Have any of you read Michael H. Hart's latest book? He's a Jewish astrophysicist who holds degrees in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science.
His book is apparently the anti-thesis of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel which posits that geography was the most important feature in the development of human history.
Open and print it if you don't want to buy the book.
Have a look at the Chapters on Egypt and Sub-saharran Africa. I've noted some problems with his analysis but also am looking for your input/assessments. I'm 2/3 of the way through the book and his thesis (average population intelligences explains world history) does have a lot of explanatory power. It doesn't mean it's correct, but it's another theory alongside all the others written to explain why world history developed the way it did.
For Sub-saharran Africa: he basically says nearly all of it was backwards and contributed nothing to civilization. Anything produced there was introduced from the outside with few exceptions.
For Egypt: he says it was a SouthEast Asian caucasoid people who founded it. He gives reasons why we are still intrigued by Egypt but argues that it's place in history is overrated.
a) the language is extinct and nothing derives from it
b) Egyptians made no significant contribution to literature
c) Egyptian paintings don't appear to have influenced Western art, nor has any Egyptian music survived.
d) The Egyptian political structure (monarch) was not original and did not influence modern thinkers
e) Ancient Egyptian religion was abandoned centuries ago with no successors
f) No major modern philosophical theme derives from Egyptian sources.
He goes on to provide succinct reasons why Egyptian contributions have been overestimated (ex. the pyramids are impressive and are structures that still stand unlike other smaller structures erected in acienct societies; overestimate importance of architecture over science, match, law, literature, philosophy, etc that make up culture).
Agree or disagree I've found the book fascinating. I've never read a book that directly implicates human intelligence as the prime mover in history yet everything written about history is usually a proxy for it. When we talk about military power, victories, agriculture, art, music, architecture, literature, philosophy, economy, political systems etc; where and why these things developed and when, and by whom.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
He also points out that DNA shows that groups such as modern Ethiopians are admixture of Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The Average African person is mildly retarded
quote:The Emperor also brought Arabs scholars to Timbuktu. To his great surprise, the Emperor has found that these scholars are underqualified compared to the black scholars of Timbuktu. Abd Arahman Atimmi had such a low level that he was obliged to migrate to Marrakech to complete his prerequisites so he can sit in the classes as a student.
Those blacks should have looked at that data before pwning academically
Posted by Novel (Member # 14348) on :
From what you have outlined, I am certain anyone who fully reads this hacks tripe, will develop an eye-cancer.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
lol at eye cancer
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Equilateral Guinea shows IQ 59
I could be wrong but wouldn't that be the people the Dutch diplomats are bowing to
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Reseachers have noted that the average would probably be raised to 80 for African nations if proper nutrition and environmental conditions existed.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Controlling for bias and environmental factors, I would say 85 would be the average (the same average score for African Americans).
More specifically how would you guys address the points made about Egypt as being overrated? He says that writing originated in the Middle East - Phonecians and some other group which was the foundation for writing systems that occured later across Africa (Egypt) and Europe. Is it not true that Egyptian religion is defunct? And as far as literature, I don't know of any that has philosophical underpinnings.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
As far as "intelligence" is concerned, IQ doesn't measure the full range, but it measures something. Some type of proxy for analytical thinking.
It does make sense that geographic population groups differ on average as they evolved in different regions. If we're different on the outside, we're most likely different on the inside. Whether we'll ever be able to measure or pinpoint with accuracy the ways in which we differ mentally remains to be seen. I think it's unlikely given how complex the brain is. But the results on tests stand on their own and it would be strange to assume our brains evolved identically while every other feature - blood groups, bone structure, skin, hair, odor, is all different.
Culture is important for brain development but genes plays a role too. I can't honestly argue that it is merely Jewish culture that has allowed them to rise above in every society they're found. They make up 1/4 of 1% of the earth's population yet make up 50% of Nobel Prize winners in concrete objective areas such as chemistry, physics, and so forth.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
I'll post my criticisms of Hart's analysis at a later date. Hopefully some of you will read the book and we can discuss his assertions in greater detail.
It's well worth a reading, even if you disagree with his thesis. Only thru discussions can the truth arise.
I particularily like that the book gives really lucid overviews of human evolution from our predecessors to now, their migration, each civilization on each continent and what they created and why - and the environmental factors at play. He also provides insights into potential reasons as to why the Industrial Revolution began in England and other similar things that I've always wondered. Similarly why Greek civilization started where it did as opposed to Northern Europe which was backward.
He says that civilization began in the Middle East as a result of evolved higher intelligence of those who migrated out of Africa and the fertile environment there. These people brought civilization to Europe, specifically to regions like Greece. While Europeans evolved higher intelligence in the colder climate, they were behind because they lacked large animals and cereal crops and had to live in harsh seasons where nothing could grow. But in mere centuries after civilization was brough to them, they were able to better their Middle Eastern rulers in all aspects since they were on average more intelligent.
Civilization did not reach Northern Europe until later which is why they lagged behind Greece and Rome.
He goes through each major region like China, India, the New World and picks apart what happened in those areas with regard to civilization and how environment and average population intelligence in those places led to certain outcomes.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
About Egypt's contribution to the world, this site says philosophy began in Egypt, others here will be able to point that out better than me. From what I've read the Greeks generally had high regard for the knowledge of Egyptions, just like we hold the knowledge of Greeks in high regard
You might dismiss the article for being afrocentric, but the what he quotes from the Greeks shows they respected Egyption wisdom
he quotes Diodorus, he says those "celebrated among the Greeks for intelligence and learning, ventured to Egypt in olden times, that they might partake of the customs, and sample the teachings there. For the priests of Egypt cite from their records in the holy books that in the former times they were visited by Orpheus and Musaeus, Melampos, Daedalos, besides the poet Homer, Lycurgus the Spartan, Solon the Athenian, and Plato the philosopher, Pythagoras of Samos and the mathematician Eudoxos, as well as Democritus of Abdera and Oenopides of Chios, also came there.”
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Just pointing out there was stuff going on south of the Sahara and the Greeks themselves admired Egyption knowledge, and thought they were black!
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
This Hart guy is the latest in the seemingly endless string of Jewish talking heads who have the kinky need to attack blacks anytime they get a chance. That this stems from an inferiority-complex is obvious --maybe this guy is yet another Jew who couldn't accept that his "shiksa" girlfriend is now some "schartze's" current bop. A Jewish self-perception of terrible shortcomings, in Jewish males and females alike, are at the heart of these ignorant offerings. I wouldn't piss on a POS like him but I would like to note a few things about a few of his addle-brained assertions:
The United States adopted the eagle, which was also the symbol of ancient Egypt. The Washington monument is an obelisk, just like the thousands of others the Egyptiasns built. There's a pyramid on the back of every one-dollar bill, with the eye of Horus at the apex looking over creation. The Egyptians were diests, as were America's Founding Fathers. Freemasonry came from Egypt and most of the Founding Father, and allegedly many of America's current leaders, were/are Freemasons.
And the claims that Christianity was in fact derived from Egyptian legends of death and rebirth such as Horus and Set.
Greek (i.e. western) philiosophers learned the basics of their beliefs at the knees of the Egyptians.
Nope, no Egyptian influences here...
Sadly most Jewish "scholars" work these days are regarded more for their politcal polemic value than for any type of serious academic worth. Books like these and the shite that , Hernnstein, Roth and others write makes a mockery of the Jewish scholar, worse when one considers that racism and hate-speech seem to be the only things these Semetic academics are concerned with. This opinionated Jew should do some research before launching another Ready, Fire, Aim turdbomb of a post.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB] Controlling for bias and environmental factors, I would say 85 would be the average (the same average score for African Americans).
You sir, in my honest opinion, are a confused racialist. The fact that you take such pseudoscience at face value speaks volumes about your own IQ, which is also reinforced by this extremely psychotic thought pattern that would lead you to believe that Africans are only capable of attaining an IQ around 85 (even with proper nutrition), or that sub-Saharan Africa had always been in the same crude state with no signs of ingenuity among its native peoples.
Quick points...
* You easily by pass the fact that in reference to IQ, even African Americans suffer from various environmental factors, such as malnutrition, which has a direct impact on tested IQ. The average African American has an IQ that is higher than indigenous people from most near eastern countries, south America, Australia, etc.. IQ has been found to correlate pretty much exclusively with wealth and environment. Click here
* Egypt was a black/Africa civilization. During Egypt's formative period, the Sahara wasn't deserted, hence, no "sub-Saharan" Africa. People freely migrated as far northward as the coast and even into the near east. Those who settled in the Nile were direct ancestors to the ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egyptians and so-called "sub-Saharans had a common ancestry. There is no dichotomy.
For the life of me I don't see how any intelligent person would consider such historical fringe theories from some unqualified loon for an astrophysicist as thought provoking. Though you seem just as eager to impose misguided stereotypes while promoting minority views based on absolutely nothing besides one man's personal prejudices, yet not founded or supported by any contemporary data.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
To be as non-academic as possible, this topic is gay.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The whole obsession of IQ and intelligence is based on a nonsensical belief by Europeans to begin with. Europeans consider civilization as this expression of intelligence, which allows them to believe that the world can be divided between civilized and uncivilized or intelligent and unintelligent and that this breakdown has something to do with genetics. That is blatantly retarded. Europeans have twisted the reality of history so much with their retarded world views that it is ridiculous.
This is partly the question that scholars want to pretend to be trying to answer with books like this. But the answer is obvious and no amount of B.S. is going to change it. Civilization is a cultural trait a form of human organization that is NOT UNIVERSAL. At the core of such a culture is the importance that is placed on knowledge, learning and development of the arts and industry as a form of expression for the individual and the group. ALL CULTURES do not express themselves the same way and do not place the same amount of importance on outward expressions of knowledge and understanding. Some people who live in remote regions of the world STILL do not really want to adopt the lifestyle of the "modern" world, because of their own cultural beliefs and views. This is not really a question of basic survival, as any idiot can see that humans have been living hundreds of thousands of years without the need for all the trappings of "modern" society.
More importantly, books like these are based on the nonsense belief that Europe and some others have some special form of genetics that allows them to excel where others aren't. THAT is blatantly based on a BACKWARDS reading of history. Europe NEVER ORIGINATED civilization, they LEARNED it from somewhere else. They did not invent writing, language, agriculture, architecture, law, philosophy or religion. Yet they want to CLAIM that this is some UNIQUE trait of the European mind and European genetics. But if that was the case, then why did all the things I just mention not ORIGINATE in Europe, especially northern or western Europe? OBVIOUSLY that puts the whole idea of European intelligence as SPECIAL and ABOVE all others into the category of FANTASY. So this book is another form of historical revisionism written in the guise of science. Secondly, not only did Europe not ORIGINATE any of the things we call "civilized", but they did not just pick up this knowledge ON THEIR OWN and begin to develop civilization without OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. Outside influence and the TRANSMISSION of knowledge from older cultures and civilizations are the basis for the rise of the "West". Ancient Greece was stimulated by contacts with Asia minor (Turkey) and the Mediterranean and so was Rome. This was a DIRECT transmission of traits and knowledge from one place to another. This goes AGAINST the idea of Europe as some BASTION of intellect and rationalism that exists INDEPENDENTLY of everything else and is purely based on superior genes. If this was so, then how come Moorish Spain, with its advanced science and learning derived from ancient cultures in Africa, Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean and Asia more advanced than ANYTHING in Europe? THAT is what set the Western world on course to become what it is today, not that BULLS*T about special genetics that they want to CLAIM is behind their rise to power. Knowledge, organization and learning are the keys to the development of civilization and while it is not linear, it is something that has been directly transmitted from ancient cultures to modern cultures through many hands and many cultures, leading us to where we are today. It is a result of the ACCUMULATED knowledge and understanding of MANY PEOPLE not the SPECIAL genetics of any one group. Without such knowledge and learning, civilization as we know it would end, because such knowledge DOES NOT get carried around in your genes. It is passed through learning and understanding and must be preserved in order to have any benefits for the future. Knowledge and understanding are fragile and many ancient cultures achieved high levels of advancement which were subsequently destroyed, causing the overall state of knowledge and understanding to suffer. The "West" is primarily the beneficiary of the winds of fate, which put a TREMENDOUS amount of ancient knowledge and understanding at THEIR DOORSTEP in Moorish Spain, which itself was destroyed and in many ways only now, 1000 years later are some of their achievements being surpassed.
The point being that NONE of this has anything to do with genetics. But of course they WANT you to believe this so that they can continue onto the NEXT step of their ILLOGICAL thinking, which is the plight of Africa. This irrational reasoning would like you to believe that the current state of Africa is PURELY based on the idea of Africans being INNATELY and GENETICALLY stupid. Of course, that MUST be the reason AND NOT the treatment of Africans at the hands of FOREIGNERS and other invaders over the last 1000 years. In contrast to Western Europe, Africa did not have the benefit of anyone BRINGING all the knowledge and wisdom of the ancient world to its doorstep, developing industry and learning and propagating "civilized" society. Africas interaction with the world has been DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE of that in the West. 1500 years ago, Africa had MORE advanced civilizations and cultures than most of Europe. But since this time there has been a gradual DECLINE in the overall state of African civilization. NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with IQ, intelligence or genetics. But that is what you get from historical revisionists who distort history in order to push their OWN agenda. 10,000 years ago, Africa was home to among the most advanced cultures on the planet. Africa has had some of the most advanced cultures develop from indigenous populations of any point in history. Therefore, it is the events of history and the twists of fate that are the basis for the state of Africa, not the nonsense that this guy is talking about. This book should be read "How I failed history 101 and learned to talk like an educated idiot about world history outside Europe (A typical Eurocentric fairy tale)." Of course he doesn't want to accept that knowledge and learning are passed from one culture to another, under favorable conditions, where learning and knowledge are allowed to survive. And OF COURSE he doesn't want to START with Africa as the ORIGINATOR of the human species and THE ORIGIN of ALL HUMAN TRAITS that we identify as "civilized" today. THAT is why he has to focus on some bullsh*t about genetics, in order to create a blatantly RIDICULOUS form of history that has no basis in fact. OF COURSE they don't want to accept the reality of ancient Egypt as a black civilization that TRANSMITTED so much to other cultures and the modern world. It has nothing to do with special genetics in one group over any other.
Likewise, if the modern world was to spend as much time and effort BRINGING knowledge, understanding, education and industry to Africa as it does TAKING AFRICAN RESOURCES and oppressing Africans, Africa would be AS ADVANCED as any other culture on the planet. Again, this is not genetics. It is all about international politics and knowledge and industry as a weapon, which Europe uses to its own tactical and strategic advantage, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Africa. And this modern pseudoscience about African genetic inferiority is JUSTIFICATION for this need to KEEP AFRICA from becoming more DEVELOPED as the development of STRONG independent African civilizations would be A THREAT to the Western World. Therefore, they MUST continue to propagate this NONSENSE, at the same time they CONTINUE to sow the seeds of Africa's destruction. It is the most hypocritical, self serving and ridiculous point of view that can be found anywhere. They do not WANT to help Africa become more educated and independent, so they create this FICTION of IQ related to genetics to try and paint a fantasy picture where AFRICANS just CANNOT LEARN. They are scared. They are afraid that Africans may outdo the West in all areas of intellectual pursuit, if given the proper education and knowledge and an environment where it is nurtured. THEREFORE, to justify NOT CREATING such an environment, they keep creating books like this.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
First, the book explicitly says that civilization arose in the Middle East and not Europe and that the Middle East brought civilization to Europe. Therefore, it does not claim that Europe created civilization.
It also states that Mongols historically had the highest intelligence due to living in extremely cold climates, thus their ability to conquer Europeans, Middle Eastern people, Africans, and so forth even though Mongols always had small population.
As for IQ, I would urge you NOT to dismiss it. It is not some fringe science. It has been established for well over 100 years and it has real life consequences.
While the mainstream has gone in one direction, the science continues to go in the other direction. The data compiled regarding IQ has only gotten stronger over the past 3 decades and it's a well accepted measurement within the scientific community - and educational systems.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: The United States adopted the eagle, which was also the symbol of ancient Egypt. The Washington monument is an obelisk, just like the thousands of others the Egyptiasns built. There's a pyramid on the back of every one-dollar bill, with the eye of Horus at the apex looking over creation. The Egyptians were diests, as were America's Founding Fathers. Freemasonry came from Egypt and most of the Founding Father, and allegedly many of America's current leaders, were/are Freemasons.
And the claims that Christianity was in fact derived from Egyptian legends of death and rebirth such as Horus and Set.
Greek (i.e. western) philiosophers learned the basics of their beliefs at the knees of the Egyptians.
Nope, no Egyptian influences here...
Interesting.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
What do you think about the early advanced societies in the Sudan
It's also a myth that Egypt dominated the nile all through it's history, there were shifts of power between Egypt and other African powers and they would take turns dominating the area, just felt like pointing that out
quote:Secondly, not only did Europe not ORIGINATE any of the things we call "civilized", but they did not just pick up this knowledge ON THEIR OWN and begin to develop civilization without OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. Outside influence and the TRANSMISSION of knowledge from older cultures and civilizations are the basis for the rise of the "West". Ancient Greece was stimulated by contacts with Asia minor (Turkey) and the Mediterranean and so was Rome. This was a DIRECT transmission of traits and knowledge from one place to another. This goes AGAINST the idea of Europe as some BASTION of intellect and rationalism that exists INDEPENDENTLY of everything else and is purely based on superior genes.
Correct. Hart's book says exactly the same thing you just have.
quote: If this was so, then how come Moorish Spain, with its advanced science and learning derived from ancient cultures in Africa, Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean and Asia more advanced than ANYTHING in Europe? THAT is what set the Western world on course to become what it is today
Correct, Hart's book agrees with this too. Like I said, read the book. It's free. Download the PDF file and save it to your desktop or print it out.
quote: Knowledge, organization and learning are the keys to the development of civilization and while it is not linear, it is something that has been directly transmitted from ancient cultures to modern cultures through many hands and many cultures, leading us to where we are today. It is a result of the ACCUMULATED knowledge and understanding of MANY PEOPLE not the SPECIAL genetics of any one group.
Correct, Hart's book supports these assertions too.
quote: The "West" is primarily the beneficiary of the winds of fate, which put a TREMENDOUS amount of ancient knowledge and understanding at THEIR DOORSTEP in Moorish Spain, which itself was destroyed and in many ways only now, 1000 years later are some of their achievements being surpassed.
Partly correct. Environment and intelligence of the population obtaining that knowledge allowed the West to triumph. Also, don't confuse the transmission of civilization with furthering civilization. While ideas were brought to Ancient Greece, it was in Ancient Greece alone where the modern fruits of civilization began in terms of philosophy, art, music, theatre, political systems, law, architecture, mathematics, science, and so forth. While civilization existed in the Middle East centuries before Europe, they were limited, and Europeans soon added their own mark.
quote:The point being that NONE of this has anything to do with genetics. But of course they WANT you to believe this so that they can continue onto the NEXT step of their ILLOGICAL thinking, which is the plight of Africa. This irrational reasoning would like you to believe that the current state of Africa is PURELY based on the idea of Africans being INNATELY and GENETICALLY stupid.
There is a genetic component on an individual basis as well as a group basis. Some people have different abilities. Some people can do quantum physics but most of us can't. It's in the genes. Refer to my example of Jews above.
Please refer to IQ studies in that it appears there are average general differences in population group intelligences, regardless of which society one goes to. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]Occam's Razor[/url] applies here.
quote:Of course, that MUST be the reason AND NOT the treatment of Africans at the hands of FOREIGNERS and other invaders over the last 1000 years. In contrast to Western Europe, Africa did not have the benefit of anyone BRINGING all the knowledge and wisdom of the ancient world to its doorstep, developing industry and learning and propagating "civilized" society.
This is partly correct. Most of Africa did not have contact with the outside world. Only in Egypt and other North African regions did.
However, Natives in the New World had no contact with ancient civilzations either.
quote:Africas interaction with the world has been DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE of that in the West. 1500 years ago, Africa had MORE advanced civilizations and cultures than most of Europe.
Hart would agree with this but would cite that such civilization was brought to them, and also that despite these earlier advances, nothing remains from them of significance nor did they add anything to world civilization. Moreover, there is nothing comparable in these ancient civilizations in the way of literature, architecture, science, and so forth that rivals the Middle East, China, and civilizations created in the New World.
quote:It is the most hypocritical, self serving and ridiculous point of view that can be found anywhere. They do not WANT to help Africa become more educated and independent, so they create this FICTION of IQ related to genetics to try and paint a fantasy picture where AFRICANS just CANNOT LEARN. They are scared. They are afraid that Africans may outdo the West in all areas of intellectual pursuit, if given the proper education and knowledge and an environment where it is nurtured. THEREFORE, to justify NOT CREATING such an environment, they keep creating books like this.
There is a lot to be said about robbing Africa of its resources and the world not interested in developing Africa. I don't disagree with this. And I don't doubt that Africans can learn and that Africa's role will change in due time (China is buying up Africa right now and other countries are looking to get in on the action).
However, to ignore the role of intelligence on achievement is wrong. There is a reason why scientists, lawyers, physicists, doctors, have high IQ and that such people are over-represented in innovation. Some people are born with higher IQs than others and some populations have more people in it than others. This is not pseudo-science. It's science and it's also extremely intuitive.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: What do you think about the early advanced societies in the Sudan
It's also a myth that Egypt dominated the nile all through it's history, there were shifts of power between Egypt and other African powers and they would take turns dominating the area, just felt like pointing that out
Well, this is one of the points where I disagree with Hart. He ignores Nubia and the Sudan in his assessement and there is no indication that any outside source brought civilization. Just like Egypt, these were indigenous and developed their own writing. Some Nubian scripts have survived but haven't been deciphered and they're not Egyptian either. Clearly Egypt and Nubia derived from within Africa. There is no indication that they were influenced by the Middle East.
I also think that Egypt has deep roots in the South of Africa as their own writings suggest, as well as DNA evidence, and Egyptian pictures. While SouthEast Asians may have entered Egypt, I believe Egyptians were a hybrid between those invaders and the original indigenous African population that was there already.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
songhay,mali,axum,the kingdoms of the sudan or the kingdoms south of ancient and medieval egypt and some other african civilaztions do rival and surpass the middle east china and the new world civilization of the native americans.that's the point doug is making.hart is wrong and need to get updated info because new info and books are being written more so today with facts.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Read the book and perhaps we can all compile a worthwhile rebuttal. There are enough areas where Hart's analysis is weak and where I disagree. But, on the whole, it's a decent book that has a lot of explanatory power. This is what one looks for in history books - solid questions to "why" things happened.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: songhay,mali,axum,the kingdoms of the sudan and some other african civilaztions do rivil and surpass the middle east china and the new world civilization of the native americans.that's the point doug is making.hart is wrong and need to get updated info because new info and books are being written more so today with facts.
Can you recommend some of these books to me? Also, can you list those features of those civilizations that rival the others?
Hart describes some of these briefly. Ghana for example was an Islamic state thus there was clearly outside Middle Eastern transmission/influence or rule there.
Mali reached its apex in 1330 and Moslen scholars were imported there by Mansu Musa where it became a center of Moslem scholarship.
He says that Mali and Songhai were empires of considerable size and wealth and possessed writing but that the source was brough by Berbers to the North. He does not cite a source for this assertion and it's one of the weak points that I would have wanted him to elaborate on.
However, he notes that all the civilizations above were those in the "exposed zone" of Africa - those regions had had contact with the Moslem and European worlds. The "secluded zone" with the exception of Great Zimbabwe was backwards and was this way when Europeans penetrated it in the year 1500.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
I AM NOT concern about modern civilzation in the west.the world does not go around it.I DO not like when these eurocentric scholars talk about other folks cultures as it was meant for everything to be build for the west.
Egypt,nubia,mali , etc had great impact on africaFIRST and foremost,that's my main concern. African cultures is not a footnote for europe. african civilaztions must be studied in it's own right and what it di for africa.so in that sense early african cultures did make a impact on world culture-africa first.africa is part of the world. when these scholars mean world culture in their mind it is anything that deals with europe and america.europe and america is not the center of the world.besides we are learning new things all the time about mali,nubia,egypt and many more early african civilizations.the scripts in medieval nubia could be read and some in ancient nubia too.math,art science philosophy,technology etc..did not start in europe or southeast asia or the middle east,it start in africa.period,and no amount of books mt eurocentric scholars is going to change that fact,no matter the sneeky spin tactics they like to use.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:sshaun002 wrote: However, he notes that all the civilizations above were those in the "exposed zone" of Africa - those regions had had contact with the Moslem and European worlds. The "secluded zone" with the exception of Great Zimbabwe was backwards and was this way when Europeans penetrated it in the year 1500.
And the point being? It's not like Europe created it's own indigenous civilizations with no outside hand in it (and don't come with rome or greece, these were not even real europeans). People influence each other you know, i see nothing wierd or wrong with that. This muscle flexing is so typical american, "we were first", "you got civilized", "we were greatest", "you were last" aargh Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
I WROTE about this awhile ago and so did not others.just type in mali,nubia or search engine here and you would see because i just dont want to repeat myself all the time.the same thing with this iq nonsense.every 5 or 10 years you have some white racist who come out and says hat black have lower iq's and blacks always have to be on the defensive.i will post alink here with post of the past and send you something in private .
example supercar posted a article awhile ago about early civilzations in west africa before islam and one of the oldest boats found in nigeria in the world.I CAN'T FIND everything now.maybe supercar,rasol ,djehuti could enlighten you.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
It's funny how these kazhar jews (fake hebrews) and other so called "whites" of usa are always the ones who gloat about the ancient achievemnets of the middle east and southern europe when in reality there is no real link. both groups were untill recently described by the people they claim, as "barbarians" (just citing the ancients) While the real descendants from these areas the kahzars and descendants of germanic and gaulic tribes take credit for as their "racial ancestors" never or rarely engage in such redicoulas muscle flexing when talking of their ancestors. It's more often than not a practice/attitude which prevails in "the new world" i rarely see it in europe.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This is from “The Growth of African Civilization A History of West Africa 1000-1800" by Basil Davidson
City of Benin in southern Nigeria
In 1602 a Dutch traveler O. Dapper wrote of the city
“It seemed to be very big, when you go into it, you enter a great broad street, which is not paved, and seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam [the capital of Holland]. The street is straight, and does not bend at any point. It is thought to be four miles long. ‘At the gate where I went in on horseback, I saw a very big wall, very thick and made of earth, with a very deep and broad ditch outside it… And outside the gate there is also a big suburb. Inside the gate, and along the great street just mentioned, you see many other great streets on either side, and these are also straight and do not bend…
‘The houses in this town stand in good order, one close and evenly placed with its neighbor, just as the houses in Holland stand… They have square rooms, sheltered by a roof that is open in the middle, where the rain, and wind and light come in. The people sleep and eat in these rooms, but they have other rooms for cooking and different purposes… ‘The king’s court is very great. It is built around many square-shaped yards. These yards have surrounding galleries where sentries are always places. I myself went into these court far enough to pass through four great yards like this, and yet wherever I looked I could still see gate after gate which opened into other yards....'
It was enough to gain European respect
Also modern art is influenced by much African art, Africans had many different kinds of art, both naturalistic and abstract
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This site talks about African influence on modern art
here i thinks we could cover the basics here.if this gets deleted i will send it to you in private. i posted these links because this it is easy to find and it has been talk about already.
as you know steel was developed in meroe and no outsider did it. science,medicine and surgery,tech knowhow was on a higher level than the greeks and romans.morals were higher.greeks and others wrote about the greater respect for women in nubia,and women were more free.less crime etc. so in morals alone nubia was higher than europe or asia.art was on a high level. the meroitic script was the most advanced in the world.get the book the arts of ancient nubia and the sudan,and it will tell you about that.the arabs in medieval times wrote about the kingdoms of medieval nubia and it a civilizations that highly impressed them an was on a higher level than anything the arabs had.nubia and central water systems etc and even more and more widespread in medieval times.in middle ages the nubians kingdoms and public baths,latrines,sewage systems large brick and stone buildings for the massess in fact the arabs were so highly impressed to see such a high level of civilization when they left egypt to write about the south.the civilization they wrote about after th arabs conqured egypt was higher than anything they knew.
THE MANDE HAD civilization BEFORE ISLAM. YES THEY GOT UPDATE KNOWHOW IN CERTAIN THINGS FROM THE ARABS BUT DO YOU KNOW that they build upon it and surpass the arabs in science etc.they even had blue cabon steel just like the nubians.folks were free to walk in the mali empire so in morals and overall culture mali and that west african region as awhole and nubia,darfur and some other civilizations rivaled and surpass arab,european and yes asia. the facts is that when we mean africa was the most advanced up to early modern times that is we mean.in in morals today modern africa beats europe and overall south africa's tech knowhow is on the level of america's and has the most advanced constitution in the world.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Just because I'm not black or of African descent does not mean such peoples or cultures do not "pertain" to me, because it does-- both as an American and Westerner as well as a human being simply because black Africans (including West Africans) have contributed much to world history especially the Western World.
Just because you are too ignorant to realize all that does not mean you can denigrate people who do, like me
i KNOW I WENT ABIT OVERBOARD BUT THESE FACTS HAD TO BE POSTED BECAUSE I GET TIRED AND ANNOYED HAVING TO REPEAT MYSELF WHEN THE NEW GUY COMES IN TOWN.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote: It also states that Mongols historically had the highest intelligence due to living in extremely cold climates, thus their ability to conquer Europeans, Middle Eastern people, Africans, and so forth even though Mongols always had small population.
Hardly. Looking at Mongolia today it is really no more advanced than the mean of African countries in terms of wealth and industrial production, let alone intellectual capital. Not exactly sure of the point he is trying to make, because in that regard he has none.
quote:As for IQ, I would urge you NOT to dismiss it. It is not some fringe science. It has been established for well over 100 years and it has real life consequences.
Nonsense really. Its all based upon the arbitrary assumption that generalized geographical groups such as African ,Europeans, east Asians etc, are the basis of these so called "genetic" differences and that they are perfectly clear-cut and explicit, where is the proof?
What is to say that a Hausa of Nigeria is not more intelligent on average than a Yoruba? Or a Swede to an Irish? Indeed as often cited yet often ignored:
quote:Most (85%) of our genetic variation is within populations rather than among them, even when different sequences of DNA (or proteins) are examined (Barbujani et al., 1997 ). Statistical divisions of humanity based on different kinds of genetic data do not group people consistently into races (Romualdi, 2002 ).
