptive, which they have inherited from ancestors alike as they are themselves. These distinguishing features are most apparent in body, where they are both structural and measurable, but manifest themselves also in innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development as well as temperament and character.

It is not hatred to state these biological facts that the White race possesses more intellectual capability than the other races any more than it is hatred to state that humans possess more intellectual capability than animals and some animals possess more intellectual capability than other animals. Science has nothing to do with hatred, but with reality.

 

[peta9]

It is not hatred to state these biological facts that the White race possesses more intellectual capability than the other races any more than it is hatred to state that humans possess more intellectual capability than animals and some animals possess more intellectual capability than other animals. Science has nothing to do with hatred, but with reality.

That would seem so for "some" of your people for 'now'. Evolution does not stop for anyone.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Suppose you found out that Irishmen were less intelligent white people, on average.

Would it make any difference, to anyone, about anything? Would the Irish go back to being black, and oppressed, as they once were?

A small and dubious statistical correlation between "intelligence",whatever that is, and melanin concentration in the epidermis, has got to be about the least consequential piece of information I can imagine uncovering about human beings.

Agreed. But that's the thread topic. I think it's silly to get all worked up about it. Blacks have darker skin, they have an increased risk of sickle cell anemia, diabetes, and glaucoma. They also seem to worse on standardized tests (on average). Pretending that's not true doesn't make it so.

But if it makes some people's day to define a "race" and declare it "stupid" for some reason, there's probably no stopping them.

It doesn't make my day at all. Any more than the fact that whites are at increased risk for macular degeneration and Asians are at an increased risk for narrow angle glaucoma.

Certain traits vary by race. It's a fact. Why must you assign sinister motives to someone for recognizing that?