Scientific Racism

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Atom, Aug 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Atom Registered Senior Member

    What use is IQ?

    Judging by the majority of posters who blindly and unquestioningly follow in the footsteps of Dickie Dawkins - not much.

    However, lets follow the scientists mantra. Anything that can be measured by statistics or quantified is by definition the right way to do things. After helpfully providing us with the Science of Eugenics, used to to such good effect by that great man, Josef Mengele and promoted so eagerly by those easily brainwashed by scientific junk, from Hitler to HG Wells we are now sifted and separated by means of IQ.

    Let look a little closer at IQ tests.

    Few scientists question them. If it can be quantified then it MUST be right. Quality is rendered useless under the strict reductionist regime. As the great Rene Guenon told us in his book "The Reign of Quantity" ..

    "Statistics merely consist only in the counting up of a greater or lesser number of facts which are all supposed to be exactly alike, for if they were not they would be rendered useless"

    In my own particular field of Astrology the meaningless of statistical study is plainly apparent but I digress..

    Not content with inflicting Eugenics on us, bored scientists insisted they must find some other way to count grains of sand in an attempt to inflict more trouble.

    So what has the IQ Test given us.

    Mainly spurious results...its highly questionable whether people can be evaluated in such a way yet its use is widespread. Its Scientific! therefore it MUST be right!

    Its conclusions are the lifeblood of Racists. Where Science goes, racism is sure to follow..the two walk hand in hand. The scientific conclusions are pretty dire. IQ tests firmly inform us that:-

    Blacks have a far lower IQ than Whites. the results are not in serious dispute: blacks score, on average, significantly lower than whites in IQ tests in the United States, Britain and beyond. Hitler would be proud of you!

    The only plausible response is to accept that blacks are naturally less intelligent than whites. IQ is by its nature genetic. Yet again the bumbling Scientists have played right into the Racists hands and presented them with yet another gift which politicians can easily seize upon.

    Science not only causes causes Racial Division and Hate..we ALL know about the positives of Science and we really are quite grateful for them. Sure we managed to get along without TV sets and medical advances but it would be churlish to refuse them..on the other hand at least they were alive to take use of them! A few Nuclear bombs and its goodbye! Scientists are very keen to gloss over the rather catastrophic negative effects. In many respects we were far better off without science. South American tribes yet to meet civilization are different only in the happiness of their faces. They are happy and want to be left be siritual..and to commune with Nature because that is where happiness lies.

    Needless to say you won't find many scientists on here eager to talk about the widespread use of IQ Tests...anymore than they are likely to start a thread on Eugenics. Its a tad embarrassing for them because it merely disproves the usefulness of the scientific exposes inherent flaws.

    The unwillingness to engage with the IQ controversy is based upon their fear that any environmental factor in IQ is very difficult to sustain. There have been a few tentative attempts but they were easily dispatched by the White Supremacists. Indeed it is largely accepted that the variation in IQ within the white population is largely genetic, therefore science tell us that Black people are inferior.

    The scientific view is of black skin being used as an information-bearing trait, so that blacks are judged as a group rather than as individuals. This has prejudiced blacks in finding jobs and amounts to a scientific affirmation in excluding blacks from work in favour of their superior white race. IQ tests give the scientific nod and we must bow to the new Scientism religion action. A few more intelligent posters..well SAM to be precise has warned us of the dangers of leaving the communal love of others intrinsic in 'moderate' religion (and i stress medarate!)..and the selfishness and empty vacuity of its new heir..Dawkinesque Scientism..we must be very wary!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Take a city dweller in New York and put them in the middle of Africa out in the jungle and see how long they survive without any help from anyone. Many people have survived very harsh conditions where they live for thousands of years without ever having any proper education. Does this show a sign of their IQ? But when asked to prove IQ we never ask about the way to survive, only what we learned. I don't believe in IQ tests for there are millions of street people that will take advantage of those with high IQ's. IQ tests never evaluate poetry , sculpting, design, stret wise understanding, or the way to survive in general.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The tired and predictable ranting of yet another anti-science zealot with a chip on their shoulder, with a healthy dose of racism thrown in. Dozens of supposed “facts” and not a single reference to be seen. Dozens of statements regarding what “scientists think”, what “science” is and is not, how “scientists” have got it all wrong, and the terrible injustices that “scientists” have perpetrated on society. And all without any science qualifications or experience, I’ll bet. Amazing, how do the crackpots do it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Given that you have such insight, we can probably look forward to more of your misinterpretations of science and scientists, I suppose. I’ll speak for the rest here and ask that you please don’t bother.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member


    You need to differentiate between scientists who study human and universal nature and bigots who jump onto any popular bandwagon to make themselves heard. The fact that they use science (or in some other cases, religion) does not make the scientists (or religionists) responsible for their misuse of it.