Given the fact that humanity started in Africa, and the most physical diversity can be shown within African groups, one could actually make more of a case of separate African "races" than anywhere else. If one is to argue of genetic between group IQ differences you would think they would start there.
But of course they won't. Because, as always they have an agenda, and of course it is not based upon science, but is based upon simple bias. That much is quite clear. You must ask yourself what are these guys trying to prove anyway and how will that benefit mankind?
The fact of the matter is, is that they are *still* ignoring the latest genetic findings even as they put out their garbage. They also tend to completely ignore socio-economic data from not only the groups in question but cross-studies done on other groups with the same factors and dynamics.
What crap that passes for science and objective inquiry these days.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
While many travelers with the xenophobic and racism that developed during the 19th century would write off any sign of high culture amongst Africans as from foreign influence, as many do today, they had forgotten about the mutual respect between Africans and Europeans in the past. A few did see through the fog of racism of the day
This is from "The Lost Cities of Africa" by Basil Davidson P. 287
While many travelors with the xenophobic and racism that developed durring the 19th century would write off any sign of high culture amongst Africans as from forign influence, as many do today, they had forgotten about the mutual respect between Africans and Europeans in the past. A few did see through the fog of racism of the day
This is from "The Lost Cities of Africa" by Basil Davidson P. 287
quote: Is African religion "primitive"? On the contrary; many African peoples, it transpires, have systems of belief about themselves and universe that are subtle and developed. Confronted with the fact of African philosophy, writes Father Temples, " the false image of primitive man, of the savage, of the manlike creature deprived of a full growth of the intelligence, irremediably disappears." We have thought ourselves to be educating children, he says of Belgian colonial attitudes in the Congo, "and that seemed simple enough. And now quite suddenly it appears that we are dealing with an adult humanity, conscious of its own wisdom, conditioned by its own universal philosophy
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
BY THE WAY SSHAUN002 MONGELS NEVER CONQURED ANY PLACE IN AFRICA.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: BY THE SSHAUN002 MONGELS BY THE WAY NEVER CONQURED ANY PLACE IN AFRICA.
Just so you know he was talking about Chinese, Japenese, Koreans ect. when he was talking about mongoloids
edit: oh he said Mongols
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
alTakruri gave us this information on this site, thanks
Histoire de la Civilisation Africaine
quote: "When they [the first European navigators of the end of the Middle Ages] arrived in the Gulf of Guinea and landed at Vaida, the captains were astonished to find the streets well cared for, bordered for several leagues in length by two rows of trees; for many days they passed through a country of magnificent fields, a country inhabited by men clad in brilliant costumes, the stuff of which they had woven themselves! More to the South in the Kingdom of Congo, a swarming crowd dressed in silk and velvet; great states well ordered, and even to the smallest details, powerful sovereigns, rich industries, -- civilized to the marrow of their bones. And the condition of the countries on the eastern coasts -- Mozambique, for example -- was quite the same.
"What was revealed by the navigators of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries furnishes an absolute proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the desert zone of the Sahara, was in full efflorescence which the European conquistadors annihilated as far as they progressed. For the new country of America needed slaves, and Africa had them to offer, hundreds, thousands, whole cargoes of slaves. However, the slave trade was never an affair which meant a perfectly easy conscience, and it exacted a justification; hence one made of the Negro a half-animal, an article of merchandise. And in the same way the notion of fetish (Portuguese feticeiro) was invented as a symbol of African religion. As for me, I have seen in no part of Africa the Negroes worshipping a fetish. The idea of the 'barbarous Negro' is a European invention which has consequently prevailed in Europe until the beginning of this century.
"What these old captains recounted, these chiefs of expeditions -- Delbes, Marchais, Pigafetta, and all the others, what they recounted is true. It can be verified. In the old Royal Kunstkammer of Dresden, in the Weydemann colection of Ulm, in many another 'cabinet of curiosities' of Europe, we still find West African collections dating from this epoch. Marvellous plush velvets of an extreme softness, made of the tenderest leaves of a certain kind of banana plant; stuffs soft and supple, brilliant and delicate, like silks, woven with the fiber of a raffia, well prepared; powerful javelins with points encrusted with copper in the most elegant fashion; bows so graceful in form and so beautifully ornamented that they would do honor to any museum of arms whatsoever; calabashes decorated with the greatest taste; sculpture in ivory and wood of which the work shows a very great deal of application and style.
"And all that came from cuntries of the African periphery, delivered over after that to slave merchants, . . .
"But when the pioneers of the last century pierced this zone of 'European civilization' and the wall of protection which had, for the time being raised behind it -- the wall of protection of the Negro still 'intact' -- they found everywhere the same marvels which the captains had found on the coast.
"In 1906 when I penetrated into the territory of Kassai-Sankuru, I found still, villages of which the principle streets were bordered on each side, for leagues, with rows of palm trees, and of which the houses, decorated each one in charming fashion, were works of art as well.
"No man who did not carry sumptuous arms of iron or copper, with inlaid blades and handles covered with serpent skin. Everywhere velvets and silken stuffs. Each cup, each pipe, each spoon was an object of art perfectly worthy to be compared to the creations of the Roman European style. But all this was only the particularly tender and iridescent bloom which adorns a ripe and marvellous fruit; the gestures, the manners, the moral code of the entire people, from the little child to the old man, although they remained within absolutely natural limits, were imprinted with dignity and grace, in the families of the princes and the rich as in the vassals and slaves. I know of no northern people who can be compared with these primitives for unity of civilization. And the peaceful beauty was carried away by the floods.
"But many men had this experience: the explorers who left the savage and warrior plateau of the East and South and the North to descend into the plains of the Congo, of Lake Victoria, of the Ubangi: men such as Speke and Grant, Livingstone, Cameron, Stanley, Schweinfurth, Junker, de Brazza -- all of them -- made the same statements: they came from countries dominated by the rigid laws of the African Ares, and from then on they penetrated into the countries where peace reigned, and joy in adornment and in beauty; countries of old civilizations, of ancient styles, of harmonious styles.
"The revelations of fifteenth and seventeenth century navigators furnish us with certain proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the Sahara desert zone, was still in full bloom, in the full brilliance of harmonious and well-formed civilizations. In the last century the superstition ruled that all high culture of Africa came from Islam. Since then we have learned much, and we know today that the beautiful turbans and clothes of the Sudanese folk were already used in Africa before Muhammed was even born or before Ethiopian culture reached inner Africa. Since then we have learned that the peculiar organization of the Sudanese states existed long before Islam and that all of the art of building and education, of city organization and handwork in Negro Africa, were thousands of years older than those of Middle Europe.
"Thus in the Sudan old real African warm-blooded culture existed and could be found in Equatorial Africa, where neither Ethiopian thought, Hamitic blood, or European civilization had drawn the pattern. Everywhere when we examine this ancient culture it bears the same impression. In the great museums -- Trocadero, British Museum, in Belgium, Italy, Holland, and Germany -- everywhere we see the same spirit, the same character, the same nature. All of these separate pieces unite themselves to the same expression and build a picture equally impressive as that of a collection of the art of Asia. The striking beauty of the cloth, the fantastic beauty of the drawing and the sculpture, the glory of the ivory weapons, the collection of fairy tales equal to the Thousand and One nights, the Chinese novels, and the Indian philosophy.
"In comparison with such spiritual accomplishments the impression of the African spirit is easily seen. It is stronger in its folds, simpler in its richness. Every weapon is simple and practical, not only in form but fantasy. Every line of carving is simple and strong. There is nothing that makes a clearer impression of strength, and all that streams out of the fire and the hut, the sweat and the grease- treated hides and the animal dung. Everything is practical, strong, workmanly. This is the character of the African style. When one approaches it with full understanding, one immediately realizes that this impression rules all Africa. It expresses itself in the activity of all Negro people even in their sculpture. It speaks out of their dances and their masks; out of the understanding of their religious life, just as out of the reality of their living, their state building, and their conception of fate. It lives in their fables, their fairy stories, their wise sayings and their myths. And once we are forced to this conclusion, then the Egyptian comes into the comparison. For this discovered culture form of Negro Africa has the same peculiarity.
Leo Frobenius Histoire de la Civilisation Africaine translated by Back and Ermoat Paris: Gallimard, 1936 6th edition page 56
in
W. E. Burghardt Du Bois The World and Africa: An inquiry into the part which Africa has played in world history New York: Viking Press, 1946 pp. 79, 156
quote: The "West" is primarily the beneficiary of the winds of fate, which put a TREMENDOUS amount of ancient knowledge and understanding at THEIR DOORSTEP in Moorish Spain, which itself was destroyed and in many ways only now, 1000 years later are some of their achievements being surpassed.
Partly correct. Environment and intelligence of the population obtaining that knowledge allowed the West to triumph. Also, don't confuse the transmission of civilization with furthering civilization. While ideas were brought to Ancient Greece, it was in Ancient Greece alone where the modern fruits of civilization began in terms of philosophy, art, music, theatre, political systems, law, architecture, mathematics, science, and so forth. While civilization existed in the Middle East centuries before Europe, they were limited, and Europeans soon added their own mark. [QB]
Wrong. Greece was not alone in the flowering of philosophy and/or science. It was the continuation of a long tradition of philosophy and science that was developed elsewhere. The Greeks did make great achievements, but their GREATEST achievement was the fact that their works have survived the ravages of time and they were closer chronologically to us than ancient Egyptian culture. And, even during the time of the Greeks, other cultures were still thriving and providing their own advances to human knowledge, along with Egypt. Persia, Babylon and Asia were all advanced in their own right without Greece and also had philosophy and science. So ancient Greece was not UNIQUE in any respect and these other civilizations were not limited. And, for all your talk about furthering knowledge, most times knowledge was LOST as a result of the passage of time and transmission of knowledge from one place to another. Much knowledge was LOST from the ancient lands of Egypt, Mesopotamia and India due to wars and the ravages of time. Spanish culture, industry and civilization DECLINED in many ways after the expulsion of the Moors, with much knowledge and science being destroyed in the inquisition.
AND, the key point here is that WITHOUT that transmission of knowledge by the Moors, Europe would NOT be where it is today. They know this and this is WHY they RESTRICTED education of blacks and other slaves in the colonization of the "New World". They realized that knowledge and science are WEAPONS and did NOT want the cultures they destroyed to become STRONG enough and LEARN the technologies that gave the Europeans the advantage militarily. They are NOT going to repeat the mistakes of the Moors who provided the education, industry and training that would eventually be USED TO DEFEAT THEM. THAT is why Europeans are so interested in IQ because the WANT an excuse to CONTINUE the restriction of science, technology and knowledge OUTSIDE of "The West" so that they can STAY ON TOP. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH GENETICS. And face facts, the fact that blacks were a large part of Moorish society shows that IN FACT, Africans had a large part to do with the transmission of knowledge to the West. And much of this transmission involved knowledge and cultural traits FROM AFRICA, even though it was under the banner of Islam and this is from ALL OVER Africa, not just Egypt. Books like this want to DENY THIS and this is why they go to great lengths to deny the facts of history in order to JUSTIFY keeping themselves on top of everyone else. Again, the point here is that spreading civilization means speading knowledge, learning and culture. Western Europe has done nothing but spread war, genocide, disease and destruction in the last 1000 years. That is NOT spreading civilization. People are still trying desperately to cling to half truths and lies as their reality. Europe NEVER INTENDED to spread KNOWLEDGE to the world in its conquests. It intended to CONQUER and DESTROY any and ALL COMPETITION to Europe's claim to the land and resources of OTHER COUNTRIES. That is NOT SPREADING CIVILIZATION. They WERE NOT like the Moors. They did NOT set up universities for the locals to LEARN ANYTHING. They did not ALLOW the locals to OWN their own land. They DESTROYED their cultures and civilizations and reduced the population to the status of ANIMALS, using all sorts of racist and genocidal ARBITRARY measurements to claim that these people were UNFIT to be civilized and therefore UNFIT to learn how to be anything other than SLAVES. So this NONSENSE about IQ is only a FAKE FRONT that hide's what has been Europe's TRUE INTENTION all along, to KEEP THE KNOWLEDGE, WEALTH and POWER of the world TO THEMSELVES and F*CK everyone else. Knowledge and education are the keys TO FREEDOM and this is NOT WHAT EUROPE WANTS for anyone OTHER THAN EUROPEANS.
Giving book and a gun to a savage does not make a savage civilized. It makes him a DANGEROUS SAVAGE. The only thing that Europe has done with the knowledge and learning that they have obtained in the last 500 years is learn how to KILL MORE PEOPLE and TAKE MORE WEALTH. That is NOT CIVILIZED and is NOT REFLECTIVE of ANY IQ ADVANTAGE. What happened to Spain after the Moors? Certainly I would not call the fascist, genocidal and homicidal homicidal regimes that came SINCE THEN a reflection of HIGH IQ.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB]
quote:The point being that NONE of this has anything to do with genetics. But of course they WANT you to believe this so that they can continue onto the NEXT step of their ILLOGICAL thinking, which is the plight of Africa. This irrational reasoning would like you to believe that the current state of Africa is PURELY based on the idea of Africans being INNATELY and GENETICALLY stupid.
There is a genetic component on an individual basis as well as a group basis. Some people have different abilities. Some people can do quantum physics but most of us can't. It's in the genes. Refer to my example of Jews above.
Please refer to IQ studies in that it appears there are average general differences in population group intelligences, regardless of which society one goes to. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]Occam's Razor[/url] applies here.
It is about the spread of knowledge and education along with the distribution of wealth. Period. That B.S. about occam's razor and genetics has nothing to do with the reality of Africa and much of the world today in reference to Europe. It is about WHY the wealth and resources of Africa and other parts of the world are NOT being used to develop the knowledge and science for the people of the world as opposed to making a SMALL MINORITY of the population of the earth more rich.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Of course, that MUST be the reason AND NOT the treatment of Africans at the hands of FOREIGNERS and other invaders over the last 1000 years. In contrast to Western Europe, Africa did not have the benefit of anyone BRINGING all the knowledge and wisdom of the ancient world to its doorstep, developing industry and learning and propagating "civilized" society.
This is partly correct. Most of Africa did not have contact with the outside world. Only in Egypt and other North African regions did.
However, Natives in the New World had no contact with ancient civilzations either.
Nobody has gone to Africa and built universities in order to transmit knowledge and science TO AFRICANS. They have gone there to build mansions and universities FOR THEMSELVES and kill Africans by working them to death and taking the land from them.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Africas interaction with the world has been DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE of that in the West. 1500 years ago, Africa had MORE advanced civilizations and cultures than most of Europe.
Hart would agree with this but would cite that such civilization was brought to them, and also that despite these earlier advances, nothing remains from them of significance nor did they add anything to world civilization. Moreover, there is nothing comparable in these ancient civilizations in the way of literature, architecture, science, and so forth that rivals the Middle East, China, and civilizations created in the New World.
Bullsh*t. The oldest pottery, animal husbandry, tool making, writing, mining, jewelry, clothing, pottery and many other things are IN AFRICA. So what on earth are you talking about? What civilization was brought TO AFRICA? West Africa ALREADY had cities prior to the arrival of Islam. They ALREADY were making STEEL prior to the Europeans. They were MINING prior to ANY CONTACT with ANYONE ELSE. So how on EARTH did someone BRING this to them? That is blatantly false. On top of that Egypt and Sudan had civilization LONG BEFORE anyone could BRING IT to them and CERTAINLY thousands of years before anything comparable existed OUTSIDE of Greece and Rome. Remember the most advanced parts of Europe were HISTORICALLY in the regions of the Mediterranean and Turkey. Northern and Western Europe had NOTHING approaching even the sophistication of other cultures in the world until the arrival of the Moors. The reason for this being that Turkey and the Mediterranean were ancient routes for the transmission of knowledge from East to West. Again, the point here is that Europe is only benefiting from FREE access to knowledge and learning that they acquired over time and have expanded. It is NOT simply because they had a SPECIAL IQ. If it was then they would NOT have NEEDED such EXTERNAL stimuli to START their progress in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:It is the most hypocritical, self serving and ridiculous point of view that can be found anywhere. They do not WANT to help Africa become more educated and independent, so they create this FICTION of IQ related to genetics to try and paint a fantasy picture where AFRICANS just CANNOT LEARN. They are scared. They are afraid that Africans may outdo the West in all areas of intellectual pursuit, if given the proper education and knowledge and an environment where it is nurtured. THEREFORE, to justify NOT CREATING such an environment, they keep creating books like this.
There is a lot to be said about robbing Africa of its resources and the world not interested in developing Africa. I don't disagree with this. And I don't doubt that Africans can learn and that Africa's role will change in due time (China is buying up Africa right now and other countries are looking to get in on the action).
However, to ignore the role of intelligence on achievement is wrong. There is a reason why scientists, lawyers, physicists, doctors, have high IQ and that such people are over-represented in innovation. Some people are born with higher IQs than others and some populations have more people in it than others. This is not pseudo-science. It's science and it's also extremely intuitive.
Neither China nor anyone else BUYING UP Africa will help Africans. What will help Africa is Africans doing for themselves and beginning to gain the MAJORITY of the benefit from their OWN land, labor and resources and beginning to PUT THOSE resources to use BUILDING AFRICA FOR AFRICANS not for EVERYONE ELSE.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: And the point being? It's not like Europe created it's own indigenous civilizations with no outside hand in it (and don't come with rome or greece, these were not even real europeans). People influence each other you know, i see nothing wierd or wrong with that. This muscle flexing is so typical american, "we were first", "you got civilized", "we were greatest", "you were last" aargh
His point is that it was unlikely for civilizatin to arise in Africa even though the environment there was ideal: fertile soil and ideal climate; and access to large animals.
I don't know what you mean that the Greeks and Romans weren't real Europeans.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
WELL CIVILIZATION DID CAME TO AFRICA FIRST,IN THE SUDAN THAN EGYPT.THE MANDE DID FOR THEMSELVES BUT LATER.THERE ARE MORE DIFFERENT INDEPENDENT SCRIPTS IN AFRICA THAN ANYWHERE ELSE.EVEN THE WHEEL WAS KNOWN AND WAS DEVELOPED IN LIBYA.
ONE MORE THING AND I AM DONE HOPEFULLY.IN SCIENCE NUBIANS,MANDE SONGHAY ETC HAD A HIGH LEVEL OF BRAIN SURGERY SKILLS AND WERE HIGHLY ADVANCED IN ASTRONOMY.EVEN IN MODERN TIMES A BLACK MAN IN SOUTH AFRICA WAS THE TRUE ONE TO HAVE THE FIRST OPEN HEART SURGERY.EVEN THE WHITE DOCTOR HE HELP SAID AFTER ALL THESE YEARS.SO GREAT THING BLACKS HAVE DONE ARE STILL GOING ON TODAY
CERTAIN WEST AFRICAN CIVILIZATIONS KNEW THE HOW TO DEAL WITH SMALLPOX BEFORE THE WEST,LIKE THE MANDE AND SOME OTHERS IN WEST AFRICA
NUBIANS KNEW THE USE OF antibiotics .IN OTHE WORDS ANTIBIOTICS WAS USED IN A NUBIA FIRST BEFORE THE WEST.
Some Africans who lived 1,600 years ago were protected against disease by natural antibiotics in their food. This unexpected discovery was made accidentally by a student learning to prepare bone sections for microscopic observation. She happened to use the only microscope available at the time, a fluorescing microscope used to identify samples by shining ultraviolet light on them. Bands of yellow green, characteristic of the antibiotic tetracycline, glowed on her samples. The bone, it turned out, came from mummified remains from a Nubian cemetery in the Sudan and dated from between AD 350 and AD 550. Apparently the tetracycline got into the Nubians’ diet by accident, through Streptomyces, a bacterium that manufactures tetracycline and makes up more than half of the bacteria in Nubian soils. Researchers believe it grew on grain stored at the bottom of mud bins.
Probably the Nubians used such contaminated grain only during famines; tetracycline imparts a bitter taste and would otherwise be avoided. Since the drug is deposited only on actively growing bone surfaces, banded patterns on bone samples support the theory that the antibiotic was only an occasional part of the Nubians’ diet. Struck by periodic famine, the Nubians should have been plagued by infectious diseases, but studies of scar tissue in the bone samples indicate a very low incidence of such disease. Surprisingly, tetracycline levels found in the bone samples equal levels prescribed by modern doctors.
African Science Before The Birth Of The New World by Dr. Ivan Van Sertima
The reason we did not discover African science is that we were looking at primitives and semi-primitives. I shouldn't say we It was a certain Eurocentric idea or assump- tion that the only thing that you could study closely and accurately were little, small-scale communities. These small-scale communities were the survivors of the holocaust that struck Africa. They did not realize that a civilization which had, in some centers, sophisticated technologies, was shattered by the slave trade and by the other horrors that struck Africa, both internal and external. They studied the periphery or edge of African civilizations. Whereas these things, which have only been uncovered over the last 20 years, existed in the shattered center. The reason we are able to recover it now is because the eye of consciousness is opening as well as the eye of the machine.
We can see things we could not see before. From outer space, we have been able to see rivers that died in the Sahara thousands of years ago. We could see traces of those rivers linking what was once a lush Sahara that became desert, linking it to the Sudan, and linking it to the Nile River, showing that Africans retreated from those shrinking flood plains toward the Nile valley. They have actually tracked it down from outer space, showing Africans migrating to the Nile valley from an earlier stage. In 1978, Peter Schmitt and Donald Avery discovered along the lakes of Tanzania, an industrial site which Africans had established as early as 1500 years ago. They discovered that Africans there were producing steel, the finest carbon steel in the world, at temperatures of about 1,825 degrees. That is the highest ever recorded before the 19th century--they were doing it in the fifth century. Not only were they doing this, but also they found they were doing it in a single-stage process. Even in the 19th century, when the Germans discovered a process for mass producing steel, Europe did it in two crude stages. The Africans were doing it in a single- stage process, which calls for semi-conductor technology unknown in the world until centuries later. Not only that, they found they were doing it using less fuel. They have found 13 of these machines in Iron Age strata. They found that the people known as the Haya could reconstruct the smelt.
In the field of astronomy, there is more. In 1978, Lynch Robbins of Michigan State discovered that Africans had built an astronomical observatory in Kenya, 300 years before Christ, in Namoratunga. There, in 300 BC, they had plotted a series of stars and constellations, and on the basis of the alignment of these stars and constellations, they had built the most accurate of prehistoric calendars. But even more significant, a Frenchman, Marcel Griaule, encountered the Dogon people, about 200 miles from the University of Timbuktu. They had fled into the mountains when they heard Europeans were advancing on the continent. There they found that these people had a very complex knowledge of the stars. They have written books about these people, The Pale Fox (just translated into English), as well as Conversations with Ogotomalli, where they showed that these people had started a dance, a ceremony known as Bado, more than 500 years ago, where they danced the orbit of a star, which we call Sirius B. This star is impossible to see with the naked eye. They not only saw it, but also danced its orbit up until the year 1990. They plotted its orbit up until the year1990. They stopped dancing in 1990. The Russians seemed to have found the solution to the question of how they saw it One of the Russian scientists, Volosimo, discovered perfectly ground spherical crystal lenses in ancient Egypt at the time when it was dominated by Black people. The Dogon kept up caravan trade with Egypt even after its decline and conquest by other people. The Dogon also pointed out that the was an object flashing and darkening near Sirius B. NASA discovered that five years ago. The Dogon knew about this at least 500 years ago. This object turned out to be dwarf nova, discovered by the NASA Einstein orbiting satellite. The Dogon said it was an extremely heavy star. We has found that it is the heaviest type of star in our galaxy. They also said it was made of a bright metallic iron. They said it had an orbit of 50 years around its parent star, Sirius A, and a orbit of one year on its own axis. We has found since that its elliptical orbit is correct we still don't know about the one-year orbit on its own axis.
We did not know that Africans had math ematical systems we thought they counted on their fingers. Claudia Zaslavsky wrote book on African mathematics. She did not go to the little tribes she went to the centers. The Yoruba, for example, have a very sophisticated number system. Where the Africans needed mathematics, where they had to use it in trade, over hundreds of years, they developed mathematical systems. They also developed a range of mathematical games.
We did not know they had writing systems. Let me name half a dozen. There is the Mande, which occurs more than 5000 years ago in the Sahara. They also have the Meroitic. We have found at UNESCO more than 800 surviving books in Meroitic, which means they had a lot more. That's what survived in Nubia. We found that the hieroglyphic script did not begin in Egypt, but that it began in Nubia, in the dynasty of Ta Seti, which was at least 200 years before the first Egyptian dynasty, 3300 BC. We also find they had the Vai script, which is a variant of the Mande, which is found among the elders of Sierra Leone. Then there is the Akan script. A new book is being written about that by a man called Bouah of the Ivory Coast. The most extraordinary thing we have found is a script that has survived among the slaves in Surinam, which is known as Asaka. And that is a variant of the Akan script. That is the only script that we know that traveled from Africa to America in slavery time.
Africans became masters in the medicinal use of at least a thousand plants. We have also found that they had far earlier cattle rearing and domestication of crops than any people. We have found, for example, vaccines among them that occurred before Jenner, who is supposed to be the discoverer of vaccines. We have found that in terms of the smallpox vaccine, Cotton Mather reported that his slave, Onesimos, brought the smallpox vaccine from Africa. They have found that Africans were using tetracycline long before us here. An American research associate discovered tetracycline in the bones of ancient Africans in Nubia. Tetracycline is an antibiotic that we began using in the 1950s. They found it in Nubia 14 centuries ago. And, where they found it, they also found the lowest incidence of infectious disease in an ancient population. They gave us physostigmine, one of the most important medicines in treating glaucoma. It was synthesized by the AfricanAmerican scientist, Dr. Percy Julian. They also gave us reserpine, which was the first drug to treat hypertension and psychotic disorder. They also gave us kaopectate, it has a brand name, but it came from an early Nigerian invention. The Bantu were found to be using aspirin very long ago. They were using salix capensis, which yields salicylic acid, the main active ingredient in aspirin. Africans had also made breakthroughs in certain surgical operations. In the middle of the 19th century, in Europe, whenever the Cesarean section was performed, the woman almost invariably died. The British learned that the Banyoro surgeons in East Africa were performing the surgery with 100 percent success. They sent a team under a Dr. Felkin, and that team studied how the Africans performed the operation. To their surprise, they found that these Banyoro surgeons had superior antiseptic solutions to what was then being used in Europe. They found that Africans could seal off bleeding points with minor tissue damage with the use of hot iron. They studied how they collapsed the abdominal wall and drew the stitches. After this, the Cesarean section was performed with much greater success in Europe.
We must remember that these scientific achievements happen at centers, not on the periphery of cultures. We now live in a global village, so, if anything is invented anywhere, we're all connected by communications. It automatically transmits itself almost instantly somewhere else. In the early world, wherever you were, in Europe, Africa, Asia--if you shatter the center, it disappears. The reason that we did not know of these sophistications is that after the conquest of Africa and America, the slave trade, and the breakup of centralized empires in Africa, all of these things went underground. It was like a holocaust it's as if you had hit Africa with six hydrogen bombs. There's an Africa before, and there's an Africa after the holocaust. The burgeoning technology, these incipient technologies, were halted. The point being made is not the lack of inventive capacity or the lack of technological sophistication, but that there is a break, there is a shattering, an explosion. There's no sense in us mourning the loss, but rather becoming aware of the potential that lay there so that we can pick up from that broken world and recover its fragments--to make whole again that which has been shattered.
It is important that the evidence of the African presence in America prior to Columbus' voyage be presented in a clear, academic manner so that the vast number of students in schools and universities can master these facts. My main focus here is the late preColumbian journeys that occurred between 1312 and 1492. In practically every field of study we have evidence of these connections, these voyages. This evidence can be established on a hard scientific basis. When I appeared at the Smithsonian last November, my opponent said that the evidence I presented on behalf of the Mandingo voyages is as good as the evidence for the Norse voyages. Leif Erikson is credited with having made a sojourn to America long before Columbus, and that is accepted. People should be aware of how much evidence does exist for the Mandingo voyages. At least a dozen Europeans who came to this hemisphere at the time of Columbus reported seeing Black people among the Native Americans. Columbus himself said that when he was in Haiti, Native Americans came to him and told him that Blackskinned people had come in large boats trading in gold-tipped metal spears. These spears were sent back to be assayed by metallurgists in Spain and were found to be, not similar, but identical in their ratio of gold, silver, and copper alloys as spears then being forged in African Guinea. Also, we find that the linguistic evidence links these spears with Africans and Americans before Columbus. The word being used for the spear in America was guanin. Other words like gana, kani, and coana are identical variants of the wordColumbus. The word being used for the spear in America was guanin. Other words like gana, kani, and coana are identical variants of the word found in Africa. There are other forms of the word like nuhkuh--in Arabic it's nege, but pronounced nuhkuh. I There is also botanical evidence. The Portuguese found a plant growing plentifully in West Africa off the coast of Guinea. Thinking it to be African, they took it in 1462--30 years before Columbus--and planted it in the Cape Verde Islands just off Africa. It turned out to be an American plant. It was gossypium hirsutum var. punctatum. This is very hard scientific evidence that an American plant had entered Africa before Columbus. We have also found African plants that entered America before Columbus. So, we have American plants entering Africa and African plants entering America. In addition to the botanical evidence, there is cartographic evidence--maps. There are two maps. One is known as the Piri Reis map, a very early map which has Cairo as the meridian for its computation of longitude. Nobody in Europe, 200 years after Columbus, could plot latitude and longitude. One hundred and fifty years after the death of Columbus, the Encyclopedia of Europe reported that longitude had not been discovered and was probably undiscoverable. Yet this map showed the correct latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates between the African Atlantic coast and the South American Atlantic coast. It has the Amazon river plotted. It has the Atrata river in Columbia plotted for 300 miles accurately. In addition to that, there is the Andrea Biancho map, which appeared in 1448. It has the exact coastline of Brazil, and the exact distance between West Africa and Brazil. There are currents off Africa that take you irresistibly towards South America, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, there we have found Africans having been sighted exactly where these currents end. Continuing with the eyewitness accounts, Columbus' son, Fernando, reported in a book about his father, that his father told him he had seen Black people off Honduras. In addition, Peter Martyr, the first historian of America, reports seeing Black people in the region which is now called Panama. He said that these Black people were probably shipwrecked in the mountains at an earlier stage. We also have reports by Rodrigo de Colmenares, who said that one of the captains of Balboa saw Black people off the Gulf of San Miguel. Vasco Nunez de Balboa, himself, saw Black people among the Native Americans in 1513. When he asked where they came from, the Native Americans said, We do not know all that we know is that they are living in settlements nearby. Lopes de Gomara reported that the Black people they saw in that area were identical to the Black people of Guinea. They were not just dark-skinned like them, but identical. We have reports by Father Ramon Pane, who reports on the Black guanini, the Black gold merchants. We also have reports by Fray Gregoria Garcia, who reports that they saw Black people off Cartagena, Columbia. A man called Alonzo Ponce reports that the natives of Compeche, off the coast of Mexico, saw a boatload of Black people landing and terrorizing the natives there in pre-Spanish times. There is another report of Black people on the Honduran/Nicaraguan border. There is also a Captain Kerhallet, who drew a map of settlements along the South American coast where he said Black people had specific communities that were not the slave communities. Labe Brasseur de Bourbourg reports Black people in Panama, where he said there were two distinct tribes, the Black Mandinga and the red-skinned Tule. There are more, but this gives you an idea of how many of these people actually saw them and reported on them. These things are always put in footnotes that's why it took so many years to find out. When I wrote They Came Before Columbus, I only knew about half a dozen now I know of a dozen. I'm sure more will turn up. The Smithsonian found two African skeletons in Hull Bay in the US. Virgin Islands near St. Thomas. They found them in preColumbian layers, or strata, dated 1250 AD, more than 200 years before Columbus. They said they were African males in their 30s and they found a pre-Columbian American ornament around the forearm of one of these African skeletons. One of the marvelous things about that finding is that close by in St. John's, at the bottom of an ancient waterfall, I found a dot and crescent script. It has been deciphered by the Libyan Department of Antiquities and was found to be the Tifinag branch of the Libyan script. It was used mainly by darkskinned people in southern Libya, the Tamahaq Berbers, who were largely Black before mixtures came into North Africa. It was also used by some of the people in medieval Mali. Apart from these finds, we have found a lot of terra cotta, clay sculptures. Von Wuthenau found dozens of these terra cotta both in South America and parts of Mexico. Those that are found from this period, about 200 years before Columbus, are strikingly African. They are not only African in terms of facial features, they have the hair, the coloration-- oxide dyes are actually introduced into the clay to evoke the coloration. They are absolutely startling they look like modern things, and there is no question about their age and the layers in which they were found or the cultures in which they were found. In addition to that, there is the capacity to travel. Many people thought that the Africans could not travel. But, in fact, Thor Hyerdahl got Africans on Lake Chad, through a man called Abdullah Djibrine, to rebuild a papyrus reed boat which had been used by Africans before Christ. That boat successffilly crossed the Atlantic in 1969. It crossed from Safi in North Africa all the way to Barbados. The important thing about the Hyerdahl experiment was that the steering rudder broke on the first day, so, the boat came by itself, drawn by the currents. There are three currents off Africa that will take anything to America, if the fish don't get it first. Dr. Bombard, in 1952, made the journey in the most ancient and primitive boat, a dugout. He crossed without a crew, without a sail, without food or water, using an African fishing kit and an instrument to squeeze juice out of the fish. He made it across in less time than Columbus or Vespucci. The reason he made it in less time is that there are two advantages that Africans have. First, Africa is only 1500 miles from America at its nearest point Europe is 3,000 miles away, twice as far. Second, Europe does not have the advantage of the African current. In addition, on the Indian Ocean we have found boats which took elephants to China 200 years before Columbus. You can't bring elephants to China in a dugout.
So, you see, whether it is navigational, oceanographic, cartographic, linguistic, botanical, eyewitness account, skeletal, epigraphical--script-there is evidence in nearly a dozen disciplines. No find, in any archeological context, even if you go back to early man, can provide evidence of its existence in nearly a dozen disciplines. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason, except prejudice and a refusal to look at the evidence, that can dismiss this as simply fantasy.
Author Information Dr. Ivan Van Sertima is one ofthe world's preeminent authorities on African and African-American civilizations. He is a linguist, anthropologist, and professor of African Studies at Rutgers University. He is the author of They Came Before Columbus, a powerful book that documents the presence of Africans in ancient America.
LIKE I SAID,NUBIA,MALI,SONGHAY AND SOME OTHER AFRICAN CIVILIZATIONS HAD THIS KNOW HOW OF BLUE CRABON STEEL TOO.IVAN DID NOT KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THEMBUT NOW WE KNOW THAT THIS KNOWHOW WAS IN OTHER PARTS IN AFRICA TOO LIKE WEST AFRICA,NUBIA AND MAYBE SOME OTHER PARTS.WE KNOW MORE NOW WHEN IVAN WROTE HIS COMMENTS ABOVE.CIVLIIZATION IN AFRICA WAS HIGH WHEN THE EUROPEANS CONQURED MOST OF IT AND IT IS STILL HIGH NOW.SOMETHINGS NEED UPDATING IN THE COMMENTS OF IVAN SINCE WE HAVE NEW INFO ABOUT AFRICA OF THE PAST BUT HIS PAST COMMENTS GIVES YOU A IDEA OF AFRICAN SCIENCE AND OTHER THINGS IN THE PAST.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I WROTE about this awhile ago and so did not others.just type in mali,nubia or search engine here and you would see because i just dont want to repeat myself all the time.the same thing with this iq nonsense.every 5 or 10 years you have some white racist who come out and says hat black have lower iq's and blacks always have to be on the defensive.i will post alink here with post of the past and send you something in private .
emxaple supercar posted a article awhile ago about early civilzations in west africa before islam and one of the oldest boats found in nigeria in the world.I CAN'T FIND everything now.maybe supercar,rasol ,djehuti could enlighten you.
This is most interesting. As for IQ data, the gap between blacks and whites is well established. The only line of contention is what causes this and how much of it is genetic versus environmental.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Also in “Lost Cities of Africa” we read about an expedition into the far interior in the 19th century and people meeting a remote kingdom, the travelers were impressed by the king's court and their dress, especially for a people supposedly so "barbarous and savage"
Sample of an African court:
quote:After his journeys through central Africa Livingstone repeatedly commented on the peace and security that reigned over great expanses of the interior, and Krapf in east Africa at about the same would find the same thing. These people might not be anxious for Christian teaching, Livingstone said, but there was “no impediment in the way of instruction.” On the contrary, “every headmen would be proud of a European visitor or resident in his territory, and there is perfect security for life and property”- he was thinking of course, of human dangers not of animals and disease-“in the interior.” Missionaries cooking in the cannibal pot would become a standby of European humor. As it happens, only six missionaries of some three hundred penetrated into east and central Africa before 1884 are known to have been killed by Africans, and none of these, it would appear, was killed by wanton murder. What looked like chaos, in short, was seldom anything of the kind; what seemed like great danger of life was nearly always a huge exaggeration. Life for the traveler in middle Africa was in fact a good deal safer- from wars and human killing- than it generally was in Europe; Which may explain, of course, the gentler way in which Africans were accustomed to welcome strangers.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: It's funny how these kazhar jews (fake hebrews) and other so called "whites" of usa are always the ones who gloat about the ancient achievemnets of the middle east and southern europe when in reality there is no real link. both groups were untill recently described by the people they claim, as "barbarians" (just citing the ancients) While the real descendants from these areas the kahzars and descendants of germanic and gaulic tribes take credit for as their "racial ancestors" never or rarely engage in such redicoulas muscle flexing when talking of their ancestors. It's more often than not a practice/attitude which prevails in "the new world" i rarely see it in europe.
I don't believe this to be true. The racist groups in Europe are much larger and much more dangerous than anything one sees in the New World.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Read the book and perhaps we can all compile a worthwhile rebuttal. There are enough areas where Hart's analysis is weak and where I disagree. But, on the whole, it's a decent book that has a lot of explanatory power. This is what one looks for in history books - solid questions to "why" things happened.
Nonsense. Hart's book does not answer JACK. It just presents GARBAGE for disposal.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: First, the book explicitly says that civilization arose in the Middle East and not Europe and that the Middle East brought civilization to Europe. Therefore, it does not claim that Europe created civilization.
It also states that Mongols historically had the highest intelligence due to living in extremely cold climates, thus their ability to conquer Europeans, Middle Eastern people, Africans, and so forth even though Mongols always had small population.
As for IQ, I would urge you NOT to dismiss it. It is not some fringe science. It has been established for well over 100 years and it has real life consequences.
While the mainstream has gone in one direction, the science continues to go in the other direction. The data compiled regarding IQ has only gotten stronger over the past 3 decades and it's a well accepted measurement within the scientific community - and educational systems.
sshaun002, stop desperately holding on to nonsense, trying to pass it off under the guise of "accepted science". I've already shown you a history mapping the course of this problematic sub-field as it is drenched in pre-conceived assumptions and misappropriation of data. Again, contrary to what you imply here, IQ has NEVER been found to have any genetic basis and after years of rigorous testing and examination, the consensus pretty much affirms what I've stated.
It is also so painfully obvious that your insistence to promote this seeming "genetic variation" is clouded by biased wishful thinking. I know this because I'd just given you a PDF study preformed by Leonard Lieberman and contributed to by a plethora of other scientists in direct denunciation and refutation of the very race loons that you cite here.
Again, I show you a paper entitled: "How Caucasoids got such big crania and why they shrank : From Morton to Rushton"( Click Here Again!) , and as a supposed rebuttal, you show me a paper by Philippe Rushton himself?! Him and Jensen are virtually the only two "science" quacks holding steadfast to their demonstrably bogus hypotheses, yet their Eurocentric followers hold them dear in that they openly reinforce racial superiority, no matter how many times they've been refuted by mainstream academics, as can be seen here as well (click that).
A lot of their work, ironically have shown opposite conclusions. One minor example is that African Americans seem to possess more neurons (thought to be indicative of mental capabilities) than the average white American. Rushton was caught with his hand in the cookie jar plenty of times, but if this man is your idol, then nothing I show you would probably lead you on the objective path.
Also, some of the main points that I referred to as "fringe" also is the completely absurd notion that Egyptians descent from southeast Asians, or any non-African people for that matter. Funny how when even modern Egyptologists debunk such hyperdiffusionist ideas ( see here), people in need of comfort start resorting to astrophysicists as authorities for biohistory and population genetics. How rich..
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I'll play along with this troll-bait thread for one post.
White American IQ score = 100 Jewish American IQ score = 114
Does Hart explain the IQ gap between Hybrid Jews and Aryan Whites?
Does he explain why Hybrid European Jews who have more African ancestry than whites also have higher IQ's and greater intellectual acheivement, in spite of the racism they face in Europe?
Does he believe whites are genetically inferior to Jews?
Is Jewish intellectual acheivement the result of 'hybrid vigour'? IE - the fact that Jews are a mixture of European Asian and African, unlike low IQ white Europeans who are the product of recessive inbreeding?
Does Hart elaborate on the need for European whites to practise discrimination against Hybrid Jews in order to counter-balance the natural intellectual superiority of Jew Hybrids, and compensate for white racial inferiority?
If that is not the reason for white anti-semitism, what then in Hart's view...is?
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I WROTE about this awhile ago and so did not others.just type in mali,nubia or search engine here and you would see because i just dont want to repeat myself all the time.the same thing with this iq nonsense.every 5 or 10 years you have some white racist who come out and says hat black have lower iq's and blacks always have to be on the defensive.i will post alink here with post of the past and send you something in private .
emxaple supercar posted a article awhile ago about early civilzations in west africa before islam and one of the oldest boats found in nigeria in the world.I CAN'T FIND everything now.maybe supercar,rasol ,djehuti could enlighten you.
This is most interesting. As for IQ data, the gap between blacks and whites is well established. The only line of contention is what causes this and how much of it is genetic versus environmental.
arabs wrote that the european were the dumbest folks they knew in the middle ages.certain greeks and romans wrotes than the africans were the smartest folks they knew.why is that different today?because it is not.now i am not saying that modern europeans are dumb like arabs writers said in the past about europeans but africans are highly intelligent just like anyone else today.let's give this scholar hart a iq test and see if you could past in africa.i know there are some african scholars who could put a test together for him and let's see how fars he goes in a african culture today.he will not get far,trust me.
by the way the ancient egyptians are a not a mixture of southwest asians and africans.egyptians were africans,and yes later in ancient times there were some that mix but most egyptians did not mix with outsiders in ancient times.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^^
quote:people in need of comfort start resorting to astrophysicist as authorities for biohistory and population genetics.
Indeed. He also failed to address my arguments outlined above. But instead opted to go for the others.
"The hungry lion stalks the weakest prey."
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: arabs wrote that the european were the dumbest folks the knew in the middle ages.certain greeks and romans wrotes than the africans were the smartest folks they knew.why is that different today?because it is not.now i am saying that europeans are dumb like arabs writers said in the past but africans are highly intelligent just like anyone else today.let's give this scholar hart a iq test and see if you could past in africa.i know there are some african scholars who could put a test together for him and let's see how fars he goes in a african culture today.he will not get far,trust me.
by the way the ancient egyptians are a not a mixture of southwest asians and africans.egyptians were africans,and yes later in ancient times there were some that mix but most egyptians did not mix with outsiders in ancient times. [/QB]
I don't know if the mongols of today are the same as those in the past. I know a lot of them were absorbed into the populations that they conquered.
quote: Nonsense really. Its all based upon the arbitrary assumption that generalized geographical groups such as African ,Europeans, east Asians etc, are the basis of these so called "genetic" differences and that they are perfectly clear-cut and explicit, where is the proof?
What is to say that a Hausa of Nigeria is not more intelligent on average than a Yoruba? Or a Swede to an Irish?
This data does exist. Irish IQ does differ from Swede which does differ from other European countries. However, all of the averages are close and around 100. Similarly African IQs are around similar values.
quote:
quote:Most (85%) of our genetic variation is within populations rather than among them, even when different sequences of DNA (or proteins) are examined (Barbujani et al., 1997 ). Statistical divisions of humanity based on different kinds of genetic data do not group people consistently into races (Romualdi, 2002 ).
Given the fact that humanity started in Africa, and the most physical diversity can be shown within African groups, one could actually make more of a case of separate African "races" than anywhere else. If one is to argue of genetic between group IQ differences you would think they would start there.
Hart cites the work of geneticist giant Cavalli-Sforza which shows that people do group into the racial categories established long ago and which we group just by using our eyes. Asians, Africans, Europeans.
[/QUOTE]
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
I'd just like to point something out
I'm not saying you believe this about Ethiopians or not but many racist/racialists believe Ethiopians are mixed with south west Asians
But also their IQ is the 2nd lowest of Africans according to the same people; you would think the outside genes would help raise Ethiopians above other Africans in IQ
Again I'm not saying you believe that just that it's a contradiction many racists have
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: And the point being? It's not like Europe created it's own indigenous civilizations with no outside hand in it (and don't come with rome or greece, these were not even real europeans). People influence each other you know, i see nothing wierd or wrong with that. This muscle flexing is so typical american, "we were first", "you got civilized", "we were greatest", "you were last" aargh
His point is that it was unlikely for civilizatin to arise in Africa even though the environment there was ideal: fertile soil and ideal climate; and access to large animals.
How is the climate in africa more friendly than europe, besides Scandinavia and siberia the climate in europe is actually quite mild and relatively pleasent, (not as perfect as in the medditteranian region but quite OK). In Britian, France and Germany the weather is actually comfortable during majority of the months in a year. This is lame excuse. The japanese and the chinese have similar climate as central and northern Europe but they were able to create Indigenous societies that were highly sophisticated, He can't blame the climate, and argue africa had better climate with better conditions than europe, most of Africa has unbarable heat.
quote:I don't know what you mean that the Greeks and Romans weren't real Europeans.
Greeks and Romans were culturally and mentaly more north african and levantine than they ever were central or northern european, just look up the origin of early Roman emperors, when they didn't come from Rome then they came from either north Africa(berbers) or Syria/lebanon. With this knowledge in hand how could anyone call these societies european, they certainly didn't identify as such.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
type in a search term and see what photos get returned.
I did tool and dance. The best thing is that each photo has a text description that goes along with the search.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
To the very topic of this thread:
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote: Originally posted by Sundiata: sshaun002, stop desperately holding on to nonsense, trying to pass it off under the guise of "accepted science". I've already shown you a history mapping the course of this problematic sub-field as it is drenched in pre-conceived assumptions and misappropriation of data. Again, contrary to what you imply here, IQ has NEVER been found to have any genetic basis and after years of rigorous testing and examination, the consensus pretty much affirms what I've stated.
Did you read the text? I've read the entire article before. But from your link:
"The findings of the task force state that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual (but not necessarily population) differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual (again, not necessarily population) differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.
They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. They agree that there are no significant differences between the average IQ scores of males and females. The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction. While they admit there is no empirical evidence supporting it, the APA task force suggests that explanations based on social status and cultural differences may be possible. Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. "
They state that IQ is predictive of school and occupational achievement and that diet does not appear to have any role in IQ. They state that IQ has both environmental and genetic components. They state that there is a large gap in black and white IQ. They conclude by saying that the "little" evidence that points to genetics fails to support a genetic hypothesis for this difference. Does anybody else read between the lines of this obvious attempt at obfuscation?
quote: It is also so painfully obvious that your insistence to promote this seeming "genetic variation" is clouded by biased wishful thinking. I know this because I'd just given you a PDF study preformed by Leonard Lieberman and contributed to by a plethora of other scientists in direct denunciation and refutation of the very race loons that you cite here.
That paper if from 2001 and is simply obfuscation and denial of reality. The "loons" that I cite merely argue a 50/50 contribution of IQ from environment and genetics. Those that you cite argue for virtually a wholly environmental explanation. The data does not support this. Like I said, the science has gone in one direction and the papers I posted from 2005 have yet to be rebutted.
quote: Again, I show you a paper entitled: "How Caucasoids got such big crania and why they shrank : From Morton to Rushton"( Click Here Again!) , and as a supposed rebuttal, you show me a paper by Philippe Rushton himself?! Him and Jensen are virtually the only two "science" quacks holding steadfast to their demonstrably bogus hypotheses, yet their Eurocentric followers hold them dear in that they openly reinforce racial superiority, no matter how many times they've been refuted by mainstream academics, as can be seen here as well (click that).
Jensen and Rushton did not create IQ tests. They're but two people in a long line of people who study individual and group differences. Jensen is a leader in his field and roundly recognized as such by his colleagues. He's a giant in psychology and psychometrics. Read "Bias in mental testing" and the "G Factor" by Jensen. These are two tomes dedicated to answering many of your questions.
The lieberman paper you provide is throw-away obfuscation.
The only standouts are Flynn and some recent studies done by Fagan which point to some potential biases in knowledge based verbal questions on IQ tests.
quote: A lot of their work, ironically have shown opposite conclusions. One minor example is that African Americans seem to possess more neurons (thought to be indicative of mental capabilities) than the average white American. Rushton was caught with his hand in the cookie jar plenty of times, but if this man is your idol, then nothing I show you would probably lead you on the objective path.
I don't like Rushton. I believe he is a racist and that's the ideology that guides his research. However, I seperate what I believe about the man and the research. The research stands on its own as much as I wish it didn't.
quote: Also, some of the main points that I referred to as "fringe" also is the completely absurd notion that Egyptians descent from southeast Asians, or any non-African people for that matter. Funny how when even modern Egyptologists debunk such hyperdiffusionist ideas ( see here), people in need of comfort start resorting to astrophysicists as authorities for biohistory and population genetics. How rich.. [/QB]
[/QUOTE]
Hart's book is essentially a work of history and he's has more than enough credentials to write history. What is history but an aggreggate of primary and secondary sources synthesized into a story that one tries to make as accurate as possible to describe the past?
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
I like this picture
But why does he look so sad? Is the picture meant to be a presentation?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
PLEASE do me a favor and READ Hart's book. Don't simply reject it outright, EVEN if you think it is tripe. One doesn't have to agree with everything or even most of something to take it on. You will learn interesting things and hypotheses that he puts forward.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:I don't know if the mongols of today are the same as those in the past. I know a lot of them were absorbed into the populations that they conquered.
What does that have to do with "Mongolia" itself? I was'nt talking about the "conquered" populations they absorbed into, we are referring to the homeland to the group in question. Why wouldn't *they* be the same today as they were only 700 years ago?
quote:This data does exist. Irish IQ does differ from Swede which does differ from other European countries. However, all of the averages are close and around 100. Similarly African IQs are around similar values.
Show the data you are referring to. And also somehow prove that The IQ disparity between Africa and Europe (obviously not an even comparison) is *not* due to obvious socio-economic and nutritional differences. And we are not even going into the other data in regards to African educational acheivement abroad.
quote:Hart cites the work of geneticist giant Cavalli-Sforza which shows that people do group into the racial categories established long ago and which we group just by using our eyes. Asians, Africans, Europeans.
And of the more recent data which your completely ignored:
quote:
Previous studies have reported that about 85% of human diversity at Short Tandem Repeat (STR) and Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) autosomal loci is due to differences between individuals of the same population, whereas differences among continental groups account for only 10% of the overall genetic variance.[B] These findings conflict with popular notions of distinct and relatively homogeneous human races, and may also call into question the apparent usefulness of ethnic classification in, for example, medical diagnostics. Here, we present new data on 21 Alu insertions in 32 populations. We analyze these data along with three other large, globally dispersed data sets consisting of apparently neutral biallelic nuclear markers, as well as with a -globin data set possibly subject to selection. We confirm the previous results for the autosomal data, and find a higher diversity among continents for Y-chromosome loci. We also extend the analyses to address two questions: (1) whether differences between continental groups, although small, are nevertheless large enough to confidently assign individuals to their continent on the basis of their genotypes; (2) whether the observed genotypes naturally cluster into continental or population groups when the sample source location is ignored. Using a range of statistical methods, we show that classification errors are at best around 30% for autosomal biallelic polymorphisms and 27% for the Y chromosome. Two data sets suggest the existence of three and four major groups of genotypes worldwide, respectively, and the two groupings are inconsistent. [B]These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.
Chiara Romualdi, David Balding, Ivane S. Nasidze, Gregory Risch, Myles Robichaux, Stephen T. Sherry, Mark Stoneking, Mark A. Batzer, Guido Barbujani 2002 Genome Research v12, no4 p602-612
oh my.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: How is the climate in africa more friendly than europe, besides Scandinavia and siberia the climate in europe is actually quite mild and relatively pleasent, (not as perfect as in the medditteranian region but quite OK). In Britian, France and Germany the weather is actually comfortable during majority of the months in a year. This is lame excuse. The japanese and the chinese have similar climate as central and northern Europe but they were able to create Indigenous societies that were highly sophisticated, He can't blame the climate, and argue africa had better climate with better conditions than europe, most of Africa has unbarable heat.
Other environmental factors: lack of large wild animals, lack of cereal crops in order to initiate agriculture. Like I said, read the book. It's very interesting. It takes into account environment AND intelligence which is why it is so compelling. I'm not here to repeat verbatim what is in the book. It's a very short read. Haev a look.
quote:Greeks and Romans were culturally and mentaly more north african and levantine than they ever were central or northern european, just look up the origin of early Roman emperors, when they didn't come from Rome then they came from either north Africa(berbers) or Syria/lebanon. With this knowledge in hand how could anyone call these societies european, they certainly didn't identify as such.
They were not culturally and mentally more like North Africans than Northern Europeans. They were more like Northern Europeans. The difference is that civilization was brought to them first. They later brought it to Northern Europe.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Congo villages:
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:You will learn interesting things and hypotheses that he puts forward.
Thats the problem. It remains a "hypothesis" the next step after *conjecture*, furthermore, if nearly all accepted scientific studies are pointing *away* from geographically defined super-groups or "races" (asians, african, europeans) Why is he advocating outdated concepts and using misguided data to support it?
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
ONE MORE THING,AFRICANS KNEW THE WORLD WAS ROUND, NOT FLAT.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: I don't know if the mongols of today are the same as those in the past. I know a lot of them were absorbed into the populations that they conquered.
What does that have to do with "Mongolia" itself? I was'nt talking about the "conquered" populations they absorbed into, we are referring to the homeland to the group in question. Why wouldn't *they* be the same today as they were only 700 years ago?[/QUOTE]
I can't answer this question as I'm not familiar enough and it's not addressed in the book. However, given the connections made throughout the book, I'd venture to say he would have a reasonable explanation for this.
quote:Show the data you are referring to. And also somehow prove that The IQ disparity between Africa and Europe (obviously not an even comparison) is *not* due to obvious socio-economic and nutritional differences. And we are not even going into the other data in regards to African educational acheivement abroad.
The majority of IQ data has been compiled in North America and throughout Europe. This is no secret. Populations in Europe vary in average IQ. Ireland is 93, Germany has among the highest with 100 or slightly over.
Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000.
All explanations of raising IQ to make black and white IQ the same have been exhausted. Indeed, nobody has been able to raise IQ substantially at all for any group. Any gains in IQ during childhood from extreme ideal teaching conditions wears off as one ages because g exterts itself more as one gets older.
The the g Factor. Nobody has yet to sufficiently dispute it or its predictive value.
quote: Previous studies have reported that about 85% of human diversity at Short Tandem Repeat (STR) and Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) autosomal loci is due to differences between individuals of the same population, whereas differences among continental groups account for only 10% of the overall genetic variance.[B] These findings conflict with popular notions of distinct and relatively homogeneous human races, and may also call into question the apparent usefulness of ethnic classification in, for example, medical diagnostics. Here, we present new data on 21 Alu insertions in 32 populations. We analyze these data along with three other large, globally dispersed data sets consisting of apparently neutral biallelic nuclear markers, as well as with a -globin data set possibly subject to selection. We confirm the previous results for the autosomal data, and find a higher diversity among continents for Y-chromosome loci. We also extend the analyses to address two questions: (1) whether differences between continental groups, although small, are nevertheless large enough to confidently assign individuals to their continent on the basis of their genotypes; (2) whether the observed genotypes naturally cluster into continental or population groups when the sample source location is ignored. Using a range of statistical methods, we show that classification errors are at best around 30% for autosomal biallelic polymorphisms and 27% for the Y chromosome. Two data sets suggest the existence of three and four major groups of genotypes worldwide, respectively, and the two groupings are inconsistent. [B]These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.
Chiara Romualdi, David Balding, Ivane S. Nasidze, Gregory Risch, Myles Robichaux, Stephen T. Sherry, Mark Stoneking, Mark A. Batzer, Guido Barbujani 2002 Genome Research v12, no4 p602-612 oh my. [/QB] [/QUOTE]
This means very little. It confirms that humans cluster into the major races as historically defined: Asian, European, African. Nobody has argued that these populations are so distinct from another. There is overlap due to gene flow. That doesn't preclude the reality that there are overall different groups. Nobody is going to mistaken a Nigerian from a Japanese, from a Swede.
"among continental groups account for only 10% of the overall genetic variance"
We're supposedly less than 1% different genetically from chimps. Little means a lot. Hart addresses such questions in his book. Once again, I urge you to read it. Ignoring it will do no good.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:You will learn interesting things and hypotheses that he puts forward.
Thats the problem. It remains a "hypothesis" the next step after *conjecture*, furthermore, if nearly all accepted scientific studies are pointing *away* from geographically defined super-groups or "races" (asians, african, europeans) Why is he advocating outdated concepts and using misguided data to support it?
Because they're not outdated. They're only outdated in mainstream circles, not in the sciences. Call it what you want - clines, population groups, clusters, breeds, subspecies. They're all synonyms for race.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I call it a troll, trying to pretend that he didn't see the following post, because he has no answers...
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I'll play along with this troll-bait thread for one post.
White American IQ score = 100 Jewish American IQ score = 114
Does Hart explain the IQ gap between Hybrid Jews and Aryan Whites?
Does he explain why Hybrid European Jews who have more African ancestry than whites also have higher IQ's and greater intellectual acheivement, in spite of the racism they face in Europe?
Does he believe whites are genetically inferior to Jews?
Is Jewish intellectual acheivement the result of 'hybrid vigour'? IE - the fact that Jews are a mixture of European Asian and African, unlike low IQ white Europeans who are the product of recessive inbreeding?
Does Hart elaborate on the need for European whites to practise discrimination against Hybrid Jews in order to counter-balance the natural intellectual superiority of Jew Hybrids, and compensate for white racial inferiority?
If that is not the reason for white anti-semitism, what then in Hart's view...is?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Funny how Shaun's loud mouth is easily reduced to deafening silence.
'smatter Shaun -
Are you waiting for some other poster to give you something easier to 'troll off' on (??)
Are the questions too hard?
Is your IQ not high enough to answer them?
Then, what's taking so long?
ps - ES posters shold know better than to allow this fool to jerk you around.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote: Originally posted by rasol: ^ I'll play along with this troll-bait thread for one post.
White American IQ score = 100 Jewish American IQ score = 114
Does Hart explain the IQ gap between Hybrid Jews and Aryan Whites?
He has an entire chapter dedicated to "The Jews" I'm only 2/3 into the book and haven't gotten there yet. I'm sure he addresses this. He holds back nothing in his book.
quote: Does he explain why Hybrid European Jews who have more African ancestry than whites also have higher IQ's and greater intellectual acheivement, in spite of the racism they face in Europe?
I'm not aware of this nor if it is addressed in the book. What's your source?
With regard to their intellectual achievements in spite of racism, he would say it's because they're genetically more intelligent. That's the crux of his entire book. So regardless of the oppression they received, they were able to outsmart and accomplish.
quote: Does he believe whites are genetically inferior to Jews?
I'm not there in the book yet, but I don't doubt that he will argue for circumstances that led to higher Jewish intelligence over Europeans. The only discussion thus far about Jews is their LACK of contribution to anything while in the Middle East with the exception of their religion.
quote: Is Jewish intellectual acheivement the result of 'hybrid vigour'? IE - the fact that Jews are a mixture of European Asian and African, unlike low IQ white Europeans who are the product of recessive inbreeding?
I don't know. Can you provide a source for this? I'm going to assume that Jews that have higher IQ are not hybrids but a small distinct group that evolved under unique pressures.
quote: Does Hart elaborate on the need for European whites to practise discrimination against Hybrid Jews in order to counter-balance the natural intellectual superiority of Jew Hybrids, and compensate for white racial inferiority?