    What it does do, however is shift the onus on scientists (and religionists) to ensure that their work (and beliefs) are not hijacked by such people to fulfill their xenophobic fantasies.

    Here is an article on this issue.
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    I find that it has a high correlation with the strength of reasoning and decompositional abilities. When I entered the IT profession forty years ago, the "aptitude test" for programmers was basically an IQ test: What would this pile of blocks look like from behind, what is the next word or figure in this series, etc. These were the skills that programmers needed back in the days of second- and third-generation languages. However, many of the people who passed these tests had often applied their raw intelligence in a very narrow academic way, and were rather "stupid" about the everyday world. It was difficult for them to understand end-user requirements so they often built software that did exactly what the users asked for, rather than what they needed. They could not apply their analytical and organizational skills recursively, to the process of computer programming itself, and could not understand the importance of project risk analysis and quality assurance. We still live in the world they created, having to pay money to be eternal beta test sites for products like Windows, which claim to be "engineered" but are actually put together by methods that a medieval guild craftsman would recognize.

    IQ is one valid measure of intelligence, but only one.
    I'm both a third-generation atheist and a former Future Scientist, and I never heard of this Dawkins fellow until SciForums' members started dragging him through the mud a few weeks ago. He sounds like a computer programmer from my day: raw IQ with no social skills.
    That is not an accurate statement about science. The original version is:
    Measurement is essential to science, but not all measurements qualify as scientific. Furhermore, measurements are used to formulate theories: predictions of the way the universe will work based on observations of how it has worked in the past. Statistical measurements like IQ, which identify a correlation between test scores and intellectual success of a population, cannot be used to predict the performance of individuals.
    Poppycock. I am generally reluctant to call sociology and psychology sciences, but this is their province and many--if not most--sociologists and psychologists refuse to use IQ as a predictor of individual behavior unless it is down in the sub-George Bush range.
    So is that supposed to impugn statistics or astrology? You're on the wrong website if you expect astrology to be taken seriously as a science. It is at best a psychotherapeutic tool in which the therapist couches his counsel in language of the supernatural to which the client can relate. Like religion, it uses archetypes--instincts perceived as knowledge--to shortcut the reasoning process.
    Yes we're all familiar with the history of science. Astronomy was the first science to mature because its observations are of large slow-moving objects whose behavior is so regular as to be accurately predicted by purely mathematical means. Chemistry matured next, in the 19th century, and then physics in the 20th. Biology has a long way to go. It was nothing without modern chemistry, and even then DNA was not discovered until half a century ago. The 21st will probably be the Century of Biology.
    Dude, you're about forty years behind the knowledge curve there. I know a number of people who work in the educational testing industry and there's not one of them who doesn't understand the cultural bias of IQ testing. When I took the MENSA test 45 years ago, one of the questions--in America--was:
    IQ tests are given in America on the assumption that Americans are simply Americans. They do not take into account the fact that 140 years after the Civil War we still have separate black and white American communities, each with their own language, music, food and social customs. This is a delicate issue to raise since it speaks to Lincoln's folly in prosecuting the Civil War and causes every American--black or white, Northern or Southern--to stick his fingers in his ears and wave a flag in your face.
    I beg your pardon. Throughout the Cold War it was widely believed on both sides that nuclear weapons were a deterrent to war. Sixty years after WWII we have to face the reality that all countries have been reluctant to escalate wars since then. Only four wars have had seven-figure body counts. (The civil wars in China, Korea, Vietnam and the Congo.) We weep over the dead in Iraq, who barely add up to one bad day in WWII. We stay our of Darfur to avoid a confrontation between nuclear America and nuclear China. Correlation does not imply causation, but it is an interesting hypothesis that the use of nuclear weapons against civilian targets in Japan actually did cause the human race to back off from war as a solution to its problems.

    As for "racial division and hate," their is no greater engine for this than the Abrahamic religions that keep metastasizing out of the Middle East like cancer epidemics.
    History does not agree with you. For ten thousand years, Neolithic tribesmen have been voting with their feet and migrating to cities. It was not always because the city folk had destroyed the ecosystem and they had no choice, because that is a relatively recent phenomenon. One can argue that the particular spirituality of Homo sapiens destined him to create civilization so that he could use his natural gifts for something more challenging than hunting, gathering, sheltering from the elements, and weeping over dead babies and the dead wives who bore them.
    You seem to have a peculiar bunch of scientists for friends. No one I know is reluctant to laugh at these relics from the past. They illustrate the weaknesses in the scientific method, when applied by mere mortals with their cultural biases, but they hardly prove it to be "useless."
    Again, I don't know where you find your scientists to hang out with but I suggest you change your enrollment to a better university.
    Again, you are decades behind the information curve. We have long known that skin color is one of the most ephemeral of human traits and does not deserve the importance that the ignorant place on it. A population that migrates into a region with more or less sunlight develops a higher or lower melanin level within a hundred generations. We've known this ever since we discovered that the Indic people and the Balto-Slavic people are kin from the same branch of the Indo-European diaspora, and that they are separated by only about 2,500 years of migrating in different directions.
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2007
  9. Nutter Shake it loose, baby! Registered Senior Member


    The faithful Dawkins parrots need to examine the underlying metaphysical assumptions regarding the object of their worship. The following brief exposition articulates the issues in a cogent and concise manner. Take a look:
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Hmmm. The direct choice between non-agrarian cultures and cities (unmediated by a stage of small farming on a barren patch of dirt) has not been the common one - and has not been made in favor of the cities, universally.

    Often, people offered a genuine choice between semi-nomadic Neolithic life and the nearest city - such as those whites and reds west of the Appalachians in the late 1700s who had the skills and opportunity to actually choose - chose against the city.

    The great migrations into cities have been driven, rather than drawn, or at least can be viewed that way.

    To the myth of the happy child of nature exist other objections.

    Among them, an inherent and often unsubtle racism.
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    I agree with everything you have said.

    Yes the aborigines in Australia survived for 60,000 years. 300 years contact with a supposedly superior civilisation have brought them to the point of collapse.

    True. Clever people are often obsessives. What they gain in a particular talent they lose in general.
    That is why women are coming to the fore in modern business. They have better empathy and communication skills.

    A test that evaluates how adept you are at being of a white, male, western scientific culture, is going to score people who fit into that category higher than the rest.

    You are knocking your head against a brick wall trying to argue with racists.
    They believe what they want to believe.
  12. Polrean Guest

    Not in all cases. Take the European industrial revolution for example. The land was bought from peasents for a small price that the peasents thought was large because at that time a penny could buy twenty chickens. But then factories were built on the land and the inflation rose so now the penny could only buy one chicken. Now the peasents had no little money and no land to subsistence farm and the only place to find work to survive was, yes you guessed it the cities
  13. Willy Banned Banned

    *Mod note:
    post verbatim from another website, without quote; deleted due to racist content*

    Infraction given: Posting Violent, Abusive or Pornographic Content : 4 points
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 29, 2007
  14. DeepThought Banned Banned



    White people cannot give birth to darker skinned babies. It's genetically impossible. Try doing some of your own thinking instead of lecturing. Your 'knowledge' comes from a political agenda not science. The 'theory' that we can all turn into each other given enough time and the right environment - this is a liberal political agenda projected onto human history.

    Tasmania has a climate comparable to Britain. Tasmanian Aborigines have lived there for over 40,000 years.

    That's more than 800 generations.

    They're still black.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Sep 4, 2007
  15. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Great post by Fraggle there.

    Even IF IQ was the #1 determination of "success", well we can't all be rocket scientists right? SOMEONE has to do the dirty boring jobs. Some people don't mind it, some people are content to do damn near anything. I for one, am very thankful for these people, cause I sure as hell don't want to do it. I am also thankful for the high IQ people, whom find their "niche", great things usually come of it. I have met quite a few high IQ people, most in my circle of friends growing up and in high school/PS. Well put it this way a lot of those "brains" gets fuckin wasted nowdays. Either through laziness, or the simple fact that high IQ sometimes doesn't fit into the cogs of the money-making massproductos of consumer capitalism. I am contantly amazed at how many really fuckin stupid people are actually extreemly good at making money out there.
  16. DeepThought Banned Banned


    Mathematics and science begun in Ancient Egypt. Afrocentrics never tire of pointing this out, ie, they had Black African origins.