I'm not sure. He may. This is nothing new though as we all know. Get the book entitled The Chosen, which is an indictement on the practices of Harvard, Yale, and other universities that tried to keep Jews out. They couldn't because no matter what, Jews can always out-compete Whites disportionately. The reason is genetics.
quote: If that is not the reason for white anti-semitism, what then in Hart's view...is?
The book may touch on this topic but that's really not central to his thesis. I'm sure he would agree that it plays a role in anti-semitism. "At a 2006 conference, Hart had a public confrontation with David Duke, the former Gran Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and one-time Louisiana politician, over Duke's anti-Semitic remarks." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_H._Hart Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Funny how Shaun's loud mouth is easily reduced to deafening silence.
'smatter Shaun -
Are you waiting for some other poster to give you something easier to 'troll off' on (??)
Are the questions too hard?
Is your IQ not high enough to answer them?
Then, what's taking so long?
ps - ES posters shold know better than to allow this fool to jerk you around.
Sorry, I had missed your post earlier. That's why I did not respond sooner. Also, I'm busy with other things. Please see my responses above.
Please, I'm not trying to be a troll or combatative. I don't see why you're so unwilling to investigate the book itself. Attack that, not me. If you read it and conclude that it's bunk, fine. If you read it and it reveals details you may not have considered before, we're all the better for it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I'll play along with this troll-bait thread for one post.
quote:White American IQ score = 100 Jewish American IQ score = 114
Does Hart explain the IQ gap between Hybrid Jews and Aryan Whites?
You read thesis, you're -sure- he answers the question, but -you don't have the answer?
Why not?
You're not making any sense.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote: Originally posted by kenndo: arabs wrote that the european were the dumbest folks they knew in the middle ages.certain greeks and romans wrotes than the africans were the smartest folks they knew.why is that different today?because it is not.now i am not saying that modern europeans are dumb like arabs writers said in the past about europeans but africans are highly intelligent just like anyone else today.let's give this scholar hart a iq test and see if you could past in africa.i know there are some african scholars who could put a test together for him and let's see how fars he goes in a african culture today.he will not get far,trust me.
I would take you up on that bet because g is highly correlated. That is, if you're exceptional at math, then you most likely have higher verbal intelligence, spacial intelligence and so forth.
Considering that Hart has degrees from Princeton in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science, I have very little doubt that he'd perform well on an IQ test.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Then, what is the explanation?
You read thesis, you're -sure- he answers the question, but -you don't have the answer?
Why not?
You're not making any sense.
Read his chapter on The Jews. I provided the link for you. I've skimmed the section and he talks about how Jewish intelligence evolved but am not going to read it fully before reading the rest of the book sequently.
Page 389 "The Jews"
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
sshaun002, You seem to be naively and simplemindedly dazzled by the rants of some professional student name Hart. And who cares whether he is a Jew or Gentile--or fish or fowl.
You chatter on excitedly about Hart's inane musings. This site has covered all the handed down ideas that gets you so excited about Hart.
It's just tedious to have to go over what you could so easily find by going to the archives.
This thing about IQ is absurd. Consider the reported IQs of the follwing countries. What is your take?
Israel 94 Iran(Ancient Persia) 83 Iraq(Ancient Mesopotamia) 87 Greece(Ancient Greece) 92 India (Ancient Harrapan) 81 Pakistan(close to Ancient Harrapan) 81 Saudi Arabia(Origins of Islam) 83 Qatar 78 Syria (Ancient Syria) 87 Spain(Lynn, 1978) 87 Burma 86 Indonesia 89 Nepal 78 Turkey(Ottoman Empire) 90
African scores--Lynn 1978, tests done some 30-45 years ago
Tanzania 88 Uganda 88 South African Zulu children 81, Zulu adults 75, South Africa, Natal(blacks) 87
African American scores
Until the 1970s--85 From 1972(post Civil Rights era)--2002---91(see Flynn and Dickens 2006)
American born children of European migrants to the U.S
The Neanderthals experienced and adapted to the frigid weather of Eurasia for at last 300,000 years yet they were not more technologically advanced than the tropically adapated Africa origined humans.
The tropical-adapted humans survived while the Nenaderthals eventually became extinct.
Those Native Americans that peopled the Americas by way of the Siberian landbridge spent several thousands years in the frigid Eurasian environment yet their IQs are quite low:
The point of course is that IQ is a bogus means of determining the natural cognitive abilities of humans especially transculturally.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
I just read the first two paragraphs of the section about The Jews. He goes headfirst into exploring Jewish high intelligence because intelligence is the major theme of his book. He's thorough, so except reasonable explanations.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Shaun: Read his chapter on The Jews.
If you can't answer elementary questions regarding your references, then why would anyone waste time clicking on and reading your links?
quote:rasol: Does he explain why Hybrid European Jews who have more African ancestry than whites also have higher IQ's and greater intellectual acheivement, in spite of the racism they face in Europe?
quote:Shaun: I'm not aware of this nor if it is addressed in the book.
translation: You have no answer, and neither does he.
quote:Shaun: What's your source?
For African ancestry in Jews - Per geneticist Cruciani and Underhill, Jews of Europe and the Middle East show up to 20% African paternal ancestry, and 10% or more African maternal ancestry?
For Jewish IQ superiority over whites?
There are many sources, but for irony, try the infamous Charles Murray of the Bell Curve, who states that Jewish score 15% higher than whites on standard tests - which he says is why they out-acheive white Americans.
He states flat out that Jews are smarter than whites.
Is this also your position?
If so, what in your estimation is the cause of white mental inferiority?
quote:Shaun: He's very thurough.
Then why can't you answer our questions? In your last two posts - you've claimed,
- this was not addressed
- that you are *not aware* of it
- and that it was addressed and that Hart was thurough in addressing it.
Of course your claims are contradictory, but they also ring hollow because you never actually answer the question.
Again: How come "racially-hybrid" Afro-European Jews, have higher IQ's than whites? Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: This thing about IQ is absurd. Consider the reported IQs of the follwing countries. What is your take?
Israel 94 Iran(Ancient Persia) 83 Iraq(Ancient Mesopotamia) 87 Greece(Ancient Greece) 92 India (Ancient Harrapan) 81 Pakistan(close to Ancient Harrapan) 81 Saudi Arabia(Origins of Islam) 83 Qatar 78 Syria (Ancient Syria) 87 Spain(Lynn, 1978) 87 Burma 86 Indonesia 89 Nepal 78 Turkey(Ottoman Empire) 90
This is described in Hart's book.
The average IQ of the Middle East is higher than that in Africa but lower than in Europe, thus civilization started there. The environmental factors were access to animals and cereal crops for agriculture. Agriculture allows populations to flourish due to food surplus. This leads to expansion and time for innovation.
quote: African scores--Lynn 1978, tests done some 30-45 years ago
Tanzania 88 Uganda 88 South African Zulu children 81, Zulu adults 75, South Africa, Natal(blacks) 87
Interesting. I'm not aware of these figures - only the ones provided in the book which cite the same author - Lynn. I have Lynn's book "IQ and Global Equality" which is much more updated and aggregate of data on Africa.
quote: African American scores
Until the 1970s--85 From 1972(post Civil Rights era)--2002---91(see Flynn and Dickens 2006)
The issue is whether those gains in IQ are g loaded or not or are "select effects". Note that the Flynn effect has ceased and even begun to regress in some western nations. Yet the black-white gap has not closed regardless of the flynn effect. Some posit that the increase in black-white hybrids over the past 30 years that are "black" also account for some of the increase.
quote: American born children of European migrants to the U.S
As you can see, White populations differ from each other, too. What is your source for these values?
quote: The Cold Weather Hypothesis
The Neanderthals experienced and adapted to the frigid weather of Eurasia for at last 300,000 years yet they were not more technologically advanced than the tropically adapated Africa origined humans.
The tropical-adapted humans survived while the Nenaderthals eventually became extinct.
This is also one of the questions I had when I read the book.
First, why didn't Neanderthals adapt for higher intelligence? And secondly, what explains migrations out of warm fertile areas where food abounds, into cold harsh environments? One would think that hunter-gatherers would follow the food and stay where it's warm.
quote: Those Native Americans that peopled the Americas by way of the Siberian landbridge spent several thousands years in the frigid Eurasian environment yet their IQs are quite low:
This may be because they didn't not reside in the cold regions for very long and moved into the interior of the New World quickly. Ditto for the Innuit now - they're recent migrants.
quote: The point of course is that IQ is a bogus means of determining the natural cognitive abilities of humans especially transculturally.
It doesn't explain everything, but it's not bogus either.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB]
quote:Shaun: Read his chapter on The Jews.
If you can't answer elementary questions regarding your references, then why would anyone waste time clicking on and reading your links?
Your rebuttal hinges on the fact that I haven't read the chapter dealing with this in the book yet. lol.
I'll read it sometime soon and get back to you. I'm not sure why you feel the need to slam me. I've answered all questions up to these ones because I don't know yet what he says about it. I have to read it first. lol. Better yet, have a read yourself as I'm sure it's all laid out for you.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote: For African ancestry in Jews - Per geneticist Cruciani and Underhill, Jews of Europe and the Middle East show up to 20% African paternal ancestry, and 10% or more African maternal ancestry?
That's interesting. I'm not sure what to make of this or what it tells us completely. If Jews were under intense selective pressure it wouldn't preclude them from having African ancestry. You have to remember that IQ is normally distributed for all races. Thus in every race you find intelligent and dull people.
quote: For Jewish IQ superiority over whites?
I don't think there is any question that Jews have intellectual proclivities that make them outshine Whites disproportionately.
How do you explain a group of people that make up 1/4 of 1% of the world in some many positions of power and contributions to science, math, arts - 50% of Nobel Prize Winners. Genes, not culture, are the primary factor.
quote: He states flat out that Jews are smarter than whites.
Is this also your position?
Yes
quote:
If so, what in your estimation is the cause of white mental inferiority?
Unique selection pressures on Jews. What other reason could there be? It's simply evolution.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Here it is I’ve been looking for this, this is on the harsh conditions of West Africa to refut what Michael H. Hart said about it
“The Africans an Entry to Cultural history” by Basil Davidson P. 31,
quote: It was, ast it is now, a continent of startling natural extravaganace. Nothing here is done by halves. The dimensions are always big; often they are extreme. There are deserts large enough to swallow half the lands of Europe, there are deserts large enough to swallow half the lands of Europe, where intense heat by day gives place to bitter cold by night...
p. 33 [quote] If you tramp through the African bush you will soon wonder how anyone could ever impose human settlement on this land, much less keep a footing here and steadily enlarge it….. Yet the appearance of lush natural wealth is often misleading. Much of Africa is paved with a lateritic soil of low fertility and shallow depth. Much of it is covered and, it seems, was always covered in historical times by fruitless bush and poorly timbered trees. Much of it is pestered by tsetse fly inimical to beast and man. Only the development of an inherent immunity – but this never complete – has enabled Africans to withstand widespread malaria. Other parasites demand their toll, jiggers and locusts, pestilential water-snails, fever-bearing clouds of flying creatures..….Poor fertility made it inevitable that this early farming, outside the lower valley of the Nile and some areas of western Africa and the Congo Basin, should always be a matter of frequent shifting from place to place. Settlement for a long time in any one village was difficult or impossible. More often, groups rotated though a series of village sites within the area they claimed as their own. And whenever they moved the wilderness came in behind them and raised its barriers once more.
The crucial development in improving this situation was of course, iron
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Your rebuttal hinges on the fact that I haven't read the chapter dealing with this in the book yet. lol.
If you admit you haven't read the book then your remarks on it are worthless.
quote: I'll read it sometime soon and get back to you.
You do that. In the meantime, you should probably keep your mouthed closed instead of prattling on in ignorance.
quote:I'm not sure why you feel the need to slam me.
I didn't. I simply asked you questions about your faulty thesis that you can't answer.
Your excuse it to plead ignorance because you haven't read your sources.
But you are responsible for gathering your information prior to formulating your thesis, this excuse makes no sense.
quote: I've answered all questions up to these ones because I don't know yet
The problem is your claims beg questions that you can't answer. Your excuse of not having read the book actually implies that you -should not have made the claims- in the first place.
No one is 'slamming' you. When you open your mouth making brash statements and then can't answer elementary questions - you slam yourself.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Ok, I just read the section of the Jews. It took me 2 minutes. His hypothesis is selection pressure. First, above average Jews were exiled and they were the merchants. They intermarried with Europeans which raised the Jewish IQ about 7 points. Those that prospered in their limited fields (they were confined to certain jobs) flourished while the others perished. Over time this evolutionary process selected for the highest IQs and over time you get the 15 point higher average over Europeans.
In other words, Jewish high IQ is a rather recent phenomenon which occured some time during the Middle Ages to the present. This would also explain why Jewish accomplishments were minimal to non-existant until recently.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
These selection pressures did not exist for the Greeks, Romans, or anybody else since they weren't oppressed in the same way nor pre-selected to begin with.
lol Rasol, I haven't read the ENTIRE book. Only 2/3 of it. I mentioned this very early on in this discussion.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
The reason why the Ancient Greeks and others often attributed intelligence to Africans (or Egyptians) is because they were unaware of pre-existing societies in the Middle East that arose before Egypt (largely because few monuments remained), that invented writing and so forth. This mis-application made Ancient writers over-estimate the contribution to civilization that places like Egypt actually had.
Similarly the great architectural structures that survive in Egypt are striking and attest to understanding of building, planning, and at least simple math. But people forget the other componenets of culture that make them unique and great: their law, philosophies, level of understanding of mathematical theories, sciences, etc.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
So I have a question, with the harsh conditions of many places in Africa shouldn't black people have high intelects?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Where Hart is wrong is in arguing that civilization pretty much can't arise in places with IQ's below 80. The historical record shows that this is simply not true. Ancient civilizations arose in all continents among all peoples of all races. The reason, I believe, is that the fundamentals of creating civilization, while not intuitive, are eventually learned by trial and error or by the few geniuses that exist in every society.
Thus agriculture, domestication of animals will arise everywhere. The building of monuments has both cultural and environmental aspects and is not central to civilization. Monuments of various sizes and structures appear on all continents among all people. And in all continents they're the exception, not the rule. The vast majority in all continents in antiquity did not create any monuments.
Where the role of intelligence lies, is in civilizations with greater complexity. The intelligence is needed to give rise to the necessary breakthroughs or "meta-inventions". From that point on, societies will begin to diverge because more emphasis is placed on the need for intelligence for specializations particularily in the higher disciplines.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: So I have a question, with the harsh conditions of many places in Africa shouldn't black people have high intelects?
That's a point one could certainly argue.
All in all though, the conditions are still more hospitable than in colder climates where death is imminent unless one can find or create shelter, clothing, etc.
My guess is that there probably are a few small select populations in Africa that do in fact have exceptionally high IQs.
But Hart also argues that agriculture only usually gives rise when there is a lack of beasts to hunt. When animals abound and can be hunted for food, there is no impetus for agriculture.
This is why, he suggests, that Southern America developed agriculture. After killing off all the large animals species that once thrived there, the Natives had to find ways to survive. They did so on the few types of crops available.
I didn't even know that there were so many large wild animals that used to live on the Continent. The idea that Natives respect Mother Nature is something of recent mythology.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
I think some of you should read the book and help to put forth a lucid rebuttal. The idea that Christianity lifted elements of Egyptian religion is extremely significant. Hart is also weak in describing Egyptian architecture (he's clearly not without his biases). Sure the pyramids are a simple structure, but those are not the only structures and I cannot believe that these structures did not influence the Greeks to want to build. The use of pillars is first seen in Egypt. And of all the pre-existing civilizations in the Middle East, none have anything to show that they were grand, so they clearly were not responsible for transmitting architecture to Europe.
For all we know, the influence came from Egypt and Nubia and filtered into the Middle East or there was an exchange between the various societies here. This later spilled into Europe when the Middle Eastern people set out to conquer Europe.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Did you read the text?
Yes... I know who Rushton is and am very familiar with him. This is not news.
quote: I've read the entire article before. But from your link:
"The findings of the task force state that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual (but not necessarily population) differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual (again, not necessarily population) differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.
They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. They agree that there are no significant differences between the average IQ scores of males and females. The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction. While they admit there is no empirical evidence supporting it, the APA task force suggests that explanations based on social status and cultural differences may be possible. Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. "
They state that IQ is predictive of school and occupational achievement and that diet does not appear to have any role in IQ. They state that IQ has both environmental and genetic components.
I'm extremely literate, hence, I know how to read, therefore I understand what they've stated. This of course is completely irrelevant to the fact that you side-step their contention that it has no bearing on entire populations and is only confirmed/observable per the individual. Which is is apparent and in no way supports Rushton.
quote:They state that there is a large gap in black and white IQ.
They also state tentatively that the most probable explanation, given the available data, is that it is solely environmental. The little genetic evidence available hardly supports any genetic basis.
quote: They conclude by saying that the "little" evidence that points to genetics fails to support a genetic hypothesis for this difference. Does anybody else read between the lines of this obvious attempt at obfuscation?
There is no obfuscation as what is stated is as clear as anybody willing to take the proper authorities at face value. Searching high and low for a hidden message does us no good in the absence of both data and assertion.
quote:That paper if from 2001 and is simply obfuscation and denial of reality.
2001 is in this same decade as 2007. Also, this is an appeal to novelty, and a pathetic one at that.
The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a logical fallacy in which someone prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern. In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument isn't in itself a valid argument. The fallacy may take two forms: overestimating the new and modern, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be best-case, or underestimating status quo, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be worst-case.
quote:The "loons" that I cite merely argue a 50/50 contribution of IQ from environment and genetics.
And the said loons were soundly refuted on all fronts in both the 2001 paper that you object to for no reason whatsoever, and also the 2005 paper in direct rebuttal to the 2005 paper that you've cited. The 2001 also had a large contribution from many mainstream scientists in their respective fields, all in denunciation of this one loon.
quote: Those that you cite argue for virtually a wholly environmental explanation.
They argue it very effectively as well, given that this is where the evidence leads them. This is how science works. It has nothing at all to do with your own wishful thinking.
quote: The data does not support this.
Of course it does, simply look at the data presented. Truth by assertion in no way contradicts their data, it is simply another fallacy of yours in a desperate attempt to resurrect these primitive assumptions about human variation.
quote: Like I said, the science has gone in one direction and the papers I posted from 2005 have yet to be rebutted.
Obviously I was right and you don't read much. I've already posted a paper from 2005 in direct response to yours.
quote: They're but two people in a long line of people who study individual and group differences.
They're also among a long line of scientists who are completely opposed to their socialist ideas. They are in the extreme minority of what most would consider psuedoscience. On par with Alien abduction and white Egypt. This is well established.
quote:Jensen is a leader in his field and roundly recognized as such by his colleagues.
His "colleagues" however, have all but abandoned his ideas, which is why he is the primary source for such ideas, along with Rushton. His other works aren't being scrutinized here.
quote:He's a giant in psychology and psychometrics. Read "Bias in mental testing" and the "G Factor" by Jensen. These are two tomes dedicated to answering many of your questions.
Another hopeless appeal to authority that has nothing to do with the data in question.
quote:The lieberman paper you provide is throw-away obfuscation.
Obfuscation must be one of your favorite words, however, it is just another fallacy that doesn't address why Lieberman and the rest of his mainstream contributers to the paper are wrong. They've clearly addressed why Rushton and the like are completely off base though.
Of course it isn't, since the data that was refuted was that which is contained in the paper you cite here and not the other way around. Nisbett responds to Jensen and Rushton, not the other way around. You merely have chosen a preference, which is not objective.
quote:The only standouts are Flynn and some recent studies done by Fagan which point to some potential biases in knowledge based verbal questions on IQ tests.
Reductionism only paints you in an ignorant light. Flynn and Fagan are simply the tip of the iceberg, the mainstream view does not support Rushton or Jensen in any shape or form.
quote:I don't like Rushton. I believe he is a racist and that's the ideology that guides his research. However, I seperate what I believe about the man and the research. The research stands on its own as much as I wish it didn't.
This wishing of yours is the problem which compels your insistence of subjectivism as opposed to proof and evidence. The burden has always been on the said racist who you so readily cite to support your view and his evidence simply has not held up to scrutiny. It is very simple.
quote:Hart's book is essentially a work of history and he's has more than enough credentials to write history.
Not more than a historian or Egyptologist who specializes in history and Egyptology. Hart is an Astrophysicist.
Astrophysics is the branch of astronomy that deals with the physics of the universe, including the physical properties (luminosity, density, temperature, and chemical composition) of celestial objects such as stars, galaxies, and the interstellar medium, as well as their interactions. The study of cosmology is theoretical astrophysics at the largest scales where Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity plays a major role.
Therefore, when someone of his credentials tends to contradict mainstream archaeology and anthropology as it concerns history and Egyptology, such conclusions should indeed be taken with a very small grain of salt since it doesn't carry the same merit.
quote:What is history but an aggreggate of primary and secondary sources synthesized into a story that one tries to make as accurate as possible to describe the past?
Cop-out.. See above. Posted by Novel (Member # 14348) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote: For African ancestry in Jews - Per geneticist Cruciani and Underhill, Jews of Europe and the Middle East show up to 20% African paternal ancestry, and 10% or more African maternal ancestry?
That's interesting. I'm not sure what to make of this or what it tells us completely. If Jews were under intense selective pressure it wouldn't preclude them from having African ancestry. You have to remember that IQ is normally distributed for all races. Thus in every race you find intelligent and dull people.
quote: For Jewish IQ superiority over whites?
I don't think there is any question that Jews have intellectual proclivities that make them outshine Whites disproportionately.
How do you explain a group of people that make up 1/4 of 1% of the world in some many positions of power and contributions to science, math, arts - 50% of Nobel Prize Winners. Genes, not culture, are the primary factor.
quote: He states flat out that Jews are smarter than whites.
Is this also your position?
Yes
quote:
If so, what in your estimation is the cause of white mental inferiority?
Unique selection pressures on Jews. What other reason could there be? It's simply evolution.
European Jewry and Native American Indians are people who have displayed least sensible intelligence among the worlds population.
Survival is the sole goal of intelligence— at its basest. Their near extermination shows they were not too bright.
The decades leading up to the German cleansing of Jews in Europe, gave opportunity for European Jewry to stall, reverse, or amend perception of them as a threat or infection.
In the Death Camps, if any percentage of the slave laborers were geniuses, they did not show their genius.
Dark smoke of furnaces and human ashes falling on your head, would have told a gathering of vastly intelligent people...it is time to sacrifice our lives by destroying or damaging this ghastly equipment. It is time to gouge out an eye of a guard or by using a brick, brain a German officer. It is time to disrupt the efficiency of this death camp, so to save thousands of others currently being gathered by giving them...time.
These defiant and coldly intelligent acts would have been consensus of an exceedingly logical and vastly intelligent gathering of people were they facing immediate extinction and not solely slavery.
Having a high IQ is not important...having sensible intelligence is most important.
Or, I am entirely wrong and this topic has vastly lowered my IQ and made me insensible is more likely the right answer. Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I can't answer this question as I'm not familiar enough and it's not addressed in the book. However, given the connections made throughout thebook, I'd venture to say he would have a reasonable explanation for this.
Translation: Ofcourse I don't have the answer, only a vague reassurance (or leap of faith) as to this issue being covered in the book and so ....yeah.
quote: The majority of IQ data has been compiled in North America and throughout Europe. This is no secret. Populations in Europe vary in average IQ. Ireland is 93, Germany has among the highest with 100 or slightly over.
Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000.
Again nonsense. If IQ 'predicts" economics how is it that upper-class black are scoring lower on tests?
Furthermore, according to you, Ireland lags a full 7 IQ points behind germany, another european nation, yet interestingly ireland outranks germany in both GDP and quality of life ratings, infact Germany is not even in the top 10:
Apparently even between the same so called "race" the disparities can be huge. You've just proven my point. Thank you.
quote: This means very little. It confirms that humans cluster into the major races as historically defined: Asian, European, African. Nobody has argued that these populations are so distinct from another. There is overlap due to gene flow. That doesn't preclude the reality that there are overall different groups.
Where in that in entire excerpt does it "confirm" such a thing?
quote: Nobody is going to mistaken a Nigerian from a Japanese, from a Swede.
Nobody is going to confuse a short person for a tall person either, both are genetically inherited. You still have yet to prove that there is a fundamental "racial" distinction between "african traits and european traits" as there is between "tall and short". Are they not "races"? There are even geographically correlated "clusters" of "tall and short" people.
So called racial differences are entirely environmental and related among other things to latitude and diet, not pre-supposed racial clusters. They even vary widely within those groups themselves. For example the difference between ethiopians and congolese, or koreans and philipinos.
quote: We're supposedly less than 1% different genetically from chimps. Little means a lot. Hart addresses such questions in his book. Once again, I urge you to read it. Ignoring it will do no good.
Consider the fact that humans have even lesser diversity than chimps in a single troop, and the diversity represented between geographical groups is infinitesimally small in comparison.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:I'm extremely literate, hence, I know how to read, therefore I understand what they've stated. This of course is completely irrelevant to the fact that you side-step their contention that it has no bearing on entire populations and is only confirmed/observable per the individual.
If individuals differ, groups can differ too. They would differ among different races, and the same race. No two populations are identical.
quote:They also state tentatively that the most probable explanation, given the available data, is that it is solely environmental. The little genetic evidence available hardly supports any genetic basis.
This is incorrect as the data shows that genetics is at least of equal importance. Kids who are adopted show IQ's similar to their real parents - not their adoptive parents. Attempts to raise IQ of any group have all failed miserably. Trans-racial adoption studies also show differences in mean averages between races. The worldwide explanatory power is also significant. No matter where you go, Asians tend to have IQs around a certain average, Whites around another, Blacks around another. This suggests culture is not the key factor. The idea that environment is the sole determinant of intelligence is wishful thinking. We all know people that are smarter and dumber than ourselves who lived among us or in our own families who had the same opportunities and experiences we did.
quote:Obviously I was right and you don't read much. I've already posted a paper from 2005 in direct response to yours.
No others have been submitted for obvious reasons.
quote:They're also among a long line of scientists who are completely opposed to their socialist ideas. They are in the extreme minority of what most would consider psuedoscience.
Not true. The science of IQ is very well established and very mainstream especially in academics and admissions. It was only taken out of occupational selection recently because it was said to be biased against minorities who perform worse on average.
quote:His "colleagues" however, have all but abandoned his ideas, which is why he is the primary source for such ideas, along with Rushton. His other works aren't being scrutinized here.
European Jewry and Native American Indians are people who have displayed least sensible intelligence among the worlds population.
Survival is the sole goal of intelligence— at its basest. Their near extermination shows they were not too bright.
The decades leading up to the German cleansing of Jews in Europe, gave opportunity for European Jewry to stall, reverse, or amend perception of them as a threat or infection.
In the Death Camps, if any percentage of the slave laborers were geniuses, they did not show their genius.
Dark smoke of furnaces and human ashes falling on your head, would have told a gathering of vastly intelligent people...it is time to sacrifice our lives by destroying or damaging this ghastly equipment. It is time to gauge out an eye of a guard or by using a brick, brain a German officer. It is time to disrupt the efficiency of this death camp, so to save thousands of others currently being gathered by giving them...time.
These defiant and coldly intelligent acts would have been consensus of an exceedingly logical and vastly intelligent gathering of people were they facing immediate extinction and not solely slavery.
Having a high IQ is not important...having sensible intelligence is most important.
Or, I am entirely wrong and this topic has vastly lowered my IQ and made me insensible is more likely the right answer.
Nobody said that IQ encompasses all of intelligence or that there aren't other factors such as personality traits that play a role.
However, taking out one or two examples extreme in Jewish history says very little, especially considering how few Jews there are to begin with.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Translation: Ofcourse I don't have the answer, only a vague reassurance (or leap of faith) as to this issue being covered in the book and so ....yeah.
I've since read the chapter and addressed the questions.
quote:Again nonsense. If IQ 'predicts" economics how is it that upper-class black are scoring lower on tests?
quote:Furthermore, according to you, Ireland lags a full 7 IQ points behind germany, another european nation, yet interestingly ireland outranks germany in both GDP and quality of life ratings, infact Germany is not even in the top 10:
Apparently even between the same so called "race" the disparities can be huge. You've just proven my point. Thank you.
Ireland is a unique example given its recent history. In other words, it's an outlier or what would be deemed a statistical error. However, IQ does not predict EVERYTHING, thus we can expect to see give and take. But all things being equal, it has tremendous predictive value. Somebody with an IQ of 85 will never be a physicist.
quote:Where in that in entire excerpt does it "confirm" such a thing?
Please refer to Luigi Laca Cavalli-Sforza's book "Genes, Peoples, And Languages" among many other genetic sources.
quote:Nobody is going to confuse a short person for a tall person either, both are genetically inherited. You still have yet to prove that there is a fundamental "racial" distinction between "african traits and european traits" as there is between "tall and short". Are they not "races"? There are even geographically correlated "clusters" of "tall and short" people.
So called racial differences are entirely environmental and related among other things to latitude and diet, not pre-supposed racial clusters. They even vary widely within those groups themselves. For example the difference between ethiopians and congolese, or koreans and philipinos.
Variability within racial groups doesn't mean the racial groups don't exist. Sure, they're fuzzy boundaries, but they're there. Just look.
quote:Consider the fact that humans have even lesser diversity than chimps in a single troop, and the diversity represented between geographical groups is infinitesimally small in comparison.
When it comes to genes, the smallest of the small can have big effects. Heck, you get one bad cell and the next thing you know, you've got full blown cancer.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Note that ideas about nutrition don't seem to hold up in light of the fact that regardless of any deficits in the African American community with regard to intake don't show themselves in the world of athletics; they're disproportionately represented. Nonetheless it was already stated by YOUR sources that nutrition has not been shown to effect IQ.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
I'll once again PLEASE ask you to READ Hart's book. It looks into ALL of these questions succinctly. It's extremely easy concise reading. I was quite surprised since reading most history books is like pulling teeth. This guy isn't even a historian and he put together a book of history much more fulfilling and enlightening that any I've ever read. He includes key figures and battles in history, trade, and all the usual factors studied in history books. But he includes the element of population intelligence putting a neat spin on the whole paradigm through which history is looked.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
"Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000."
I meant to say that the CHILDREN of middle-class blacks score lower than the CHILDREN of poor Whites. It is thought that this is probably due to regression towards the mean in offpsring.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:If individuals differ, groups can differ too. They would differ among different races, and the same race. No two populations are identical.
This is a very indirect and ill-informed conclusion given that individuals vary (genetically) within populations by as much as 85%, which is significantly higher than between groups.
Also, race in its self is a social contruct with no biological basis in reality.
quote:This is incorrect as the data shows that genetics is at least of equal importance.
This is NOT what is reported in the said text that I cited, so really I have no idea why you're repeating the same fallacious dribble, given that this said data that you speak of has either been firmly discounted, or is non-existent and just a figment of your wild-running imagination.
quote: Kids who are adopted show IQ's similar to their real parents - not their adoptive parents.
Not true. IQ is hereditary, according to recent reports, but the trend usually indicates that the offspring will either have a lower or higher IQ. It depends. It's usually never identical though.
quote: Attempts to raise IQ of any group have all failed miserably.
Another falsification. Flynn reports that the Black IQ has risen at least 6 points between 1972 - 2002, relative to whites. In addition, WWII adoptees when raised by white parents, have been noted as possessing the same IQ as their illegitimate siblings.
quote:Trans-racial adoption studies also show differences in mean averages between races. The worldwide explanatory power is also significant.
This is what I mean by misappropriation of data as this is in direct contradiction to Moore and Lieberman.
quote:The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted by white parents had lower IQs than those of mixed-race children adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age at adoption is associated with lower IQ.
A superior adoption study - and one not discussed by the hereditarians - was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in IQ between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Moore's finding that children adopted by white families had IQs 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families.
quote:No matter where you go, Asians tend to have IQs around a certain average, Whites around another, Blacks around another.
You've obviously never seen the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", as that isn't true. There are drastic differences intra-ethnically among many geographically pooled groups, and the poorest nations tend to have the lowest IQs, which reveals the correlation.
quote:This suggests culture is not the key factor.
Well, as far the the table I've alluded to, Wealth seems to. Cultural factors are addressed by some of the people I've already cited.
quote: The idea that environment is the sole determinant of intelligence is wishful thinking.
No, wishful thinking is when one clamps on to an unsupported idea, like racial superiorty, even when there is copious amounts of research in direct refutation to it. Believing in such constructs as race (with out the necessary genetic evidence to support it) is also wishful thinking.
quote: We all know people that are smarter and dumber than ourselves who lived among us or in our own families who had the same opportunities and experiences we did.
Which is why IQ is definitely incumbent on the individual. Surely I'm a lot smarter than many white people I know (I'm not white, nor is my IQ below 120).
^Just posted this above. Though at the end of the day, this is childish. Persistence in racist mythology in no way constitutes a victory. After a while, people like that are just shunned. Rushton has been under repeated attack since the 80s, by countless academics who see him as nothing more than the racialist that he is.
quote:Not true. The science of IQ is very well established and very mainstream especially in academics and admissions.
What does this have to do with genetic causes between "racial" groups for such explanations in IQ difference? Obviously you're running away from what I stated. Their views are among the extreme minority.
quote: It was only taken out of occupational selection recently because it was said to be biased against minorities who perform worse on average.
Redundant..
quote:Jensen abandoned?
Quote: His "colleagues" however, have all but abandoned his ideas
Learn how to read and respond to what you're reading.. Thanx.
What does this have to do with his racist ideas? Nothing I suppose, so why the distraction? I clearly stated that his ideas are what's being scrutinized, none of the rebuttals towards him have appealed to any ad hominem fallacies as you suggest that I'm implying, but rather the ideas of what they're arguing against.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: "Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000."
I meant to say that the CHILDREN of middle-class blacks score lower than the CHILDREN of poor Whites. It is thought that this is probably due to regression towards the mean in offpsring.
Obviously nonsense, since indigenous black African immigrants out perform both whites and Asians, academically. This trend is seen in both Britain and America.
DO African immigrants make the smartest Americans? If you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up. - Click Here
Your original research is very sloppy.
Also see: "African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree", The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31 Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Ok, I just read the section of the Jews. It took me 2 minutes. His hypothesis is selection pressure.
That makes no sense whatsover as Jewish IQ is higher than white non Jewish IQ. Therefore Europeans cannot be responsible for *genetically raising* Jewish IQ.
In theory [for those who believe in this sillyness], it could be that Hybrid Jewish AfroAsiatic blood has raised the IQ of whites.
Perhaps this explains why whites could formulate no civilisation prior to the spread of African [E3b] and SouthWest Asian [J] genetic lineages?
Perhaps it also explains why "white" civilisation begins in the mixed race hybrids of Greece and Rome before much later spreading to the genetically recessive white Barbarians of the North?
Moreover both you and Hart have merely dodged the question of whether you are admitting that Jews are intellectually superior to whites?
Yes or no?
So, either you didn't read correctly, or Hart has failed to formulate and intelligible thesis.
Try again....
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Also, race in its self is a social contruct with no biological basis in reality.
Here we go again - more obfuscation. Next time you tell me that you mistook a Nigerian for an Icelander, I'll concede this point.
Regardless, we see differences in performance between the racial constructs that we "created".
quote:This is NOT what is reported in the said text that I cited, so really I have no idea why you're repeating the same fallacious dribble, given that this said data that you speak of has either been firmly discounted, or is non-existent and just a figment of your wild-running imagination.
What's reported is that there is environmental as well as genetics involved in IQ. They only say that the racial gap has little genetic support. It's hard to hold one view and not the other, given the mountains of evidence collated over the past 100 years.
quote:Not true. IQ is hereditary, according to recent reports, but the trend usually indicates that the offspring will either have a lower or higher IQ. It depends. It's usually never identical though.
It's close to their actual parents and FAR from their adoptive parents IQ. That's the point.
quote:Another falsification. Flynn reports that the Black IQ has risen at least 6 points between 1972 - 2002, relative to whites. In addition, WWII adoptees when raised by white parents, have been noted as possessing the same IQ as their illegitimate siblings.
As I've pointed out, increases in IQ does not necessarily mean increases in g. Moreover, there are studies that show the opposite - that in the early 80's IQ gap closed slightly but that it is now as far apart as it always has been.
quote:This is what I mean by misappropriation of data as this is in direct contradiction to Moore and Lieberman.
Can you provide a link to Moore's study. There is no entry for her on wikipedia or the study she's done.
Note that they'll have to do a follow-up study as it's well known that IQ can be "boosted" during young ages but by the time those kids are finishing highschool, all gains are lost. Because g exerts its force ever greater as one ages.
quote:No, wishful thinking is when one clamps on to an unsupported idea, like racial superiorty, even when there is copious amounts of research in direct refutation to it. Believing in such constructs as race (with out the necessary genetic evidence to support it) is also wishful thinking.
This isn't about racial superiority. It's about average differences in cognition between geographic groups. The theory of evolution would predict this. Rejecting it is like rejecting the very process of evolution itself. The fact that Blacks are typically physically stronger then Whites and Asians is also a product of evolution. It doesn't mean blacks are superior to Whites physically, just different. In a game of football, it would lead to Blacks winning more often on average.
quote:Which is why IQ is definitely incumbent on the individual. Surely I'm a lot smarter than many white people I know (I'm not white, nor is my IQ below 120).
Hart makes this point very clear in his book and he notes that it is the very few individuals responsible for all the things we cherish and utilize in society. This, however, does not discount the idea that a populations with AVERAGE higher intelligence isn't going to operate or evolve DIFFERENTLY than one with AVERAGE lower intelligence, all other things fairly equal.
quote:Incorrect once more. Nisbett (2007)
Incorrect. Look at the arguments in the paper and look at the arguments in his rebuttal. Same rehashed arguments that have been thoroughly refuted. This discussion was had elsewhere. Nisbett has turned from a psychologist into a wordsmith. It's sad.
Just to be sure, feel free to post any or all of Nisbett's arguments in any of his papers, and see if I can refute it.
quote:What does this have to do with genetic causes between "racial" groups for such explanations in IQ difference? Obviously you're running away from what I stated. Their views are among the extreme minority.
I studied psychology in University. Open up a psych 101 text. They all discuss the racial gap. The difference is that nowadays (I took the course probably 7 years ago now) they have to beat around the bush or avoid talking about it in detail because the reality that it is unchanging/stable spells potentially ugly realities.
quote:Quote: His "colleagues" however, have all but abandoned his ideas
Learn how to read and respond to what you're reading.. Thanx
Is that why his ideas are among the most cited in psychological literature? They've abandoned admitting to holding his ideas lest they be ostracized like him, but that is all.
quote:What does this have to do with his racist ideas? Nothing I suppose, so why the distraction?
There is nothing inherently racist in the belief that populations in different geographic regions evolved average differences in intelligence, temperament, and any number of features.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Shaun: Here we go again - more obfuscation
^ Agreed. Apparently that's the best you can do, since you still have not answered...
quote:Are you and Hart admitting that Jews are intellectually superior to whites?
Yes or no?
quote:Are you and Hart denying that Jews have more African blood than whites? Yes or no?
^ What's taking so long? Do you need another two minutes to refer back to your source, and then reply with another obfuscating non-answer?
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I've since read the chapter and addressed the questions.
What exactly have you addressed except re-addressing it with only more vagueness?
quote: In additional work he investigated geniuses in various fields and noted that their children, while typically gifted, were almost invariably closer to the average than their exceptional parents. He later described the same effect more numerically by comparing fathers' heights to their sons' heights. Again, the heights of sons both of unusually tall fathers and of unusually short fathers was typically closer to the mean height than their fathers' heights.
In your attempt to refute my earlier statement,You have instead basically refuted yourself with your own citing lol. So called High IQ groups like the jews should eventually "regress" towards the mean. Note interestingly again, the average IQ of Israel cited by Sundiata at 94.
Another self-refutal being the fact that you failed to cite a racially tied reference as to why middle-class blacks score lower than poor whites (which is your entire premise), but instead confirmed a statistical anomaly that occurs irrespective of the population group in question.
quote:Ireland is a unique example given its recent history. In other words, it's an outlier or what would be deemed a statistical error. However, IQ does not predict EVERYTHING, thus we can expect to see give and take. But all things being equal, it has tremendous predictive value. Somebody with an IQ of 85 will never be a physicist.
Translation: I cannot suffiently explain why IQ does not correlate with GDP and quality of life as it stands with germany and Ireland, so I opt for and *excuse* (cop-out) as to why it must be so and call it a 'statistical error'.
quote:Please refer to Luigi Laca Cavalli-Sforza's book "Genes, Peoples, And Languages"
Please refer to the study I cited originally and actually *comprehend* it this time, the information being presented. It will answer your question. Thank you.
quote:Variability within racial groups doesn't mean the racial groups don't exist. Sure, they're fuzzy boundaries, but they're there. Just look.
But it *does* mean they don't exist, thats the *point* of the study I cited. there are no "fuzzy" boundaries because the "boundaries" are not there. At least not in the way you are looking at it.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote: Obviously nonsense, since indigenous black African immigrants out perform both whites and Asians, academically. This trend is seen in both Britain and America.
DO African immigrants make the smartest Americans? If you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up.
One reason is that universities activily try to recruit blacks due to affirmative action. Do a more thorough examination and you'll see that blacks with lower scores get admitted over Asians and Whites with higher scores simply to fill the diversity culdron. This isn't some conspiracy theory, it's policy.
There is also selection bias. The top Africans emigrate, while Europeans and Canadians of all types of backgrounds (scholars and non-scholars) emigrate to America.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
In theory [for those who believe in this sillyness], it could be that Hybrid Jewish AfroAsiatic blood has raised the IQ of whites.
Perhaps this explains why whites could formulate no civilisation prior to the spread of African [E3b] and SouthWest Asian [J] genetic lineages?
This was already addressed. Lack of animals and cereal crops and harsh weather conditions in Europe.
quote: Perhaps it also explains why "white" civilisation begins in the mixed race hybrids of Greece and Rome before much later spreading to the genetically recessive white Barbarians of the North?
I'm not sure what you mean. Greeks and Romans weren't hybrids.
Civilization arose in Greece once the foundations of civilization was brought to them from the Middle East. It's like the snow ball effect. It was too difficult for them under the environmental conditions to start off civilization. But once the foundation was provided, they quickly surpassed those that brought it to them due to higher intelligence.
quote: Moreover both you and Hart have merely dodged the question of whether you are admitting that Jews are intellectually superior to whites?
Yes or no?
Jews have higher cognitive abstract thinking abilities than do Whites on average. Yes, absolutely.
quote: So, either you didn't read correctly, or Hart has failed to formulate and intelligible thesis.
Try again.... [/QB]
No, you didn't read correctly. You haven't read the book and you've ignored explanations that already answered your questions here.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Shaun: Here we go again - more obfuscation
^ Agreed. Apparently that's the best you can do, since you still have not answered...
quote:Are you and Hart admitting that Jews are intellectually superior to whites?
Yes or no?
quote:Are you and Hart denying that Jews have more African blood than whites? Yes or no?
^ What's taking so long? Do you need another two minutes to refer back to your source, and then reply with another obfuscating non-answer?
Already answered.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:In your attempt to refute my earlier statement,You have instead basically refuted yourself with your own citing lol. So called High IQ groups like the jews should eventually "regress" towards the mean. Note interestingly again, the average IQ of Israel cited by Sundiata at 94.
Another self-refutal being the fact that you failed to cite a racially tied reference as to why middle-class blacks score lower than poor whites (which is your entire premise), but instead confirmed a statistical anomaly that occurs irrespective of the population group in question.
You don't seem to understand how regression towards the mean works.
The average White IQ is 100. The average Black IQ is 85. Therefore if you have two black parents with IQs of 110, they can very easily have a child with an IQ of 100 or below. Meanwhile, the normal distribution of the White IQ means that even a poor White can have a higher IQ than 100. Hence, his academic success over the Middle-class black peer.
Regression towards the mean isn't a certainty. It's a matter of heritability. The chances of having a child with a HIGHER IQ than the parents is unlikely, however two high IQ parents are likely to have a high IQ child - much higher than non-high IQ parents. People notice that "smarts" runs in families because it's in the genes.
quote:Translation: I cannot suffiently explain why IQ does not correlate with GDP and quality of life as it stands with germany and Ireland, so I opt for and *excuse* (cop-out) as to why it must be so and call it a 'statistical error'.
IQ DOES sufficiently explain/correlate with GDP. That doesnt' mean there aren't going to be the few minority exceptions to the RULE. Barbados doesn't fit into the model. Why? Because it is unique - it is a small population with huge external capital investment in it - because it is a tax haven. Dig a little deeper into every outlier and you the explanation becomes clearer.
quote:Please refer to the study I cited originally and actually *comprehend* it this time, the information being presented. It will answer your question. Thank you.
It's one of many. People belong to races, the long established races we've always known and can see with our own eyes.
quote:But it *does* mean they don't exist, thats the *point* of the study I cited. there are no "fuzzy" boundaries because the "boundaries" are not there. At least not in the way you are looking at it.
Obfuscation yet again.
Let's say they don't exist biologically. The socially constructed races do not perform equally on tests. The socially constructed races are different in average intelligence. Better?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of middle-class groups.
The B-W IQ gap is larger at the highest level of SES than at the lowest. The above comment is inane. There have been literally hundreds of IQ studies of various racial groups from many different countries and they show the same outcome.
For the poor, a group that includes a substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia.
Turkheimer reached this conclusion by studying children who were age 7 and less. This is long before the shared environmental component vanishes. Furthermore, Turkheimer studies a level of poverty found in less than 5% of the black population of the U.S. Not good enough to account for the omnipresent IQ gap. Beyond a very low threshold for environmental conditions, the gap presents itself and estimates of IQ's heredity reach 50% +.
Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q. differential is indirect.
You have to wonder why this person makes such obviously false assertions. Perhaps he thinks his readers are not familiar with the research. A good bit of the evidence is so specific that it cannot be associated with environmental causes by any means.
During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.
This old warhorse from 1961 gets trotted out again. The "study" consisted of a very small N. Some citations claim 98 and some 69. Although the children's IQ was measured, the parents' IQ was not measured (neither was the rank of the US military father measured). So it is not known whether the children inherited the parental IQ. About 30 percent of US blacks failed pre-induction mental tests for the military, compared with 3 percent of white. So US black soldiers were a more IQ-selected and less-representative sample of their population than were white soldiers. 20% to 25% of the "Black" fathers were not African Americans but French North Africans.
The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted by white parents had lower I.Q.'s than those of mixed-race children adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age at adoption is associated with lower I.Q.
All adopted children reached adult IQs that were equal to their biological peers and which had no correlation with their adoptive families. Transracial studies were not limited to Blacks adopted by Whites but included Asians adopted by Whites. The Blacks ended up with lower IQs than their adoptive families and the Asians ended up with IQs higher than their adoptive families.
That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-called Flynn Effect.
No, it is not.
James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole, I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002.
Not true. What he found was an increase in raw scores. At the same time scholastic-component raw scores (within the same tests) declined.
In the United States alone, it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over such a brief period to account for the shift;
He got one right.
it must have been the result of powerful social factors.
No. There is absolutely no evidence that any social factors were at work. It appears that most or all of the gains were specific and not g loaded and are apparently due to multiple factors such as nutrition, family size, and environmental conditions that exist in very early life, since the secular rise is observable in toddlers.
Most important, we know that interventions at every age from infancy to college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic achievement, sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time.
The IQ boosts that have been reported were temporary (very short lived) and were believed to be largely the result of teaching to the test. That means that the gains were in s loading and not in g loading. No g loading gains have been demonstrated.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Sshaun002 wrote: They were not culturally and mentally more like North Africans than Northern Europeans. They were more like Northern Europeans. The difference is that civilization was brought to them first. They later brought it to Northern Europe
What are you talking about? greeks were never like europeans during their days, neither were romans. As i said look at the remainings of these civilizations, you will find them allover northafrica and the levant, but almost nothing in central and northern europe other than a couple of roman baths or one or two governing houses in the south of the Rhen river in germania.
Here is a list of berber and syrian Roman Emperors
Sampsiceramus reigned 64 BC-43 BC Imblichus reigned 64 BC-31 BC Alexander reigned 31 BC-29 BC Unknown person reigned 29 BC-20 BC Imblichus II reigned 20 BC-11 BC Sampsiceramus II reigned 11 BC-42 Gaius Julius Azizus or Asisus reigned 42-54 Gaius Julius Sohaemus (brother to Azizus) reigned 54-73 Gaius Julius Alexio (son to Sohaemus) reigned 73-78 Gaius Julius Sampsiceramus III Silas (son to Alexio) reigned 79-120 Gaius Julius Longinus Soaemus died 160 Gaius Julius Sulpicius died ca. 210 Uranius Antoninus reigned 210-235 Lucius Julius Aurelius Sulpicius Severus Uranius Antoninus reigned 235-254
There is no way that romans and greeks would consider themselves central or northern european with such emperors, they really had not much to do with northern and central europeans, all this perception of romans and greeks being more european than northafrican or levant is a recent creation by the french and british.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Are you and Hart admitting that Jews are intellectually superior to whites?
Yes or no?
quote:Are you and Hart denying that Jews have more African blood than whites? Yes or no?
quote:Shaun's non-answer: Already answered.
^ lol. More cowardly obfuscation from Shaun.
Afraid to answer a yes or no question.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
Here we go again - more obfuscation. Next time you tell me that you mistook a Nigerian for an Icelander, I'll concede this point.
I see that the repetition in your constant reference to what you deem to be "obsfucations" is simply a plea to ignorance in the majority of cases (I've figured it out). You exemplify this well by suggesting that phenotypical variation is in any way suggestive of race (as in a "divergence" of sub-species'). Surely, the most basic of darwinian principles allow for this to apply to a completely homogeneous species? Did you read the paper or what?
quote:Regardless, we see differences in performance between the racial constructs that we "created".
Which has more to do with your creation than objective reality, which is the main theme of the prevailing argument/view.
quote:What's reported is that there is environmental as well as genetics involved in IQ.
Then maybe you should read the cited literature again, instead of projecting your own obvious distortions of the data therein.
quote:They only say that the racial gap has little genetic support.
Hence, "little support". What is there to take out of context? They also say that it's a social construct, as I well informed you.
quote: It's hard to hold one view and not the other, given the mountains of evidence collated over the past 100 years.
Well, they indeed represent the consensus of mainstream academia, as was reported in the provided text its self.
quote:It's close to their actual parents and FAR from their adoptive parents IQ. That's the point.
Maybe, but there actually is no point since this tells us nothing about what the parents themselves were subjected to.
quote:As I've pointed out, increases in IQ does not necessarily mean increases in g. Moreover, there are studies that show the opposite - that in the early 80's IQ gap closed slightly but that it is now as far apart as it always has been.
The point is that the increase was relative to other races, meaning everybody's was increasing, but Blacks were closing in faster. As Nisbett points out, such can either be attributed to extremely rapid evolution or social factors, with the latter representing the more reasonable hypothesis.
quote:It was the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study
Can you provide a link to Moore's study. There is no entry for her on wikipedia or the study she's done.
Wikipedia? What need is there for a "wiki" reference when the reference was provided by a reliable source in Nisbett? The point is that you were proven wrong and refuted.
quote:Note that they'll have to do a follow-up study as it's well known that IQ can be "boosted" during young ages but by the time those kids are finishing highschool, all gains are lost. Because g exerts its force ever greater as one ages.
Your demands are non-applicable. Moore's study was much more efficient than the 1970's study in question. That study WAS the "back-up study".
Circular reasoning. He's refuted the same tired arguments put fourth by Jensen.
quote: This isn't about racial superiority.
Yes it is.
quote:It's about average differences in cognition between geographic groups.
Which isn't evident.
quote: The theory of evolution would predict this.
Not within a homogeneous species that hasn't diverged.
quote: Rejecting it is like rejecting the very process of evolution itself.
Hyperbole..
quote: The fact that Blacks are typically physically stronger then Whites and Asians is also a product of evolution.
Physicality has no correlation to intelligence, and such physical differences are adaptive strategies that have been demonstrated as being beneficial to one's environment. Key word, "demonstrated", and by such I mean obvious things like dark pigmentation and long limbs (elongated bodies).
quote: It doesn't mean blacks are superior to Whites physically, just different. In a game of football, it would lead to Blacks winning more often on average.
It doesn't mean anything, these are social things that you connect to something trivial. Europeans definitely perform better physically at certain things as well, probably things more suited for a cold adapted body.
quote:Hart makes this point very clear in his book and he notes that it is the very few individuals responsible for all the things we cherish and utilize in society. This, however, does not discount the idea that a populations with AVERAGE higher intelligence isn't going to operate or evolve DIFFERENTLY than one with AVERAGE lower intelligence, all other things fairly equal.
Hart is an Astrophysicist.
Astrophysics is the branch of astronomy that deals with the physics of the universe, including the physical properties (luminosity, density, temperature, and chemical composition) of celestial objects such as stars, galaxies, and the interstellar medium, as well as their interactions. The study of cosmology is theoretical astrophysics at the largest scales where Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity plays a major role.
quote:Incorrect. Look at the arguments in the paper and look at the arguments in his rebuttal. Same rehashed arguments that have been thoroughly refuted. This discussion was had elsewhere. Nisbett has turned from a psychologist into a wordsmith. It's sad.
Ironically, the whole time you've done nothing more than give us this wordsmithing in that you make baseless claims and give indirect criticism with out addressing what you're opposed to and why. You instead appeal to the same babbles from the same two racist scientists whose views have been rejected by not only Nisbett, but the vast majority of anthropologists and psychologists. This is apparent in the Lieberman study. Him ranting on 4 years later is irrelevant, he has already been systematically destroyed.
quote:Just to be sure, feel free to post any or all of Nisbett's arguments in any of his papers, and see if I can refute it.
You can't even refute Lieberman's. Ha! Rushton couldn't even do it in Lieberman's own publishing, let alone you.
quote:I studied psychology in University. Open up a psych 101 text. They all discuss the racial gap. The difference is that nowadays (I took the course probably 7 years ago now) they have to beat around the bush or avoid talking about it in detail because the reality that it is unchanging/stable spells potentially ugly realities.
The reality being, that you, along with the other subtle racists go mad when respectable academics don't give you fuel to feed your raging fire (since there is none).
quote:Is that why his ideas are among the most cited in psychological literature? They've abandoned admitting to holding his ideas lest they be ostracized like him, but that is all.
He's only made out to be a primary example of where scientific racism will lead you.
quote:There is nothing inherently racist in the belief that populations in different geographic regions evolved average differences in intelligence, temperament, and any number of features.
It is racist when one chooses to believe it as n article of faith in the absence of sound evidence. It is absurd and very silly really, but hey?
quote:Are you and Hart admitting that Jews are intellectually superior to whites?
Yes or no?
quote:Are you and Hart denying that Jews have more African blood than whites? Yes or no?
quote:Shaun's nonanswer: Already answered.
^ Obfuscation yet again.
Answer....yes, or no?
Yes, Jews are on average intellectually superior.
I've answered your other question. There is nothing about it in Hart's book. It's merely a book, it can't cover every single detail known to man, but it does a good job of accounting for much if not most of what we see. That makes it a reasonable thesis. If the topic wasn't as controversial, the evidence provided would be accepted by most readers.
With regard to Jews, I've already said that African ancestry would not preclude high intelligence if high intelligence was selected for.
If we get the cream of the crop Africans and breed them over centuries and allow the dull ones to perish, we could very well create the Black version of Jews. This is just a process of eugenics.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
There is not much else I can do. I've provided more than enough information to all of you.
You put forth spurious arguments that have been laid to rest in the academic community for some time now. There is consensus but unlike in the past, it is the politically correct ideology that trumps actual findings in super charged areas like this. Careful wording that says one thing, although not explicitly, are out there in the "mainstream" academia if one reads between the lines.
The Rushton/Jensen paper hasn't been disputed because it can't be. Only attacking Rushton/Jensen themselves is what one is left with.
Read Hart's book for an overview and aggregate of the relevant data. He takes a no-holes-barred approach and isn't afraid to present all the scholarly research done on the topic.
Those who dismiss reality are bound to fall hard or not understand why certain social problems persist because they're being intellectually dishonest.
Don't be angry when academic scores between Whites, Asians, and Blacks remains exactly as it is now. It's not due to racism. It's average genetic limitations. A horrendous joke wrought upon man by the very fact of evolution. Ignoring it only does harm.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of middle-class groups.
The B-W IQ gap is larger at the highest level of SES than at the lowest. The above comment is inane. There have been literally hundreds of IQ studies of various racial groups from many different countries and they show the same outcome.
For the poor, a group that includes a substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia.
Turkheimer reached this conclusion by studying children who were age 7 and less. This is long before the shared environmental component vanishes. Furthermore, Turkheimer studies a level of poverty found in less than 5% of the black population of the U.S. Not good enough to account for the omnipresent IQ gap. Beyond a very low threshold for environmental conditions, the gap presents itself and estimates of IQ's heredity reach 50% +.
Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q. differential is indirect.
You have to wonder why this person makes such obviously false assertions. Perhaps he thinks his readers are not familiar with the research. A good bit of the evidence is so specific that it cannot be associated with environmental causes by any means.
During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.
This old warhorse from 1961 gets trotted out again. The "study" consisted of a very small N. Some citations claim 98 and some 69. Although the children's IQ was measured, the parents' IQ was not measured (neither was the rank of the US military father measured). So it is not known whether the children inherited the parental IQ. About 30 percent of US blacks failed pre-induction mental tests for the military, compared with 3 percent of white. So US black soldiers were a more IQ-selected and less-representative sample of their population than were white soldiers. 20% to 25% of the "Black" fathers were not African Americans but French North Africans.
The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted by white parents had lower I.Q.'s than those of mixed-race children adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age at adoption is associated with lower I.Q.
All adopted children reached adult IQs that were equal to their biological peers and which had no correlation with their adoptive families. Transracial studies were not limited to Blacks adopted by Whites but included Asians adopted by Whites. The Blacks ended up with lower IQs than their adoptive families and the Asians ended up with IQs higher than their adoptive families.
That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-called Flynn Effect.
No, it is not.
James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole, I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002.
Not true. What he found was an increase in raw scores. At the same time scholastic-component raw scores (within the same tests) declined.
In the United States alone, it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over such a brief period to account for the shift;
He got one right.
it must have been the result of powerful social factors.
No. There is absolutely no evidence that any social factors were at work. It appears that most or all of the gains were specific and not g loaded and are apparently due to multiple factors such as nutrition, family size, and environmental conditions that exist in very early life, since the secular rise is observable in toddlers.
Most important, we know that interventions at every age from infancy to college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic achievement, sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time.
The IQ boosts that have been reported were temporary (very short lived) and were believed to be largely the result of teaching to the test. That means that the gains were in s loading and not in g loading. No g loading gains have been demonstrated.
This was useless. All you're doing is disagreeing with a noted academic with no references to support your logic. It's also apparent that you have no answer to Moore and Tobias. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
It's clear that NONE of you are acquinted with IQ literature.
Next you'll be quoting the Mismeasure of Man - yet another refuted and laughable diatribe. It's been hammered not just by psychologists but all facets of academia who show that Gould had no idea what he was writing about.
All of the arguments of the "noted academic" (Jensen is FAR more "noted" than Nisbett) is rebutted in the Jensen/Rushton that I posted TWICE. I just put it in short form. Yet, none of you will READ it anyway. Believing in fairy tales doesn't make them true.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: There is not much else I can do. I've provided more than enough information to all of you.
You put forth spurious arguments that have been laid to rest in the academic community for some time now. There is consensus but unlike in the past, it is the politically correct ideology that trumps actual findings in super charged areas like this. Careful wording that says one thing, although not explicitly, are out there in the "mainstream" academia if one reads between the lines.
The Rushton/Jensen paper hasn't been disputed because it can't be. Only attacking Rushton/Jensen themselves is what one is left with.
Read Hart's book for an overview and aggregate of the relevant data. He takes a no-holes-barred approach and isn't afraid to present all the scholarly research done on the topic.
Those who dismiss reality are bound to fall hard or not understand why certain social problems persist because they're being intellectually dishonest.