    Pythagoras was trained in Ancient Kemet. Many famous papyrus' exist in European museums such as the Berlin and Rhind Papyrus demonstrating the Egyptians knowledge of rudimentary trigonometry, algebra, simple equations, simultaneous equations, arithmetic and geometric series - in short the bread and butter of any properly compiled and administered IQ test.

    With this in mind, how is it possible to claim cultural bias when interpreting IQ scores for black people?

    To make this clearer... people who are the originators of mathematics and science should score HIGHER than those whose cultures are derivative.

    The average IQ of an African is 75.
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2007
  17. MrCrowley Registered Member

    whats the average of a American?
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    So you are a Lamarkian when it comes to mechanisms of inheritance, are you. How charmingly quaint. I shall carry a smile throughout the rest of the day just thinking of your naive world view.
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Okay, I take that back. You're about a hundred years behind the information curve, not forty. The Ancient Egyptians were not related to the Sub-Saharan or "black" Africans. They were an Afro-Asiatic people, most closely related to today's Copts and Ethiopians, part of a group that includes the Semites and other "white" people of the Middle East. There's a reason anthropologists refer to "Sub-Saharan" Africa. The Sahara is a boundary between two unrelated ethnic groups. Well, unrelated going back 70,000 years to when the diaspora of Homo sapiens out of Africa first began, anyway.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    White people did not evolve in Britain. They seem to have evolved inland on the continent, where people had no ocean fish and had learned to keep dairy cattle, and where there was a lot of genetic flux from travelers and far places.

    Skin color can change quickly. It doesn't have to. Dark from light is easier than light from dark - you don't have to fix a whole bunch of double recessives.
  21. DeepThought Banned Banned


    Below are two maps. The first shows sub-Saharan Africa in terms of political divisions. The second is a geographical map which shows the ecological break between the Sahara and sub-Saharan Africa. In both Ethiopia is clearly in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Underneath this is an image of an Ethiopian football team. Is it your opinion that the Ethiopians are black or not? They certainly look black to me.

    On the question of Christian Egyptian copts, Christianity is a late comer to this region - nearly all of Ancient Egyptian history predates it. Especially the early era which Afrocentrists claim was 'all-black'. Most copts look very Arabic in appearance which would suggest they are the result of Arab invasions during the fifth century AD.

    Many writings from Greek philosophers support Afrocentric claims:

    Aristotle, who is noted to have probably not traveled to Egypt, stills makes his observation on the physical nature of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, be it through hearsay or actual contact. Here, Aristotle makes claim that skin color is somehow correlated to courage, and also gives his impression on why the Egyptians and Ethiopians are bowlegged and 'curly haired'.

    "Too black a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two.

    Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair."[28]

    Ammianus Marcellinus (325/330-after 391) was a Greco-Roman historian who also gave his own brief observations.

    " the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look.[29]

    Ancient writers have also made comparisons between ancient Egyptians and northern Indians of the time.

    Strabo (c. 64 BC – AD 24):

    "As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in colour, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Aegyptians."[30]

    Arrian (c. 86 - 146 AD) (Indica 6.9):

    "The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically."[31]

    28 ^ Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a - Book XIV, p. 317
    29 ^ Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII, para 16 (23)
    30 ^ Strabo Book XV, Chapter 1
    31 ^ Indica 6.9

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. DeepThought Banned Banned


    The only way skin colors 'change' is through breeding between existing colors.

    Two blacks can give birth to children of different shades of brown. They can be lighter or darker than the parents in my experience.

    But white people cannot give birth to darker children than themselves. In my whole life I've never witnessed one case of it so if you have evidence to the contrary please post it here.

    Mod note: Infraction given for trolling (3 points); you made the claim that "white people cannot give birth to darker children than themselves"; you post the evidence.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2007
  23. DeepThought Banned Banned


    Genes for dark skin are dominant.

    Genes for light skin are recessive.

    It's the same for eye color, hair color, etc..

    Time only runs in one direction. You can't go from light skin to dark.

    Please read about Dominant Gene relationships and Mendelian Inheritance in the links below:

    Now will you please remove that infraction?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page