Don't be angry when academic scores between Whites, Asians, and Blacks remains exactly as it is now. It's not due to racism. It's average genetic limitations. A horrendous joke wrought upon man by the very fact of evolution. Ignoring it only does harm.
Why the ineffective rhetoric? You've already shown your bias and preference for Rushton and Jensen, but answer Tobias, Moore, Cernovsky and Lieberman among the rest of the majority. Your flailing criticism of political correctness doesn't at all refute anything, nor does your blind assertion that Jensen and Rushton remain undisputed mean anything in the face of the public and vicious onslaught that they've received. They've been SOUNDLY rebutted by so many, yet your bias cripples you, leaving you to resort to such foolish tactics as these.
Cranial size and number of excess neurons of North American Blacks compared favorably to those of "Caucasoids". It is only by pooling their data with data for Negroids from countries notorious for famine and infant malnutrition that Rushton obtained an illusory support for his postulates.
Also see: On the Similarities of American Blacks and Whites: A Reply to J. P. Rushton Zack Z. Cernovsky, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 25, No. 6 (Jul., 1995), pp. 672-679
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: Shaun writes, yes, Jews are on average intellectually superior to whites?
Thank you for the answer.
Next question.
Is it possible in your view because the Jews are racially hybrid and mixed with Blacks and Asians?
Are the whites possible mentally inferior to Jews due to their lack of Black and Asian blood?
Just asking.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Remember, just because you speak the loudest doesn't make you right. You will drown out my posts soon enough with arguments that are not germaine to the thesis, what I've written, and the mountains of evidence provided to support it. Most will comprise of personal attacks like calling me a "coward" yet none of these things change reality. It is what it is.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
sshaun002, Your talk about the higher IQ of Jews--you mean Ashkenazi Jews since the IQ of Israel["Free at last! Home(?) at last! is 94, statistically on par with African Americans who, post "integration"[1970 et seq.], score 91--being founded on selection pressures.
This is sheer bunk! The genomes of Ashkenazi Jews show European and West Asian affinities on the Y side and European genealogies on the MtDNA side.
Now bear in mind that very few Christian familes of note and wealth would have allowed their daughters to consort with Jews who following the folkloric beliefs of Europe were seen as physically degenerate, of deformed moral character and of warped intelligence. Check Sheakepeare's Merchant of Venice on the long-standing European belefs concerning the moral and physical degeneracy of the Jew. I use the word "degeneracy" because that was the term of choice of the Nazi race scientists(Mengele et al.) and a whole tradition before the Nazis.
Thus the only females available for the vaunted "selection pressures" you rave about would have been the down-and-out rejects of Christian society: those from the working classes or lower middle classes.
Furthermore, Jews and other Europeans did not sanction polygamy which would have allowed high status Jews(males) to disseminate their "qualities" in the way the racial eugenicists fantasize about.
If Ashkenazi Jews have been awarded a disproportionate number of that European prize named after Alfred Nobel, its because Jews are much more overtly and clandetinely ethnocentric than other Europeans and just network more. This helps with the Nobels and other awards and perks because past winners have a big hand in nominating future winners. It's done at all level with the Ashkenai network.
The IQ fundamentalists are dazzled by the theoretically shoddy work of people like Jensen and the eccentric buffoon Rushton--the man who abused his male students by giving them questionnaires with weird questions such as 1)"what is your size--length and girth?, and 2)how far do you "shoot"?--all on the "wonderfully" scientific hypothesis that "endowment size is inversely proportional to brain size". Hence the absurd racial "intelligence" hierarchy of Asians--Europeans--Africans.
And we have fellow-travellers such as Hart--not much more than a simple-minded hack from just skimming through his pseudo-science.
The point is that there is no valid genetic explanation of the intellectual achievements of Ashkenazi Jews--except an environmental one: being of urban background their environment propelled them not toward fox hunting and jousting but toward those trades and occupations that required reading, writing and numeracy: money lending, haberdashery, shop-keeping, buying and selling, trafickingetc. As Marx(an aetheist Jew) put it: "the Jew represented the essence of capitalism". It's all environmental--just like learned languages, accents and mannerisms.
What is indeed evident about the literature on IQ is that the IQ fundamentalists like true-believers anywhere just ignore any data that refutes their dearly held fantasies. For example, Jensen in 1970 published a paper titled "IQ of Indentical Twins Reared Apart"(Behavior Genetics, 1970, 1, 133-148)in which 122 pairs of monozygotic twins who were reared apart but within the same European cultures were tested for their IQs. The average spread was 7 points and about 10% of the 122 pairs registered differentials of at least 14 points with the greatest spread being 24 points(1 case). Now this would certainly refute the hypothesis that IQ scores are mainly genetically driven. But what do the fundamentalists do? They simply ignore this kind of research only to look around for or concoct results that would confirm their frenzied beliefs.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: It's clear that NONE of you are acquinted with IQ literature.
Next you'll be quoting the Mismeasure of Man - yet another refuted and laughable diatribe. It's been hammered not just by psychologists but all facets of academia who show that Gould had no idea what he was writing about.
All of the arguments of the "noted academic" (Jensen is FAR more "noted" than Nisbett) is rebutted in the Jensen/Rushton that I posted TWICE. I just put it in short form. Yet, none of you will READ it anyway. Believing in fairy tales doesn't make them true.
More benign rhetoric from you, I suppose? The IQ literature in question has totally evaded you, as you seem to act as though rehearsing the same socialist arguments from the same subjects has done anything by way of answering their own contradictions, as pointed out by so many of their critics. They are jokes and so are their followers.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Remember, just because you speak the loudest doesn't make you right. You will drown out my posts soon enough.
^ This is called a pity plea.
quote:Shaun writes: I've answered your other question
This one....
quote:Are you and Hart denying that Jews have more African blood than whites? Yes or no?
I didn't see the answer, but I will accept that your answer is YES, and you admit that -in your view- *racially hybrid European Jews* who have greater amounts of African ancestry are thereby superior to whites.
Very well then. I consider my questions answered.
Additional questions....
It is possible that the intellectual superiority of Africans is responsible for the greater antiquity of African civilisation in the Nile Valley which precedes European civilisation by thousands of years?
Is it possible that the introduction of African and Semitic 'blood' into the inbred recessive gene-pool of white Europeans is what lifted them out of their paleolithic cavedwelling hunter gather status and allowed them to become civilised?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Don't ignore the research. In time, your assertions will begin to look even more absurd then they are now. This is embarrassing.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: One reason is that universities activily try to recruit blacks due to affirmative action.
Affrimative action doesn't apply to African Immigrants, only to those descendants of the middle passage. There you go, grasping at straws again. You have no answers.
quote:There is also selection bias. The top Africans emigrate, while Europeans and Canadians of all types of backgrounds (scholars and non-scholars) emigrate to America.
Whatever the case may be, proportionately, the development index seems to indicate that they do better than all immigrants, including U.S. -born citizens. Obviously no selection bias.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Don't ignore the research.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: This is embarrassing.
lol. Well, we're sure you're trying your best, so, don't let it get you down.
quote:It is possible that the intellectual superiority of Africans is responsible for the greater antiquity of African civilisation in the Nile Valley which precedes European civilisation by thousands of years?
Is it possible that the introduction of African and Semitic 'blood' into the inbred recessive gene-pool of white Europeans is what lifted them out of their paleolithic cavedwelling hunter gather status and allowed them to become civilised?
?????
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Just pointing this out again
quote:Originally posted by markellion: alTakruri gave us this information on this site, thanks
Histoire de la Civilisation Africaine
quote: "When they [the first European navigators of the end of the Middle Ages] arrived in the Gulf of Guinea and landed at Vaida, the captains were astonished to find the streets well cared for, bordered for several leagues in length by two rows of trees; for many days they passed through a country of magnificent fields, a country inhabited by men clad in brilliant costumes, the stuff of which they had woven themselves! More to the South in the Kingdom of Congo, a swarming crowd dressed in silk and velvet; great states well ordered, and even to the smallest details, powerful sovereigns, rich industries, -- civilized to the marrow of their bones. And the condition of the countries on the eastern coasts -- Mozambique, for example -- was quite the same.
"What was revealed by the navigators of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries furnishes an absolute proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the desert zone of the Sahara, was in full efflorescence which the European conquistadors annihilated as far as they progressed. For the new country of America needed slaves, and Africa had them to offer, hundreds, thousands, whole cargoes of slaves. However, the slave trade was never an affair which meant a perfectly easy conscience, and it exacted a justification; hence one made of the Negro a half-animal, an article of merchandise. And in the same way the notion of fetish (Portuguese feticeiro) was invented as a symbol of African religion. As for me, I have seen in no part of Africa the Negroes worshipping a fetish. The idea of the 'barbarous Negro' is a European invention which has consequently prevailed in Europe until the beginning of this century.
"What these old captains recounted, these chiefs of expeditions -- Delbes, Marchais, Pigafetta, and all the others, what they recounted is true. It can be verified. In the old Royal Kunstkammer of Dresden, in the Weydemann colection of Ulm, in many another 'cabinet of curiosities' of Europe, we still find West African collections dating from this epoch. Marvellous plush velvets of an extreme softness, made of the tenderest leaves of a certain kind of banana plant; stuffs soft and supple, brilliant and delicate, like silks, woven with the fiber of a raffia, well prepared; powerful javelins with points encrusted with copper in the most elegant fashion; bows so graceful in form and so beautifully ornamented that they would do honor to any museum of arms whatsoever; calabashes decorated with the greatest taste; sculpture in ivory and wood of which the work shows a very great deal of application and style.
"And all that came from cuntries of the African periphery, delivered over after that to slave merchants, . . .
"But when the pioneers of the last century pierced this zone of 'European civilization' and the wall of protection which had, for the time being raised behind it -- the wall of protection of the Negro still 'intact' -- they found everywhere the same marvels which the captains had found on the coast.
"In 1906 when I penetrated into the territory of Kassai-Sankuru, I found still, villages of which the principle streets were bordered on each side, for leagues, with rows of palm trees, and of which the houses, decorated each one in charming fashion, were works of art as well.
"No man who did not carry sumptuous arms of iron or copper, with inlaid blades and handles covered with serpent skin. Everywhere velvets and silken stuffs. Each cup, each pipe, each spoon was an object of art perfectly worthy to be compared to the creations of the Roman European style. But all this was only the particularly tender and iridescent bloom which adorns a ripe and marvellous fruit; the gestures, the manners, the moral code of the entire people, from the little child to the old man, although they remained within absolutely natural limits, were imprinted with dignity and grace, in the families of the princes and the rich as in the vassals and slaves. I know of no northern people who can be compared with these primitives for unity of civilization. And the peaceful beauty was carried away by the floods.
"But many men had this experience: the explorers who left the savage and warrior plateau of the East and South and the North to descend into the plains of the Congo, of Lake Victoria, of the Ubangi: men such as Speke and Grant, Livingstone, Cameron, Stanley, Schweinfurth, Junker, de Brazza -- all of them -- made the same statements: they came from countries dominated by the rigid laws of the African Ares, and from then on they penetrated into the countries where peace reigned, and joy in adornment and in beauty; countries of old civilizations, of ancient styles, of harmonious styles.
"The revelations of fifteenth and seventeenth century navigators furnish us with certain proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the Sahara desert zone, was still in full bloom, in the full brilliance of harmonious and well-formed civilizations. In the last century the superstition ruled that all high culture of Africa came from Islam. Since then we have learned much, and we know today that the beautiful turbans and clothes of the Sudanese folk were already used in Africa before Muhammed was even born or before Ethiopian culture reached inner Africa. Since then we have learned that the peculiar organization of the Sudanese states existed long before Islam and that all of the art of building and education, of city organization and handwork in Negro Africa, were thousands of years older than those of Middle Europe.
"Thus in the Sudan old real African warm-blooded culture existed and could be found in Equatorial Africa, where neither Ethiopian thought, Hamitic blood, or European civilization had drawn the pattern. Everywhere when we examine this ancient culture it bears the same impression. In the great museums -- Trocadero, British Museum, in Belgium, Italy, Holland, and Germany -- everywhere we see the same spirit, the same character, the same nature. All of these separate pieces unite themselves to the same expression and build a picture equally impressive as that of a collection of the art of Asia. The striking beauty of the cloth, the fantastic beauty of the drawing and the sculpture, the glory of the ivory weapons, the collection of fairy tales equal to the Thousand and One nights, the Chinese novels, and the Indian philosophy.
"In comparison with such spiritual accomplishments the impression of the African spirit is easily seen. It is stronger in its folds, simpler in its richness. Every weapon is simple and practical, not only in form but fantasy. Every line of carving is simple and strong. There is nothing that makes a clearer impression of strength, and all that streams out of the fire and the hut, the sweat and the grease- treated hides and the animal dung. Everything is practical, strong, workmanly. This is the character of the African style. When one approaches it with full understanding, one immediately realizes that this impression rules all Africa. It expresses itself in the activity of all Negro people even in their sculpture. It speaks out of their dances and their masks; out of the understanding of their religious life, just as out of the reality of their living, their state building, and their conception of fate. It lives in their fables, their fairy stories, their wise sayings and their myths. And once we are forced to this conclusion, then the Egyptian comes into the comparison. For this discovered culture form of Negro Africa has the same peculiarity.
Leo Frobenius Histoire de la Civilisation Africaine translated by Back and Ermoat Paris: Gallimard, 1936 6th edition page 56
in
W. E. Burghardt Du Bois The World and Africa: An inquiry into the part which Africa has played in world history New York: Viking Press, 1946 pp. 79, 156
Goodness grief. He talks about Rushton's measurement of brain sizes as if Rushton is the only person to have measured brains. Rushton is one man who did one study on brain measurements. Everybody else who did the same found the SAME RESULTS, EVEN GOULD!!!
Recent MRI Data has CONFIRMED THIS.
Please stop posting this 2001 non-scientific tract that serves but fails to muddy the waters.
The old "race is just a construct" really has no relevance in this discussion. As I've said TWICE already. So what? If we construct race, and those races perform differently, consistently, then there is a difference.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This is from “The Growth of African Civilization A History of West Africa 1000-1800" by Basil Davidson
City of Benin in southern Nigeria
In 1602 a Dutch traveler O. Dapper wrote of the city
quote:
“It seemed to be very big, when you go into it, you enter a great broad street, which is not paved, and seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam [the capital of Holland]. The street is straight, and does not bend at any point. It is thought to be four miles long. ‘At the gate where I went in on horseback, I saw a very big wall, very thick and made of earth, with a very deep and broad ditch outside it… And outside the gate there is also a big suburb. Inside the gate, and along the great street just mentioned, you see many other great streets on either side, and these are also straight and do not bend…
‘The houses in this town stand in good order, one close and evenly placed with its neighbor, just as the houses in Holland stand… They have square rooms, sheltered by a roof that is open in the middle, where the rain, and wind and light come in. The people sleep and eat in these rooms, but they have other rooms for cooking and different purposes… ‘The king’s court is very great. It is built around many square-shaped yards. These yards have surrounding galleries where sentries are always places. I myself went into these court far enough to pass through four great yards like this, and yet wherever I looked I could still see gate after gate which opened into other yards....'
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Are you and Hart denying that Jews have more African blood than whites? Yes or no?I didn't see the answer, but I will accept that your answer is YES, and you admit that -in your view- *racially hybrid European Jews* who have greater amounts of African ancestry are thereby superior to whites.
Like I said, under unique selective pressure, ANY group could have high intelligence. It's evolution baby. Such selective pressures have not been apparent in Africa.
quote: It is possible that the intellectual superiority of Africans is responsible for the greater antiquity of African civilisation in the Nile Valley which precedes European civilisation by thousands of years?
No, the unique selective pressure is responsible for it. They were still Jews before the Middle Ages but were not as intelligent. Pressures since then, a sort of informal eugenics is a reasonable hypothesis that works to explain high Jewish intelligence we see today. Their modern contributions to civilization support this.
quote: Is it possible that the introduction of African and Semitic 'blood' into the inbred recessive gene-pool of white Europeans is what lifted them out of their paleolithic cavedwelling hunter gather status and allowed them to become civilised?
It could be but it's doubtful. If African admixture was responsible for Jewish intelligence we would expect to see other African-European and Afircan-Middle Eastern hybrids with high intelligence. This is not the case - it lowers the intelligence. Hence the factor of selective pressure.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Goodness grief. He talks about Rushton's measurement of brain sizes as if Rushton is the only person to have measured brains. Rushton is one man who did one study on brain measurements. Everybody else who did the same found the SAME RESULTS, EVEN GOULD!!!
Recent MRI Data has CONFIRMED THIS.
Please stop posting this 2001 non-scientific tract that serves but fails to muddy the waters.
The old "race is just a construct" really has no relevance in this discussion. As I've said TWICE already. So what? If we construct race, and those races perform differently, consistently, then there is a difference.
Goodness grief, stop contradicting while trying to reassure yourself at the same time, it is obvious that you are very insecure. Rushton's entire argument was systematically dissected by not only Lieberman, but an entire panel of anthropologists, as can be seen towards the bottom. Cherry picking and ranting about the significance of brain measurements (which was addressed thoroughly by Lieberman and the like), is silly. His entire argument, in addition to the very premise it was based on, was exposed and ousted for good scientifically. Rehearsing his same rants from 1988, 4 years later tells us nothing other than the fact that he and his followers are still racist. But nobody seems to care anyways, so..
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: This is from “The Growth of African Civilization A History of West Africa 1000-1800" by Basil Davidson
City of Benin in southern Nigeria
In 1602 a Dutch traveler O. Dapper wrote of the city
quote:
“It seemed to be very big, when you go into it, you enter a great broad street, which is not paved, and seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam [the capital of Holland]. The street is straight, and does not bend at any point. It is thought to be four miles long. ‘At the gate where I went in on horseback, I saw a very big wall, very thick and made of earth, with a very deep and broad ditch outside it… And outside the gate there is also a big suburb. Inside the gate, and along the great street just mentioned, you see many other great streets on either side, and these are also straight and do not bend…
‘The houses in this town stand in good order, one close and evenly placed with its neighbor, just as the houses in Holland stand… They have square rooms, sheltered by a roof that is open in the middle, where the rain, and wind and light come in. The people sleep and eat in these rooms, but they have other rooms for cooking and different purposes… ‘The king’s court is very great. It is built around many square-shaped yards. These yards have surrounding galleries where sentries are always places. I myself went into these court far enough to pass through four great yards like this, and yet wherever I looked I could still see gate after gate which opened into other yards....'
He obsreved rudimentary forms of civilizaton. This isn't exactly mind-numbing.
Jensen has responded to better debatees within the scientific community itself.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Like I said, under unique selective pressure, ANY group could have high intelligence. It's evolution baby. Such selective pressures have not been apparent in Africa.
But didn't the human brain, along with "human intelligence" develop in Africa to begin with? Surely you have no idea what you're talking about, and it's laughable, really.
I enjoy how much you humiliate yourself. Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
A bit of African philosophy, stories that they used to explain the world
quote:Once upon a time Ananse Kurusu, the great spider of venerable memory, grew bothered about the state of wisdom in the world. People were not looking after it properly. So far as Ananse could tell from his experience of mankind, which was not small, a great deal of wisdom was getting lost. Yet even if living people lacked the wit to respect wisdom as they should there would be future generations, Ananse argued, who would be glad to use every bit they could. So he made up his mind to collect all the wisdom in the world, and store it for safe keeping at the top of a tree.
In due course, the elders say, Ananse did indeed finish collecting the world's wisdom. He packed all this in a gourd and began to climb a small palm. Halfway to the top he got into difficulties: he had tied on the gourd in from of him, and it hampered his climbing. At this point his son Ntikuma, who was looking up from below, called in a shrill young voice: 'Father, if you really had all the wisdom in the world up there with you, you would have tied the gourd on your back.' This was too much even for Ananse, who was tired from long labor. He untied the gourd in a fit of temper and threw it down. It broke and the wisdom was scattered far and wide. After a while people who have learned their lesson came and gathered in their own gourds whatever each could find; it is this that explains why a few people have much wisdom, some have a little, but many have none at all
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Rushton's entire argument was systematically dissected by not only Lieberman, but an entire panel of anthropologists, as can be seen towards the bottom. Cherry picking and ranting about the significance of brain measurements (which was addressed thoroughly by Lieberman and the like), is silly. His entire argument, in addition to the very premise it was based on, was exposed and ousted for good scientifically. Rehearsing his same rants from 1988, 4 years later tells us nothing other than the fact that he and his followers are still racist. But nobody seems to care anyways, so..
Yes, Rushton cherry picked the data. That's what no other type of data exists. Provide links to all the studies showing Blacks and Whites score equally or for that matter that Blacks score BETTER on IQ tests on average anywhere in the world, at any time.
Have you heard of Occam's Razor?
Anthropoligists? I'll stick to DNA, genetics, psychometrics, AND the anthropologists living in the real world.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Like I said, under unique selective pressure, ANY group could have high intelligence. It's evolution baby. Such selective pressures have not been apparent in Africa.
But didn't the human brain, along with "human intelligence" develop in Africa to begin with? Surely you have no idea what you're talking about, and it's laughable, really.
I enjoy how much you humiliate yourself.
It's your contention that because humans first developed in Africa that this somehow means humans across the globe all have the same intelligence?
Are you familiar with evolutionary theory?
Let me ask all of you some questions:
1) Do you believe all individuals are of equal intelligence?
2) Do you believe that all population groups have the same average intelligence?
3) How much of a role do you think genes plays in intelligence? 100%? 0%? Is it all environment? That is, if we could give raise two people exactly the same they will come out to have the same intelligence?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Sorry folks, evolution and common sense isn't on your side.
It's amazing how people can try to deny reality when it doesn't suit their personal beliefs. It'd be nice if everybody had the same capacities, but they don't. This shouldn't come as a surprise.
Just as there are physical differences, so are there internal intellectural differences and predispositions.
Isn't it obvious?
Singing happy songs about how we're all the same doesn't make it so.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
"Intelligence" and "Race." - adapted from "A Four Letter Word Called 'Race'" in 'Race and Other Misadventures' Natural History, Feb, 1997 by C. Loring Brace
Edited by Larry T. Reynolds and Leonard Lieberman. Copyright 1996 by General Hall, Inc.
Professionals involved in the testing of intelligence often assume that racial differences are there to be discovered. The pitfalls in such research include not only the elusive definition of "intelligence" but also the lack of a biological measure for "race" that is independent of ethnic identity. Despite repeated efforts at making intelligence tests culture-free, bias remains inevitable. Nonetheless, people seem to have difficulty giving
The geographic determinists of two or three generations ago were fond of contrasting the supposedly indolent life in the Tropics--where goodies were available for the plucking from fruiting trees and bushes--with what was purported to be the bracing rigor of more northerly climes, where survival was said to depend more on ingenuity and disciplined effort. Presumably these different life styles would have led to racial differences in intelligence.
Aside from the lesser chance of freezing to death, however, gaining a living by gleaning from the land in the Tropics is no easier than it is in the temperate portions of the world. The knowledge of what is edible and what is not, what ripens where at which time of the year, and the habits of potential prey animals is every bit as difficult to come by at the equator as it is in the north. In the pre-literate world of the hunter-gatherer, the penalty for stupidity is starvation.
Take the elderly Aborigine who led his group on a six-month trek to escape the consequences of the drought of 1943 in the outback of Western Australia. His first goal was a water hole at the extreme northwestern corner of the tribal territory, which he had visited only once in his youth, more than half a century earlier. When the resources there started to fail, he led them westward again, through territory known to him only through the verses of a song cycle sung at totemic ceremonies and depicting the legendary wanderings of "ancestral beings." The trek led on through a sequence of more than fifty water holes, with the only additional clues to the route being occasional marks left by earlier movements of peoples. The little band finally emerged at Mandora Station, on the coast of Western Australia, more than 360 miles from where they had started. (The saga was recorded at Mandora Station by anthropologist N. B. Tindale in 1953.) Evidently the myths that made up those ceremonies represented the transmitted knowledge of previous generations. One would be hard put to come up with another instance in the literate world in which survival was so dependent upon such a feat of human memory.
The ingenuity necessary to extract sustenance in the most unlikely areas and by the most unlikely means was an essential element in the human success story. That ingenuity was certainly taxed by $he need to maintain a network of supportive relationships and deal with potential competitors. A combination of these factors must have constituted the selective process that led to the expansion of the human brain starting at the beginning of the Pleistocene. These circumstances were a constant for humans pursuing a hunting and gathering mode of subsistence. This is why human intelligence, although an important adaptive trait, should not be expected to differ significantly among groups.
A fallback position for those intent on finding a link between race and intelligence is the view that intelligence is the ability to adapt to civilization and that races differ in "intellectual ability" depending on the civilizations with which they are associated. One recent advocate of this view feels that the Stanford-Binet IQ test measures the inherent ability to adapt to Western civilization.
Even a relatively simple adaptive trait such as skin color, however, shows only minimal response to changes in selective pressure over periods of 10,000 to 15,000 years. Our vaunted Western civilization has existed for only a small fraction of that span, and most of those who now reap its benefits are descended from people untrained in the niceties of reading and writing.
Westerners tend to look down on peoples without long, written traditions, considering them innately ill-equipped. But it probably requires more in the way of basic smarts to survive in a world where one cannot go and look up the answers to crucial questions in a book. If anything, then, perhaps those whose ancestry has-the longest continuous tie with literate civilization are the recipients of a heritage in which selection for intelligence has been least stringent.
C. Loring Brace is a professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan. Among his books are The Stages of Human Evolution (fifth edition, 1995) and, with Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution (second edition, 1977).
COPYRIGHT 1997 Natural History Magazine, Inc. COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
The beauty of Hart is that he says that his thesis may be wrong. He concludes by making predictions and if those predictions turn out to be false, he would accept that his thesis is false.
He predicts the average scores of populations that have not yet been tested for IQ. Hopefully soon, such studies will be conducted. He also predicts from which races we will continue to see technological innovation and achievement and from which ones we won't.
He's put himself out there. If he's a charlatan, it'll be known soon enough.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Sorry folks, evolution and common sense isn't on your side.
It's amazing how people can try to deny reality when it doesn't suit their personal beliefs. It'd be nice if everybody had the same capacities, but they don't. This shouldn't come as a surprise.
Just as there are physical differences, so are there internal intellectural differences and predispositions.
Isn't it obvious?
Singing happy songs about how we're all the same doesn't make it so.
The harsh conditions of Africa would help kill dumb Africans just like in other places in the world. Also black people have contributed allot to the world, thus I conclude they are not inferior
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: "Intelligence" and "Race." - adapted from "A Four Letter Word Called 'Race'" in 'Race and Other Misadventures' Natural History, Feb, 1997 by C. Loring Brace
Edited by Larry T. Reynolds and Leonard Lieberman. Copyright 1996 by General Hall, Inc.
Brace may be good at measuring skulls, but he should stick to that.
As for http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm It's clear that overt racists are idiots. There are plenty of intelligent racists, but they're smart enough to hide. Don't be fooled. Dr. Schwarze and Dr. Johnson don't want you anywhere near there daughters, if you're black.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: "Intelligence" and "Race." - adapted from "A Four Letter Word Called 'Race'" in 'Race and Other Misadventures' Natural History, Feb, 1997 by C. Loring Brace
Edited by Larry T. Reynolds and Leonard Lieberman. Copyright 1996 by General Hall, Inc.
Brace may be good at measuring skulls, but he should stick to that.
As for http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm It's clear that overt racists are idiots. There are plenty of intelligent racists, but they're smart enough to hide. Don't be fooled. Dr. Schwarze and Dr. Johnson don't want you anywhere near there daughters, if you're black.
This has nothing to do with what I just posted, nor was that even detailed enough to make a proper inference. I'm not buying into your antics and hyperbole.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Markellion and AlTakruri: I'm not quite sure what to make of your Sub-Saharan posts. If these kingdoms were so great, then how do you explain the ease with which a relatively small (as compared to African populations) group of Europeans gained control.
I do admit that I know little of sub-Sahara Africa, mainly because I have no interest in such screw-ups. But maybe I missed something. Did I?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:The harsh conditions of Africa would help kill dumb Africans just like in other places in the world. Also black people have contributed allot to the world, thus I conclude they are not inferior
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: This has nothing to do with what I just posted, nor was that even detailed enough to make a proper inference. I'm not buying into your antics and hyperbole.
It was posted to show you that the author of the post that you made is clueless about the issue of race, races, and intelligence which is what we're discussing.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
As for Lieberman the "race isn't real" hack.
Check out Rushton's reply:
Rushton, J. P. (2001). [Comment on Lieberman’s “How ‘Caucasoids’ got such big crania and why they shrank: From Morton to Rushton.”] Current Anthropology, 42, 85-86.
You can be sure that Jensen and Rushton follow up on their attacker's non-sensicle remarks. They always get the last word, because they're in the right. Nobody can dispute this with intellectual honesty.
Btw, you act like it's just a Black-White Paradigm. Do you think Rushton and Jensen care that Jews score the highest or that Asians score above Whites? They do studies on those groups too, but none of you comment on that. Why? Check out some of the areas researched by Ruston alone
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: This has nothing to do with what I just posted, nor was that even detailed enough to make a proper inference. I'm not buying into your antics and hyperbole.
It was posted to show you that the author of the post that you made is clueless about the issue of race
Clearly you have no idea what a Biological Anthropologist does for a living as opposed to a Psychologist. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Just so that you know, Jensen started out with the belief that IQ could be changed with better conditions and fair testing. That's why he got involved in the research in the first place. If it turned out to be true, he have been the world race HERO. It didn't turn out that way.
Maybe all of you missed this post. Here it is again (careful with your answers, you don't want to make yourself look foolish, do you?):
It's your contention that because humans first developed in Africa that this somehow means humans across the globe all have the same intelligence?
Are you familiar with evolutionary theory?
Let me ask all of you some questions:
1) Do you believe all individuals are of equal intelligence?
2) Do you believe that all population groups have the same average intelligence?
3) How much of a role do you think genes plays in intelligence? 100%? 0%? Is it all environment? That is, if we could raise two people exactly the same they will come out to have the same intelligence?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Clearly you have no idea what a Biological Anthropologist does for a living as opposed to a Psychologist
Let me guess. In laymen's terms: One measures skulls and biological traits and the other measures performances on tests?
Whether race is socially constructed or not is not the issue. We live in a world where the construct is perceived as real, and where the construct has predictive validity. That is, if you're in a ghetto and surrounded by members of the non-existant "black race", you're likely to be in more danger than if you were in a ghetto filled with members of the "white race". I don't see color, but you know how it is.
I can look into a classroom of 1000 randomly selected kids, seperate them according to their "race" and successfully predict their group average IQ.
I can do these things based on the construct. That means it's valid, even if it's not biological.
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
I'm just going to make this simple and quick. If blacks have such a low I.Q., then explain to me how the ancient Egyptians became the most wonderful and admired civilization that there is? They were not mixed with West Asian invaders. They first discovered the laws of physics, mathematics, built great pyramids, had nice architecture, and had great art skills. That doesn't sound like people with a low I.Q. to me. The Greeks were influenced by them greatly.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Let me guess. In laymen's terms: One measures skulls and biological traits and the other measures performances on tests?
Whether race is socially constructed or not is not the issue. We live in a world where the construct is perceived as real, and where the construct has predictive validity. That is, if you're in a ghetto and surrounded by members of the non-existant "black race", you're likely to be in more danger than if you were in a ghetto filled with members of the "white race". I don't see color, but you know how it is.
I can look into a classroom of 1000 randomly selected kids, seperate them according to their "race" and successfully predict their group average IQ.
I can do these things based on the construct. That means it's valid, even if it's not biological.
Red herring..
You obviously don't get it, so here is a better elaboration on the silliness of your unfounded ideas of "race and intelligence.
Fatimah Jackson Biological Anthropology Research Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 29742, U.S.A. (fj6@umail.umd.edu). 30 viii 00
Lieberman’s essay eloquently details the historical anomaly and scientific fallacy of continued racial profiling among contemporary “evolutionary” psychologists. It is indeed a paradox that an archaic and illfounded concept, that of human biological races, remains central to psychology’s hierarchical paradigm in spite of the mounting genetic data that challenge the very foundations of this approach. Since there are no valid scientific grounds for the application of racial (subspecific) taxonomies in reference to Homo sapiens sapiens, the key questions become why evolutionary psychology needs a race concept, what it is about the archaic aggregate partitioning of modern humanity that validates evolutionary psychology models, and what recent shifts in the sequence of ranked cultural and geographical groups mean for the overall dynamics of the evolutionary psychology paradigm.
Without a doubt, evolutionary psychology remains handicapped by the current primitive state of behavioral genetics and by our extremely inadequate understanding of gene-environment and gene-gene interactions. It is still a subfield that is inordinately dependent upon conjecture and extrapolation. Even in this exercise, it is hindered by an inability to understand cross-culturally most of the complex behavioral phenotypes it seeks to quantify. Its intellectual reference point is highly if not exclusively Eurocentric, and it has yet to recognize and embrace multiculturalism as fundamental to the human condition. Within evolutionary psychology, normalcy condition. Within evolutionary psychology, normalcy continues to be defined within a limited sociocultural context. As targeted groups deviate from a reference Caucasoid- based standard, their “pathology” intensifies.
Evolutionary psychology has yet to prove itself relevant to assessments of human biodiversity, whether this variation is expressed across geographical space or through historical time. Where evolutionary psychology and psychology in general are most effective, however, is in the analysis, interpretation, and prediction of the behaviors of Western European peoples and their cultural descendants. Many psychologists need the stasis of racial stratification to produce some level of validity for their models, most of which represent culture-bound syndromes. By partitioning modern humanity into 19th-century taxonomic categories and adhering to 19th-century evaluations of absolute human merit and intellectual advancement, psychologists can test and refine their Western European-oriented models of human behavior. Outliers can be minimized, type 1 and type 2 errors reduced, and statistical congruity enhanced without having to factor in the messy considerations of cultural and ecological diversity. Racial partitioning allows evolutionary psychologists to concretize a “human standard” based on a small slice of humanity which has conveniently already been preemptively placed at the apex of the mental development hierarchy. The C 1 M 1 N paradigm reigned supreme as one biased assessment after another was designed to reaffirm it. In the dominant Western world view, no other scheme would have made geopolitical, economical, or sociocultural sense.
Now pseudoscientists have seemingly shifted the sequence of the C 1 M 1 N hierarchy while continuing to remain loyal to the illogical and dysfunctional racial paradigm. This shift to M 1 C 1 N is, however, illusory. There has been no change in the power relationships among the demarcated groups. What has changed is that it is no longer essential for “Caucasoids” to be at the top of all-important human categories. In fact, to continue to assert such an easily falsifiable notion would be ridiculous. What is essential sociopolitically and for the psychodynamics of evolutionary psychology is for “Caucasoids” to be at the center of all-important human categories, to show group superiority through balance and integration (see Rushton 1996b). Indeed, this is the new message of the M 1 C 1 N sequence. It is deemed acceptable for “Mongoloids” to have larger brains and better performance on intelligence tests than “Caucasoids, since they are (presumably) sexually and reproductively compromised with small genitalia, low fertility, and delayed maturity. Hence, by this twisted model, they are actually unbalanced and in disequilbrium. Therefore, the craniometric and cognitive superiority of “Mongoloids,” Rushton would have us believe, masks their continued overall inferiority. “Negroid” deficiencies1 aresimply the converse of “Mongoloid” limitations. If “Caucasoid” superiority is to be affirmed and stabilized, it must be wedged between the reciprocal inferiorities of “Mongoloids” and “Negroids.”
There is much real science to dispute the contrived and reactionary assertions of Rushton. Lieberman has touched on many of the most salient arguments. In modern humans, intraspecific correlation between brain size and various measures of “intelligence” is nonexistent (Henneberg 1998). Furthermore, since Homo sapiens sapiens displays significant variability in a number of body parameters (Peters et al. 1998), we do not yet have a meaningful algorithm for the comparison of brain size among various geographical groups. What we do know is that within human families, brain size does not predict general cognitive ability; nongenetic events play a significant role in brain volume and cognitive ability associations (Schoenemann et al. 2000). Metabolic differences in brain chemistry do exist between individuals, and cortical dopamine levels have been suggested as being correlated with changes in brain size, complexity, and cognitive abilities during human evolution (Previc 1999). Yet cognitive performance differences have not been easily linked to diversity in various brain mechanisms (Deary and Caryl 1997).
By ignoring within-group variability and significant confounding environmental factors, Rushton’s aggregate approach is deceptive. The subjectivity of his sampling strategy re-creates a North-South dichotomy in intellectual potential and attainment. The “new” cognitive sequence M 1 C 1 N is built on the same old misinterpretations and reinforces the same old lies. Lieberman’s essay highlights the need for continued explicit assessments of the causes and effects of Caucasoid-centrism and Western European-oriented racialism on the conduct of science and the development of our society. Only when we identify and treat the diseased roots of Rushton’s evolutionary psychology will be in a position to develop a truly revolutionary, nonracial, evolutionary science of the mind.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
I can look into a classroom of 1000 randomly selected kids, seperate them according to their "race" and successfully predict their group average IQ.
More than likely, what you'd be doing is separating kids by economic status and class, as opposed to "race".
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: I'm just going to make this simple and quick. If blacks have such a low I.Q., then explain to me how the ancient Egyptians became the most wonderful and admired civilization that there is? They were not mixed with West Asian invaders. They first discovered the laws of physics, mathematics, built great pyramids, had nice architecture, and had great art skills. That doesn't sound like people with a low I.Q. to me. The Greeks were influenced by them greatly.
Being the "most wonderful and admired civilzation" is subjective and many people would disagree with this statement about Egypt, especially the Egyptian slaves themselves.
Middle Eastern people have lower IQs than Europeans yet they created civilzation too. MesoAmericans have lower IQ than Europeans yet they created civilzation too. Europeans have lower IQ than NorthEast Asians, yet they created civilization too.
Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Sometimes unique environmental conditions allow for certain developments easier.
However, I don't think it's fair for Hart to compare Egypt with a civilization that arose centuries later (Greece) that had the benefit of the wisdom and discoveries made in the Ancient world.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I'm of the opinion you know little about the overseas colonization of Africa. It was a short period beginning in the late 19th century and ending by the mid 20th century.
As for the settler colonies, as they put it, "we have the maxim gun."
Conquest does nothing to diminish the "greatness" of the conquered. You barbarian ancestors were the wrack and ruin of more than one set of people who were far and away much greater than them.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Markellion and alTakruri: I'm not quite sure what to make of your Sub-Saharan posts. If these kingdoms were so great, then how do you explain the ease with which a relatively small (as compared to African populations) group of Europeans gained control.
I do admit that I know little of sub-Sahara Africa, mainly because I have no interest in such screw-ups. But maybe I missed something. Did I?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: More than likely, what you'd be doing is separating kids by economic status and class, as opposed to "race".
It's already been pointed out to you, you can seperate middle-class black kids from poor whites kids and the average white IQ will be higher. This has little to do with economics. The fact is, everybody is tongue-tied as to what causes it even though everything points to one obvious answer.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: I'm just going to make this simple and quick. If blacks have such a low I.Q., then explain to me how the ancient Egyptians became the most wonderful and admired civilization that there is? They were not mixed with West Asian invaders. They first discovered the laws of physics, mathematics, built great pyramids, had nice architecture, and had great art skills. That doesn't sound like people with a low I.Q. to me. The Greeks were influenced by them greatly.
Being the "most wonderful and admired civilzation" is subjective and many people would disagree with this statement about Egypt, especially the Egyptian slaves themselves.
Middle Eastern people have lower IQs than Europeans yet they created civilzation too. MesoAmericans have lower IQ than Europeans yet they created civilzation too. Europeans have lower IQ than NorthEast Asians, yet they created civilization too.
Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Sometimes unique environmental conditions allow for certain developments easier.
However, I don't think it's fair for Hart to compare Egypt with a civilization that arose centuries later (Greece) that had the benefit of the wisdom and discoveries made in the Ancient world.
Hart is an Astrophysicist, so I have no idea why you recite his weak arguments so confidently. What does he have to say about Super novas and Quasars? Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Let me guess. In laymen's terms: One measures skulls and biological traits and the other measures performances on tests?
Whether race is socially constructed or not is not the issue. We live in a world where the construct is perceived as real, and where the construct has predictive validity. That is, if you're in a ghetto and surrounded by members of the non-existant "black race", you're likely to be in more danger than if you were in a ghetto filled with members of the "white race". I don't see color, but you know how it is.
I can look into a classroom of 1000 randomly selected kids, seperate them according to their "race" and successfully predict their group average IQ.
I can do these things based on the construct. That means it's valid, even if it's not biological.
Red herring..
You obviously don't get it, so here is a better elaboration on the silliness of your unfounded ideas of "race and intelligence.
Fatimah Jackson Biological Anthropology Research Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 29742, U.S.A. (fj6@umail.umd.edu). 30 viii 00
Lieberman’s essay eloquently details the historical anomaly and scientific fallacy of continued racial profiling among contemporary “evolutionary” psychologists. It is indeed a paradox that an archaic and illfounded concept, that of human biological races, remains central to psychology’s hierarchical paradigm in spite of the mounting genetic data that challenge the very foundations of this approach. Since there are no valid scientific grounds for the application of racial (subspecific) taxonomies in reference to Homo sapiens sapiens, the key questions become why evolutionary psychology needs a race concept, what it is about the archaic aggregate partitioning of modern humanity that validates evolutionary psychology models, and what recent shifts in the sequence of ranked cultural and geographical groups mean for the overall dynamics of the evolutionary psychology paradigm.
Without a doubt, evolutionary psychology remains handicapped by the current primitive state of behavioral genetics and by our extremely inadequate understanding of gene-environment and gene-gene interactions. It is still a subfield that is inordinately dependent upon conjecture and extrapolation. Even in this exercise, it is hindered by an inability to understand cross-culturally most of the complex behavioral phenotypes it seeks to quantify. Its intellectual reference point is highly if not exclusively Eurocentric, and it has yet to recognize and embrace multiculturalism as fundamental to the human condition. Within evolutionary psychology, normalcy condition. Within evolutionary psychology, normalcy continues to be defined within a limited sociocultural context. As targeted groups deviate from a reference Caucasoid- based standard, their “pathology” intensifies.
Evolutionary psychology has yet to prove itself relevant to assessments of human biodiversity, whether this variation is expressed across geographical space or through historical time. Where evolutionary psychology and psychology in general are most effective, however, is in the analysis, interpretation, and prediction of the behaviors of Western European peoples and their cultural descendants. Many psychologists need the stasis of racial stratification to produce some level of validity for their models, most of which represent culture-bound syndromes. By partitioning modern humanity into 19th-century taxonomic categories and adhering to 19th-century evaluations of absolute human merit and intellectual advancement, psychologists can test and refine their Western European-oriented models of human behavior. Outliers can be minimized, type 1 and type 2 errors reduced, and statistical congruity enhanced without having to factor in the messy considerations of cultural and ecological diversity. Racial partitioning allows evolutionary psychologists to concretize a “human standard” based on a small slice of humanity which has conveniently already been preemptively placed at the apex of the mental development hierarchy. The C 1 M 1 N paradigm reigned supreme as one biased assessment after another was designed to reaffirm it. In the dominant Western world view, no other scheme would have made geopolitical, economical, or sociocultural sense.
Now pseudoscientists have seemingly shifted the sequence of the C 1 M 1 N hierarchy while continuing to remain loyal to the illogical and dysfunctional racial paradigm. This shift to M 1 C 1 N is, however, illusory. There has been no change in the power relationships among the demarcated groups. What has changed is that it is no longer essential for “Caucasoids” to be at the top of all-important human categories. In fact, to continue to assert such an easily falsifiable notion would be ridiculous. What is essential sociopolitically and for the psychodynamics of evolutionary psychology is for “Caucasoids” to be at the center of all-important human categories, to show group superiority through balance and integration (see Rushton 1996b). Indeed, this is the new message of the M 1 C 1 N sequence. It is deemed acceptable for “Mongoloids” to have larger brains and better performance on intelligence tests than “Caucasoids, since they are (presumably) sexually and reproductively compromised with small genitalia, low fertility, and delayed maturity. Hence, by this twisted model, they are actually unbalanced and in disequilbrium. Therefore, the craniometric and cognitive superiority of “Mongoloids,” Rushton would have us believe, masks their continued overall inferiority. “Negroid” deficiencies1 aresimply the converse of “Mongoloid” limitations. If “Caucasoid” superiority is to be affirmed and stabilized, it must be wedged between the reciprocal inferiorities of “Mongoloids” and “Negroids.”
There is much real science to dispute the contrived and reactionary assertions of Rushton. Lieberman has touched on many of the most salient arguments. In modern humans, intraspecific correlation between brain size and various measures of “intelligence” is nonexistent (Henneberg 1998). Furthermore, since Homo sapiens sapiens displays significant variability in a number of body parameters (Peters et al. 1998), we do not yet have a meaningful algorithm for the comparison of brain size among various geographical groups. What we do know is that within human families, brain size does not predict general cognitive ability; nongenetic events play a significant role in brain volume and cognitive ability associations (Schoenemann et al. 2000). Metabolic differences in brain chemistry do exist between individuals, and cortical dopamine levels have been suggested as being correlated with changes in brain size, complexity, and cognitive abilities during human evolution (Previc 1999). Yet cognitive performance differences have not been easily linked to diversity in various brain mechanisms (Deary and Caryl 1997).
By ignoring within-group variability and significant confounding environmental factors, Rushton’s aggregate approach is deceptive. The subjectivity of his sampling strategy re-creates a North-South dichotomy in intellectual potential and attainment. The “new” cognitive sequence M 1 C 1 N is built on the same old misinterpretations and reinforces the same old lies. Lieberman’s essay highlights the need for continued explicit assessments of the causes and effects of Caucasoid-centrism and Western European-oriented racialism on the conduct of science and the development of our society. Only when we identify and treat the diseased roots of Rushton’s evolutionary psychology will be in a position to develop a truly revolutionary, nonracial, evolutionary science of the mind.
Rushton already addressed this in a follow-up summary.
Maybe all of you missed this post. Here it is again (careful with your answers, you don't want to make yourself look foolish, do you?):
It's your contention that because humans first developed in Africa that this somehow means humans across the globe all have the same intelligence?
Are you familiar with evolutionary theory?
Let me ask all of you some questions:
1) Do you believe all individuals are of equal intelligence?
2) Do you believe that all population groups have the same average intelligence?
3) How much of a role do you think genes plays in intelligence? 100%? 0%? Is it all environment? That is, if we could raise two people exactly the same they will come out to have the same intelligence?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Hart is an Astrophysicist, so I have no idea why you recite his weak arguments so confidently. What does he have to say about Super novas and Quasars?
Who also holds a law degree, a computer science degree, among other things. He's accomplished.
It's a work of history that intriguing, that's what I'm reciting it. He uses relevant up-to-date sources about individual and group differences and weaves them into the story of human history. I've never seen this done so explicitly before.
I wouldn't put any historian above Hart simply because he's not a historian by trade. He's more than qualified, not that there is much qualification to be a historian in the first place.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Sshaun002,
Data in which blacks score higher than whites on IQ tests:
1) Frank Lorimer and Frederick Osborn, "Dynamics of Population: Social and Biological Significance of Changing Birth Rates in the U.S.", 1934, pp 140-141
On WW I Army IQ tests administered to blacks and whites Blacks from 5 Northern States scored higher than Whites from 8 Southern States.
If African intelligence were absolutely dysgenic such could not have happened in the systematic way it did.
2) Italian migrants[sample size 500] to the U.S. between WW I and WW II scored(Binet and non-language tests) scored lower than blacks whose traditional score was 85. The Italian scores were 83.9(Binet) and 84.8(Non-language)
3) Portugese migrants(sample size 671) scored lower than U.S. blacks during the same time period. The Portugese score was 82.7
Comments?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Let me guess. In laymen's terms: One measures skulls and biological traits and the other measures performances on tests?
Whether race is socially constructed or not is not the issue. We live in a world where the construct is perceived as real, and where the construct has predictive validity. That is, if you're in a ghetto and surrounded by members of the non-existant "black race", you're likely to be in more danger than if you were in a ghetto filled with members of the "white race". I don't see color, but you know how it is.
I can look into a classroom of 1000 randomly selected kids, seperate them according to their "race" and successfully predict their group average IQ.
I can do these things based on the construct. That means it's valid, even if it's not biological.
Red herring..
You obviously don't get it, so here is a better elaboration on the silliness of your unfounded ideas of "race and intelligence.
Fatimah Jackson Biological Anthropology Research Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 29742, U.S.A. (fj6@umail.umd.edu). 30 viii 00
Lieberman’s essay eloquently details the historical anomaly and scientific fallacy of continued racial profiling among contemporary “evolutionary” psychologists. It is indeed a paradox that an archaic and illfounded concept, that of human biological races, remains central to psychology’s hierarchical paradigm in spite of the mounting genetic data that challenge the very foundations of this approach. Since there are no valid scientific grounds for the application of racial (subspecific) taxonomies in reference to Homo sapiens sapiens, the key questions become why evolutionary psychology needs a race concept, what it is about the archaic aggregate partitioning of modern humanity that validates evolutionary psychology models, and what recent shifts in the sequence of ranked cultural and geographical groups mean for the overall dynamics of the evolutionary psychology paradigm.
Without a doubt, evolutionary psychology remains handicapped by the current primitive state of behavioral genetics and by our extremely inadequate understanding of gene-environment and gene-gene interactions. It is still a subfield that is inordinately dependent upon conjecture and extrapolation. Even in this exercise, it is hindered by an inability to understand cross-culturally most of the complex behavioral phenotypes it seeks to quantify. Its intellectual reference point is highly if not exclusively Eurocentric, and it has yet to recognize and embrace multiculturalism as fundamental to the human condition. Within evolutionary psychology, normalcy condition. Within evolutionary psychology, normalcy continues to be defined within a limited sociocultural context. As targeted groups deviate from a reference Caucasoid- based standard, their “pathology” intensifies.
Evolutionary psychology has yet to prove itself relevant to assessments of human biodiversity, whether this variation is expressed across geographical space or through historical time. Where evolutionary psychology and psychology in general are most effective, however, is in the analysis, interpretation, and prediction of the behaviors of Western European peoples and their cultural descendants. Many psychologists need the stasis of racial stratification to produce some level of validity for their models, most of which represent culture-bound syndromes. By partitioning modern humanity into 19th-century taxonomic categories and adhering to 19th-century evaluations of absolute human merit and intellectual advancement, psychologists can test and refine their Western European-oriented models of human behavior. Outliers can be minimized, type 1 and type 2 errors reduced, and statistical congruity enhanced without having to factor in the messy considerations of cultural and ecological diversity. Racial partitioning allows evolutionary psychologists to concretize a “human standard” based on a small slice of humanity which has conveniently already been preemptively placed at the apex of the mental development hierarchy. The C 1 M 1 N paradigm reigned supreme as one biased assessment after another was designed to reaffirm it. In the dominant Western world view, no other scheme would have made geopolitical, economical, or sociocultural sense.
Now pseudoscientists have seemingly shifted the sequence of the C 1 M 1 N hierarchy while continuing to remain loyal to the illogical and dysfunctional racial paradigm. This shift to M 1 C 1 N is, however, illusory. There has been no change in the power relationships among the demarcated groups. What has changed is that it is no longer essential for “Caucasoids” to be at the top of all-important human categories. In fact, to continue to assert such an easily falsifiable notion would be ridiculous. What is essential sociopolitically and for the psychodynamics of evolutionary psychology is for “Caucasoids” to be at the center of all-important human categories, to show group superiority through balance and integration (see Rushton 1996b). Indeed, this is the new message of the M 1 C 1 N sequence. It is deemed acceptable for “Mongoloids” to have larger brains and better performance on intelligence tests than “Caucasoids, since they are (presumably) sexually and reproductively compromised with small genitalia, low fertility, and delayed maturity. Hence, by this twisted model, they are actually unbalanced and in disequilbrium. Therefore, the craniometric and cognitive superiority of “Mongoloids,” Rushton would have us believe, masks their continued overall inferiority. “Negroid” deficiencies1 aresimply the converse of “Mongoloid” limitations. If “Caucasoid” superiority is to be affirmed and stabilized, it must be wedged between the reciprocal inferiorities of “Mongoloids” and “Negroids.”
There is much real science to dispute the contrived and reactionary assertions of Rushton. Lieberman has touched on many of the most salient arguments. In modern humans, intraspecific correlation between brain size and various measures of “intelligence” is nonexistent (Henneberg 1998). Furthermore, since Homo sapiens sapiens displays significant variability in a number of body parameters (Peters et al. 1998), we do not yet have a meaningful algorithm for the comparison of brain size among various geographical groups. What we do know is that within human families, brain size does not predict general cognitive ability; nongenetic events play a significant role in brain volume and cognitive ability associations (Schoenemann et al. 2000). Metabolic differences in brain chemistry do exist between individuals, and cortical dopamine levels have been suggested as being correlated with changes in brain size, complexity, and cognitive abilities during human evolution (Previc 1999). Yet cognitive performance differences have not been easily linked to diversity in various brain mechanisms (Deary and Caryl 1997).
By ignoring within-group variability and significant confounding environmental factors, Rushton’s aggregate approach is deceptive. The subjectivity of his sampling strategy re-creates a North-South dichotomy in intellectual potential and attainment. The “new” cognitive sequence M 1 C 1 N is built on the same old misinterpretations and reinforces the same old lies. Lieberman’s essay highlights the need for continued explicit assessments of the causes and effects of Caucasoid-centrism and Western European-oriented racialism on the conduct of science and the development of our society. Only when we identify and treat the diseased roots of Rushton’s evolutionary psychology will be in a position to develop a truly revolutionary, nonracial, evolutionary science of the mind.
Rushton already addressed this in a follow-up summary.
Maybe all of you missed this post. Here it is again (careful with your answers, you don't want to make yourself look foolish, do you?):
It's your contention that because humans first developed in Africa that this somehow means humans across the globe all have the same intelligence?
Are you familiar with evolutionary theory?
Let me ask all of you some questions:
1) Do you believe all individuals are of equal intelligence?
2) Do you believe that all population groups have the same average intelligence?
3) How much of a role do you think genes plays in intelligence? 100%? 0%? Is it all environment? That is, if we could raise two people exactly the same they will come out to have the same intelligence?
Where has Rushton responded to this particular critique, and how does that null the criticism? Apparently though, you have no such reference as I'm not sure what "follow-up summary" you speak of.
As far as questioning what I believe, I don't follow the same line of thinking as you. What separates me from you and ultimately exposes your agenda is the word in question, and that is "belief". I don't believe anything, I can only as a rational person report to you what is evident.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: More than likely, what you'd be doing is separating kids by economic status and class, as opposed to "race".
It's already been pointed out to you, you can seperate middle-class black kids from poor whites kids and the average white IQ will be higher.
Moore's study has already refuted this assertion.
quote: This has little to do with economics. The fact is, everybody is tongue-tied as to what causes it even though everything points to one obvious answer.
Rhetoric. As stated, Moore found absolutely no difference when similar environmental factors were taken into consideration. You just have a problem taking heed. Not my problem though.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Just forgot: The reference for the above Italian and Portugese samples is "Ethnic and Racial Differences in Intelligence: International Comparisons", Richard Lynn, p. 268 in Human Variation, ed. Osborne, Noble and Weyl, 1978
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Hart is an Astrophysicist, so I have no idea why you recite his weak arguments so confidently. What does he have to say about Super novas and Quasars?
Who also holds a law degree, a computer science degree, among other things. He's accomplished.
It's a work of history that intriguing, that's what I'm reciting it. He uses relevant up-to-date sources about individual and group differences and weaves them into the story of human history. I've never seen this done so explicitly before.
I wouldn't put any historian above Hart simply because he's not a historian by trade. He's more than qualified, not that there is much qualification to be a historian in the first place.
Bottom line is that Hart is an Astrophysicist. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote: Originally posted by lamin: Sshaun002,
Data in which blacks score higher than whites on IQ tests:
1) Frank Lorimer and Frederick Osborn, "Dynamics of Population: Social and Biological Significance of Changing Birth Rates in the U.S.", 1934, pp 140-141
On WW I Army IQ tests administered to blacks and whites Blacks from 5 Northern States scored higher than Whites from 8 Southern States.
What was the average IQ of each group? Was there pre-screening? As noted regarding the WWII IQ tests: "About 30 percent of US blacks failed pre-induction mental tests for the military, compared with 3 percent of white. So US black soldiers were a more IQ-selected and less-representative sample of their population than were white soldiers." Was this controlled for in the earlier WW1 study? Unlikely.
If African intelligence were absolutely dysgenic such could not have happened in the systematic way it did.
quote:
2) Italian migrants[sample size 500] to the U.S. between WW I and WW II scored(Binet and non-language tests) scored lower than blacks whose traditional score was 85. The Italian scores were 83.9(Binet) and 84.8(Non-language)
3) Portugese migrants(sample size 671) scored lower than U.S. blacks during the same time period. The Portugese score was 82.7
Comments?
Again were the factors above controlled for. Additionally tests admininstered during those earlier days of IQ examinations, IQ tests were culturally biased, at least to a greater degree then now so immigrants tended to perform worse. Seeing that one of the tests was non-language though seems to support your argument. I'd like to see the full study.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Re Cranial Capacities:
1) The Neanderthals had larger crania than modern homo sapiens yet that had no comparative effect on their cognitive capacities--as evidenced in their technologies.
2) Females have lesser cranial volumes than males. Apparently no negative effect on their cognitive abilities.
3) Conversely: Einstein's brain in terms of volume and weight was just average.
4)Philosopher/mathematician Descartes's brain was noted to be below average in weight and volume.
5)Casual observation: the crania of large Africans tend to be larger than average. Note the crania of West African heavy weight boxers[Simon Peter, for example] and U.S. black football and basketball players. Or maybe Barry Bonds just got smarter--according to Rushton....
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
Where has Rushton responded to this particular critique, and how does that null the criticism? Apparently though, you have no such reference as I'm not sure what "follow-up summary" you speak of.
Rushton, J. P. (2001). [Comment on Lieberman’s “How ‘Caucasoids’ got such big crania and why they shrank: From Morton to Rushton.”] Current Anthropology, 42, 85-86.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Moore's study has already refuted this assertion.
The name of the study? The reference?
Given Lieberman's dubious assessement of race, I'd venture to say that study is rife with errors.
quote:Rhetoric. As stated, Moore found absolutely no difference when similar environmental factors were taken into consideration. You just have a problem taking heed. Not my problem though.
One study out of many, but I'll accept it. What's the reference? Truthfully, I'd love to be wrong. One study here and there is a start.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Just forgot: The reference for the above Italian and Portugese samples is "Ethnic and Racial Differences in Intelligence: International Comparisons", Richard Lynn, p. 268 in Human Variation, ed. Osborne, Noble and Weyl, 1978
Considering Lynn's book in 2006 was entitled Race Differences in Intelligence and completely refutes any notion that races are the same, it makes me wonder about this study. I'd like to find out more but can't seem to find it online. Even the book your source argues against the conclusions you say are in it.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You barbarian ancestors were the wrack and ruin of more than one set of people who were far and away much greater than them.
But ya, those who judge Civilization by capability to destroy things are inferior people
quote: Originally posted by lamin: Re Cranial Capacities:
1) The Neanderthals had larger crania than modern homo sapiens yet that had no comparative effect on their cognitive capacities--as evidenced in their technologies.
Hart goes over this in his book. Comparing craniums between species is different than comparing within species. Whales have bigger brains than humans but I don't expect them to be nearly as intelligent. And they're not.
quote: 2) Females have lesser cranial volumes than males. Apparently no negative effect on their cognitive abilities.
There are differences in cognition between men and women. They're slight but they exist. Women are more verbally inclined, men more spatial. Men also have a wider IQ distribution whereas women are more centered around the mean. The differences are not an artifact of brain size, rather brain structure.
quote: 3) Conversely: Einstein's brain in terms of volume and weight was just average.
His overall brain size was average but there was a section of his brain that was larger than average. Again, it seems his was a function of structure rather than size.
quote: 4)Philosopher/mathematician Descartes's brain was noted to be below average in weight and volume.
I don't know how we can ever confirm this.
quote: 5)Casual observation: the crania of large Africans tend to be larger than average. Note the crania of West African heavy weight boxers[Simon Peter, for example] and U.S. black football and basketball players. Or maybe Barry Bonds just got smarter--according to Rushton....
No study shows this.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Note that I don't put too much emphasis on brain size. Comparing between groups and within grouops is different. Innuit have the largest brains but not the highest intelligence. Brain structure is more important than size. Nor is brain size predictive of actual IQ, so I don't see it's use. There is also no correlation of brain size with IQ WITHIN families.
And I have yet to see a study that shows Jews have bigger brains than anybody else. Einstein didn't. I doubt others do.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
sshaun002,
The tests were WWI tests and the major longitudinal[40 years of IQ testing on U.S. blacks] researcher in this regard Audrey Shuey[The Testing of Negro Intelligence, 1958] found nothing amiss with that finding.
If your question beggging were valid that observation would not have been considered important. It was!
Whether you love to wrong or not is besides the point. You are wrong! Europeans were in Europe for some 40,000 years and not for one moment did they ever think of writing or constructing anything of note! Stonhenge? LOL! Lascaux? Come on, any child could draw a horse or a mastodon!
What if there were no Greece? Would you people still be lazing around in your caves waiting for the next deer to wander by?
Your indigenous languages offers proof of your natural mentalities. Sorry to say, but they were so simple and concrete that their speakers had to borrow terms and words from Greek and Latin to express any abstract thought. So all this chatter about IQ and Rushton's nonsensically fanciful r/R paradigm[LOL the Chinese are the world's biggest breeders but the fool pervert Rushton does not see that] amount to no more than idle compensatory speculations on the part of arriviste populations embarrassed at their late arrival to what anthropologists call "civilisation".
Posted by Novel (Member # 14348) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I'll post my criticisms of Hart's analysis at a later date.
Your criticisms will be more enlightening.
Summarize your beliefs. Ask yourself a question, what is the next logical progression given Hart's statements regarding those populations of the world having innate low intelligence?
Note we are in a finite world becoming ever more crowded.
Perhaps unintentionally throughout the thread you displayed a gleeful acceptance of a racial/intellectual/superiority/inferiority standard among human beings.
Your prompt responses resembled the work ethic displayed by racial hygienists in white coats dispensing strychnine pills to the believed enfeebled mind.
Explain your personal worldview.
I suspect, you have been seduced by poisonous writings.
So, are you a racial hygienist? Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
SShaun002,
Lynn's essay was about the comparative IQs of the so-called races in the text titled Human Variation--The Biopsychology of Age, Race, and Sex.
What his essay does show is that Southern and Eastern Europeans--the descendants of those who brought and developed civilisation in Europe--and those West Asian descendants of Mesopotamia and Persia(Iran) who also offered enlightenment to the barbarians of Europe score significantly lower than the inhabitants of Europe's heartland. Lynn: "The other caucasoid peoples inhabiting the more southerly latitudes from Spain through the Middle East to India score substantially lower. This also holds true for immigrants to the U.S. and their children(Lynn, p. 299). The "substantially lower" to which Lynn refers is some 15 points.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:The harsh conditions of Africa would help kill dumb Africans just like in other places in the world. Also black people have contributed allot to the world, thus I conclude they are not inferior
A) We know brain size doesn't matter B) We know there were advanced Civilizations in Sub-Saharan Africa before Europeans even had one of their own C) http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2919.shtml Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
I'm saying black people in Mali, Guiana coast, Ethiopa and other places would have some of the highest IQs of the world in the 14th century, Arabs would also be on top
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: SShaun002,
Lynn's essay was about the comparative IQs of the so-called races in the text titled Human Variation--The Biopsychology of Age, Race, and Sex.
What his essay does show is that Southern and Eastern Europeans--the descendants of those who brought and developed civilisation in Europe--and those West Asian descendants of Mesopotamia and Persia(Iran) who also offered enlightenment to the barbarians of Europe score significantly lower than the inhabitants of Europe's heartland. Lynn: "The other caucasoid peoples inhabiting the more southerly latitudes from Spain through the Middle East to India score substantially lower. This also holds true for immigrants to the U.S. and their children(Lynn, p. 299). The "substantially lower" to which Lynn refers is some 15 points.
See page 343 of Hart's book on the "dilution effect" with respect to Portugal/Spain.
Page 268 explores India, its history, and the Indo-European invasions (ex Aryans) and others that led to the two main branches of Indians and eventually the caste system.
219-220 describes why Greece is where modern civilization was spawned rather than in Northern Europe.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Page 268 explores India, its history, and the Indo-European invasions (ex Aryans) and others that led to the two main branches of Indians and eventually the caste system.
Also you point out less intelligent races can build Civilizations before more intelligent people, so can we conclude intelligence isn't important in building societies
Maybe sshaun002 is really Hart himself.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: This thing about IQ is absurd. Consider the reported IQs of the follwing countries. What is your take?
Israel 94 Iran(Ancient Persia) 83 Iraq(Ancient Mesopotamia) 87 Greece(Ancient Greece) 92 India (Ancient Harrapan) 81 Pakistan(close to Ancient Harrapan) 81 Saudi Arabia(Origins of Islam) 83 Qatar 78 Syria (Ancient Syria) 87 Spain(Lynn, 1978) 87 Burma 86 Indonesia 89 Nepal 78 Turkey(Ottoman Empire) 90
This is described in Hart's book.
The average IQ of the Middle East is higher than that in Africa but lower than in Europe, thus civilization started there. The environmental factors were access to animals and cereal crops for agriculture. Agriculture allows populations to flourish due to food surplus. This leads to expansion and time for innovation.
You keep saying that this IQ stuff isn't bogus, yet you keep posting BOGUS NONSENSE. Civilization started IN AFRICA. You don't determine where civilization started by looking at IQ. THAT IS BULLSH*T. You cant see the forest for the trees. IQ is something WHITES want to use to PREDICT who "deserves" a greater share of the world's resources and the best standard of living. It allows them to pretend that their HOARDING and GREED are based on natural evolution and "intelligence". They want to believe that exterminating those who are "not intelligent", in their OWN WAY OF DEFINING IT, is a GOOD THING. They want to believe that by looking at IQ they can JUSTIFY TAKING the majority of wealth and resources from places like AFRICA. This isn't about HISTORY, other than to LIE AND DISTORT history in order to support a NONSENSE VIEW of IQ as the basis of the evolution of human civilization. That NONSENSE is ABSURD. Since IQ has been KNOWN to change among populations measured since the beginning of such tests, what the hell makes you think that IQ has ALWAYS been the same? What was the IQ of the average Moorish African versus a Nordic German? What was the IQ of an Egyptian in the Old Kingdom versus a central Asian nomad? IQ tells us many things, but it is NOT GENETIC and it DOES NOT tell you the reasons for the development of civilization. THAT is BULLS*T. If the Greeks were so smart, then how come they got wiped out?
Civilization is a CULTURAL expression. There is NO ONE WAY to express knowledge and intelligence. There are MANY WAYS. America is a culture that is historically based on racist ideals of white supremacy, even before they had a pot to p*ss in or a window to throw it out of, they believed in this. Most of what they have today came from racist oppression and genocide not IQ an intelligence, unless you equate IQ with racist, homicidal and genocidal maniacs. It should be no coincidence that those who have been the ones talking the LOUDEST about intelligence in Europe historically and the "superior" intelligence of WHITES have been PRECISELY those who have been the biggest liars, thieves, rapists, murderers and savage minded criminals ever. Give it a rest. The development of "Western" civilization has less to do with IQ and more to do with savagery and INHUMANITY than "intelligence". All this B.S. about IQ is just a diversion to keep weak minded individuals from looking at the facts of history versus some pure fantasy nonsense.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Are you and Hart denying that Jews have more African blood than whites? Yes or no?I didn't see the answer, but I will accept that your answer is YES, and you admit that -in your view- *racially hybrid European Jews* who have greater amounts of African ancestry are thereby superior to whites.
quote:Like I said, under unique selective pressure, ANY group could have high intelligence.
^ Non-sequitur. Doesn't explain why Europeans failed to produce a civilisation prior the admixtures of African and Asian lineages and the the introduction of 'race-hybrid' Asiatic semites into their recessive gene-pool.
But I guess you need profer non-responsive non answers to make yourself feel better about it.
quote:Shaun: Such selective pressures have not beeen apparent in Africa....
And yet in response to...
quote:rasol: It is possible that the intellectual superiority of Africans is responsible for the greater antiquity of African civilisation in the Nile Valley which precedes European civilisation by thousands of years?
quote:Shaun: No, the unique selective pressure is responsible for it.
Wait, you just said such selective pressue did not exist in AFrica?
Which is it, then?
It's obvious that you understand nothing of biology or Evolution beyound being able to toss buzz-words around in the absense of actual answers for anything.
quote: They were still Jews before the Middle Ages but were not as intelligent.
As whom....as whites? Based on what data? Jewish civilisation far preceded white civilisation long before the Middle ages, so your comments appear to be basesless, as usual.
quote: Pressures since then, a sort of informal eugenics is a reasonable hypothesis
No, it's not, because you profer no hypothesis for anything. You simply repeat the catch phrase selective pressure without any specifics, or data, or context to lend substance to your claims.
Your troll thesis is thus revealed to be and intellectually bankrupt joke, which is why I clown you for it.
quote: Is it possible that the introduction of African and Semitic 'blood' into the inbred recessive gene-pool of white Europeans is what lifted them out of their paleolithic cavedwelling hunter gather status and allowed them to become civilised?
quote:Shaun: It could be but it's doubtful.
Why, because you wouldn't like it?
quote: If African admixture was responsible for Jewish intelligence we would expect to see other African-European and Afircan-Middle Eastern hybrids with high intelligence.
Ah, but this brings me to my next question:
Is it possible that the reason that European civilisation was so late arriving, and began in the Southern European zone of racial mongrelisation also due to the -introduction of Black African genes- into the otherwise recessive gene-pools of the white Barbarian cave dwellers of Europe?
Shaun: Why does European civilisation begin in the regions near Africa, thousands of years after African civilisation, and then spread only -still much later- to Europe and Europeans proper?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
Also you point out less intelligent races can build Civilizations before more intelligent people, so can we conclude intelligence isn't important in building societies
No, such an assertion is dubious. The advent of civilization requires certain environmental conditions, or at least make it more likely.
There were civilizations prior to Greece. The Minoan civilization was there. Nobody knows their origin.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
You keep saying that this IQ stuff isn't bogus, yet you keep posting BOGUS NONSENSE. Civilization started IN AFRICA. You don't determine where civilization started by looking at IQ. THAT IS BULLSH*T. You cant see the forest for the trees. IQ is something WHITES want to use to PREDICT who "deserves" a greater share of the world's resources and the best standard of living. It allows them to pretend that their HOARDING and GREED are based on natural evolution and "intelligence". They want to believe that exterminating those who are "not intelligent", in their OWN WAY OF DEFINING IT, is a GOOD THING. They want to believe that by looking at IQ they can JUSTIFY TAKING the majority of wealth and resources from places like AFRICA. This isn't about HISTORY, other than to LIE AND DISTORT history in order to support a NONSENSE VIEW of IQ as the basis of the evolution of human civilization. That NONSENSE is ABSURD. Since IQ has been KNOWN to change among populations measured since the beginning of such tests, what the hell makes you think that IQ has ALWAYS been the same? What was the IQ of the average Moorish African versus a Nordic German? What was the IQ of an Egyptian in the Old Kingdom versus a central Asian nomad? IQ tells us many things, but it is NOT GENETIC and it DOES NOT tell you the reasons for the development of civilization. THAT is BULLS*T. If the Greeks were so smart, then how come they got wiped out?
Civilization is a CULTURAL expression. There is NO ONE WAY to express knowledge and intelligence. There are MANY WAYS. America is a culture that is historically based on racist ideals of white supremacy, even before they had a pot to p*ss in or a window to throw it out of, they believed in this. Most of what they have today came from racist oppression and genocide not IQ an intelligence, unless you equate IQ with racist, homicidal and genocidal maniacs. It should be no coincidence that those who have been the ones talking the LOUDEST about intelligence in Europe historically and the "superior" intelligence of WHITES have been PRECISELY those who have been the biggest liars, thieves, rapists, murderers and savage minded criminals ever. Give it a rest. The development of "Western" civilization has less to do with IQ and more to do with savagery and INHUMANITY than "intelligence". All this B.S. about IQ is just a diversion to keep weak minded individuals from looking at the facts of history versus some pure fantasy nonsense.
Your contention that IQ is a meaningless made-up abstract derived to oppress people is false. That is not the origin of IQ (though it has been abused a lot in the past) nor what it measures. Only by applying things like IQ can we get an idea about how individuals function differently and what their strengths and weaknesses are.
You say it is a product of America. Maybe, but the America is a reflection of the modern world and IQ has predictive value in the modern world. In an ideal world, we would not pass failing students to go on to hire grades with IQs of 80 because we're setting them up for failure. They cannot handle the academics at high levels. This merely encourages frustration, drop-outs, low self-esteem, and Lord knows what else.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Maybe sshaun002 is really Hart himself.
I'm not Jewish, I'm younger, and I'm WAY better looking.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Non-sequitur. Doesn't explain why Europeans failed to produce a civilisation prior the admixtures of African and Asian lineages and the the introduction of 'race-hybrid' Asiatic semites into their recessive gene-pool.
But I guess you need profer non-responsive non answers to make yourself feel better about it.
How many times must I answer this. Europe failed to produce civilization because civilization starts with agriculture. Discovery and invention are DIFFICULT and it is likely that a few geniuses in the Middle East invented agriculture. The climate there is warm and ideal for growing crops - of which a large variety grow. There are many large animals that can be domesticated in that region as well.
Europeans were unable, at the time, to make that giant leap. Part of it has to do with environment. There are far less crops that grow in Europe and no large animals. The seasons change and are unstable and hostile for a good portion of the year.
It is not the hybrid that allowed Europeans to produce as there wasn't very much admixture going on. It was the introduction of Middle Eastern civilization and knowledge that was transmitted.
It's much easier to learn a process than to invent it and agriculture among other practices of civilization is what Europeans needed an introduction to, to get the ball rolling. Once this knowledge was adopted, Europeans improved on it many times over, refined and surpassed the Middle Easterners at their own game due to higher average intelligence.
quote:Wait, you just said such selective pressue did not exist in AFrica?
Which is it, then?
It's obvious that you understand nothing of biology or Evolution beyound being able to toss buzz-words around in the absense of actual answers for anything.
I'm not sure what you mean. There were no Africans in Europe at this time, only people from the Fertile Cresent and other Middle Eastern peoples invaded the Europeans.
quote:As whom....as whites? Based on what data? Jewish civilisation far preceded white civilisation long before the Middle ages, so your comments appear to be basesless, as usual.
Jewish accomplishments were meager during the Middle Ages and earlier. Their greatest accomplishment up to that point was their religion and the Bible on which it was based. As we all know many important doctrines that came after were inspired by this.
quote:No, it's not, because you profer no hypothesis for anything. You simply repeat the catch phrase selective pressure without any specifics, or data, or context to lend substance to your claims.
Your troll thesis is thus revealed to be and intellectually bankrupt joke, which is why I clown you for it.
Why don't you read the chapter? I'm not going to type it all out for you. This isn't "my" hypothesis either. It's Hart's. Look at what he says first hand if you believe I'm not communicating it effectively. You don't want to look? what are you afraid of?
quote:Why, because you wouldn't like it?
Because nearly 100% of studies done on the subject show that African admixtures reduce the IQ of the offspring - making it lower than average Europeans but raising it slightly over average Africans. It comes out midway as would be expected.
quote:Is it possible that the reason that European civilisation was so late arriving, and began in the Southern European zone of racial mongrelisation also due to the -introduction of Black African genes- into the otherwise recessive gene-pools of the white Barbarian cave dwellers of Europe?
No, because no such inbreeding had occured. Very little has occured to date with the exception of regions of Portugal, Spain, and portions of Southern Italy. But these are the results of relatively recent migration and warring patterns.
quote:Shaun: Why does European civilisation begin in the regions near Africa, thousands of years after African civilisation, and then spread only -still much later- to Europe and Europeans proper?
See my post above or read pages 219-220 of Hart's book.
Also read pages 197-204. This section deals specifically with the Middle East and why and how civilization arose there first.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Civilization arose later in China too independently, so who's to say that Europeans wouldn't have eventually done so. The Chinese didn't accomplish this as quickly as the Middle East for similar environmental reasons. The middle east had an environmental advantage and Middle Easterners had the threshold intelligence to spark the change from hunter-gatherer society to agriculture based.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Novel:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I'll post my criticisms of Hart's analysis at a later date.
Your criticisms will be more enlightening.
Summarize your beliefs. Ask yourself a question, what is the next logical progression given Hart's statements regarding those populations of the world having innate low intelligence?
Note we are in a finite world becoming ever more crowded.
Perhaps unintentionally throughout the thread you displayed a gleeful acceptance of a racial/intellectual/superiority/inferiority standard among human beings.
Your prompt responses resembled the work ethic displayed by racial hygienists in white coats dispensing strychnine pills to the believed enfeebled mind.
Explain your personal worldview.
I suspect, you have been seduced by poisonous writings.
So, are you a racial hygienist?
I will do this but I wish more people would voluntarily read the book first. Most of the rebuttals in this thread thus far have been addressed in Hart's book. Only after you know what he says can you tackle his arguments effectively.
I have no illusions about the way theories of racial differences can lead to brutal results. That has been the common theme throughout history. At the same time, lack of knowledge by supressing it can lead to similar horrors. The Jews were persecuted during the Holocaust not because people thought they were dumb, but because people thought they were too smart and successful.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Non-sequitur. Doesn't explain why Europeans failed to produce a civilisation prior the admixtures of African and Asian lineages and the the introduction of 'race-hybrid' Asiatic semites into their recessive gene-pool.
But I guess you need profer non-responsive non answers to make yourself feel better about it.
quote:Shaun: How many times must I answer this. Europe failed to produce civilization because civilization starts with agriculture.
That isn't and answer. It doesn't explain why Europeans could not start a civilisation for thousands of years after Agriculture and cattle domestication had been invented in both Africa and Asia.
How many times must we repeat questions while you fail to answer them?
quote:Discovery and invention are DIFFICULT
Evidently it became LESS DIFFICULT for Europeans after migrations of African and SouthWest Asians into Europe.
Again I ask why? Again you write off-point replies that fail to answer.
Your thesis is so revealed as petty ethnocentric bias, in which you make excuses for Europeans while attacking non European history.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:ShauN: and it is likely that a few geniuses in the Middle East invented agriculture.
lol. This is also wrong. Where do you get such ignorance from? It can't all be Hart's fault.
From Historian Christopher Ehret:
There are at least seven or eight maybe eleven to thirteen world regions which independently invented agriculture. None in Europe.
^ So again, we ask why?
You propose a thesis based on biological determinism - and "IQ" tests.
But when it comes to the shortcomings of Europeans, the best you can do is offer lame excuses.
quote:Shaun: There were no Africans in Europe at this time
And this is also wrong:
One can identify Negroid traits of appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably *from Nubia.* - Professor Larry Angel.
You need to read real history and anthropology, not simply scour the web for pdf's from racist losers who can help you troll, while bankrupting your mind.
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Have any of you read Michael H. Hart's latest book? He's a Jewish astrophysicist who holds degrees in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science.
Alas, where are his degrees in anthropology, genetics, Egyptology, and any of the relevant discipline? Excelling at unrelated disciplines means BS.
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
Also you point out less intelligent races can build Civilizations before more intelligent people, so can we conclude intelligence isn't important in building societies
No, such an assertion is dubious. The advent of civilization requires certain environmental conditions, or at least make it more likely.
There were civilizations prior to Greece. The Minoan civilization was there. Nobody knows their origin.
Yes, they do have an idea. You do not because you do not want to, since you are drowning in denial. How many more lame excuses are you going to pull out of your arse? Europeans would have done this and that, but DID THEY DO IT? Ladies and gentlemen, the answer is NO. You and your ilk say Blacks make excuses all the time; why are you making them now?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:See my post above or read pages 219-220 of Hart's book.
You are wasting your time with your crude attempts at promoting this puerile garbage.
No one with and IQ above 45 is going to read some pdf pseudo-book from a racist dilettante as promoted by a historically illiterate troll.
You need to read a real history book, per Oxford University:
And a real scientific study of the history of IQ testing, per evolutionary Biologist Stephen Gould:
As for Hart, you should consider suing him for the damage he has apparently done to your brain, as he has left you to make lame excuses for a broken contradictory thesis, incompetently presented, begging questions you can't answer.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: That isn't and answer. It doesn't explain why Europeans could not start a civilisation for thousands of years after Agriculture and cattle domestication had been invented in both Africa and Asia.
This conversation is becoming absurd. They didn't have cattle domestication, um, maybe because there were NO COWS in Europe. That's ONE reason of MANY I've illustrated PLENTY of times for even the least literate READERS.
How many cereal crops grow naturally in Africa and Asia? How many grow naturally in Europe?
What are the weather conditions like in Europe versus Africa?
Do you get the picture yet?
I'll expect another "this is not an answer" response from you. Next...
At least everybody else reading this with a level objective head can easily figure out who is winning this particular debate.
quote: Again I ask why? Again you write off-point replies that fail to answer.
Your thesis is so revealed as petty ethnocentric bias, in which you make excuses for Europeans while attacking non European history.
Agriculture preceeds everything else. if that's not done, nothing else is. Europe didn't get this until it was introduced. It had to be introduced for the reasons mentioned above for the upteenth time.
What is YOUR IQ?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Have any of you read Michael H. Hart's latest book? He's a Jewish astrophysicist who holds degrees in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science.
Alas, where are his degrees in anthropology, genetics, Egyptology, and any of the relevant discipline? Excelling at unrelated disciplines means BS.
LOL most historians aren't anthros, geneticists, or egyptologists. The relevant sources are cited in Hart's work (the work of anthropologists, geneticists, historians, psychologists, you name it). The fact that he's highly credentials in much more difficult disciplines indicates that this is well within his expertise.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
Also you point out less intelligent races can build Civilizations before more intelligent people, so can we conclude intelligence isn't important in building societies
No, such an assertion is dubious. The advent of civilization requires certain environmental conditions, or at least make it more likely.
There were civilizations prior to Greece. The Minoan civilization was there. Nobody knows their origin.
Yes, they do have an idea. You do not because you do not want to, since you are drowning in denial. How many more lame excuses are you going to pull out of your arse? Europeans would have done this and that, but DID THEY DO IT? Ladies and gentlemen, the answer is NO. You and your ilk say Blacks make excuses all the time; why are you making them now?
What is the origin of the Minoans? Cite your sources please (respectable sources, please).
What am I denying? I'm ready and willing to learn. Bring on the information.
I never said Europeans would do anything. I've clearly stated what they did and did NOT do. They did NOT start civilization independently. What are you getting at?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:This conversation is becoming absurd.
It's your parent post that's absurd.
Your frustration is the inevitable result of your ignorance being exposed in public.
The result is your ongoing humiliation for which only you are to blame.
Here is the latest example:
quote: They didn't have cattle domestication, um, maybe because there were NO COWS in Europe.
^ Nope. Cattle are native to Europe and primative Europeans cave dwellers painted them [cro-magnon caves of france], and hunted them.
However unlike Africans, Europeans - *simply failed to domesticate them*. How can you claim to know anything at all about European history, and not even understand something so basic???
Your latest Euro-excuse is, no cows in Europe???
lol, lol, lol, lol.
You attempt to take a false pride in 'group IQ', yet you lack the personal pride to educate your own mind.
Instead you cling to racist losers - whose only purpose is to exploit your ignorance.
Be-com-ing absurd. (???)
No dude, you were all that and more...right from the 1st post. You're just now realising it.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:See my post above or read pages 219-220 of Hart's book.
You are wasting your time with your crude attempts at promoting this puerile garbage.
No one with and IQ above 45 is going to read some pdf pseudo-book from a racist dilettante as promoted by a historically illiterate troll.
quote: You need to read a real history book, per Oxford University:
Sure I'll check it out.
quote: And a real scientific study of the history of IQ testing, per evolutionary Biologist Stephen Gould:
As for Hart, you should consider suing him for the damage he has apparently done to your brain, as he has left you to make lame excuses for a broken contradictory thesis, incompetently presented, begging questions you can't answer.
Oh dear, I just knew Gould was going to show up. By the way Gould measured skulls of all races and came up with the same data Rushton did - blacks with smaller crania.
"criticism by those in the biological community who felt his public presentations were, for various reasons, out of step with mainstream evolutionary theory."
"John Maynard Smith, an eminent British evolutionary biologist, was among Gould's strongest critics."
"Gould also had a long-running public feud with E. O. Wilson and other evolutionary biologists over human sociobiology and its descendant evolutionary psychology, which Gould, Lewontin, and Maynard Smith opposed, but which Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Steven Pinker advocated"
"Pinker accuses Gould, Lewontin and other opponents of evolutionary psychology of being "radical scientists," whose stance on human nature is influenced by politics rather than science"
"Gould's interpretation of the Cambrian Burgess Shale fossils in his book Wonderful Life was criticized by Simon Conway Morris in his 1998 book The Crucible Of Creation"
RE: Mismeasure of Man
"Numerous critics have accused Gould of selective reporting, distorting the viewpoints of scientists, and letting his viewpoints be influenced by political and ethical biases; they allege that many of Gould's claims about the validity of intelligence measures, such as IQ, contradict mainstream psychology"
LOL
"Bernard Davis (1916–1994), former professor at the Harvard Medical School, and former head of the Center for Human Genetics, accuses him of setting up straw man arguments, incorrectly defining key terms (notably "reification"), choosing data in a "highly selective" manner, and in general being motivated more by political concerns than scientific ones"
"David J. Bartholomew, Emeritus Professor of Statistics, London School of Economics, and former president of the Royal Statistical Society, states in his book Measuring Intelligence, Facts and Fallacies, (University Press, Cambridge, 2004) that Gould erred in his use of factor analysis (p. 73) and irrelevantly focusing on the issue of reification and ignoring scientific consensus on the existence of the "g" factor of intelligence "
This is just the tip of the iceburd. His book is old and outdated. Not only that. When it was first released it was roundly (and rightly) criticized for the bunk that it is.
If you want to see a guy that straddles disciplines he knows nothing about look no further than the laughing stock that Gould has become in the scientific community.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Gould's greatest praise come not from within the scientific community, but from the mainstream media that has no understanding of science or the consensus within the scientific community.
The Saturday Review? Sunday Times? US Monthly? LOL
The Saturday Review, a British journal, praises the book as a "fascinating historical study of scientific racism" that "illustrate[s] both the logical inconsistencies of the theories and the prejudicially motivated, albeit unintentional, misuse of data in each case."
A review in the Sunday Times, another British publication, speaks favorably of the book, suggesting Gould "shifts the argument from a sterile contest between environmentalists and hereditarians and turns it into an argument between those who are impressed with what our biology stops us doing and those who are impressed with what it allows us to do."
Richard York and Brett Clark of the US Monthly Review praise Gould's narrow focus: "Rather than attempt a grand critique of all 'scientific' efforts aimed at justifying social inequalities, Gould performs a well-reasoned assessment of the errors underlying a specific set of theories and empirical claims."[5]
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
However unlike Africans, Europeans - *simply failed to domesticate them*. How can you claim to know anything at all about European history, and not even understand something so basic???
Your latest Euro-excuse is, no cows in Europe???
Instead you cling to racist losers - whose only purpose is to exploit your ignorance. [/QB]
You rely on Gould so I suppose we all have our faults.
Why do you disregard the differences in climate and crops available between Europe and elsewhere?
Agriculture comes before anything else be it domestication and civilization.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ And, this desparate and irrelevant ad homina attack on and esteemed evolutionary biologist, makes you feel better about not knowing that cattle are native to Europe?
quote:You rely on Gould.
I have read and recommend Gould's book because it is brilliant.
What you did is cut and paste clumsy political attacks against him, which exists precisely because his expose' on scientific racism was so devastating, and they have never quite recovered from it.
example of the emptily rheotrical critiques of Gould: "Gould ignores the scientific concensus on G factor"
^ The above is feign rhetoric as no such concensus exists,
I do not believe that there is a single general talent, whether it be called intelligence, creativity or 'g'. - Harvard Psychologist Howard Gardner
Many scientists are now convinced that there is no single measure of intellectual ability - no unitary intelligence. Their suspicion of the concept of general intelligence is based on the view that various intellectual capacities are not well correlated, thus it is useful to continue to expose the myth of "general intelligence". - Philip Kitcher
Since no concensus exists on 'G', the criticism of Gould not 'acknowledging' it is off-base.
But then, it's clear that you -HAVE NOT READ- MisMeasure of Man. Or any other serious work, as you are too obviously and generally - uneducated.
Sorry, Shaurn you've made a fool of yourself again.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
You know more about the animals in Europe than I do. I apologize as I misquoted - it does not say there were no cattles in Europe in Hart's book. I've only done one reading of it. Forgive me. Climate and accessibility to a large variety of cereal crops is cited for the reason civilization sprung in the Fertile Cresent first. This says nothing about Europeans not having higher intelligence just as it doesn't mean Chinese don't have higher intelligence - even they began much later for similar reasons.
Everything else holds true. You have more knowledge about animals in Europe, I have more knowledge about IQ and it's place in the sciences.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:You know more about the animals in Europe than I do.
I honestly don't know of any adult who knows as LITTlE as you do.
You must work hard at keeping yourself so ignorant.
quote: I apologize as I misquoted - it does not say there were no cattles in Europe in Hart's book.
^ What does Hart have to do with it? Even a 7 year old child should be expected to know that cattle are Native to Europe.
Now you're making excuses for your own ignorance.
You advocate the inateness of intelligence, but personally demonstrate ASTOUNDING STUPIDITY.
You're now offically a complete joke. and I'm thru with you. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
"If you have read the Mismeasure of Man, please present your critique of it.
Cutting and pasting is no substitute for reading and learning. Don't you know that?"
Ok, and you read Hart's book. Deal?
You and your ilk have been doing nothing but cutting and pasting. It's me who has been providing all the data and making all the points. If you say it's foolish, look in the mirror.
I much rather trust the concensus of more eminent biologists than Gould and considering so many of them condemned his work as rubbish, it's safe to assume that it is. His book is of the politically correct variety yet he STILL got called out. This means it's piss poor science.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:You know more about the animals in Europe than I do. I apologize as I misquoted - it does not say there were no cattles in Europe in Hart's book.
^ What does Hart have to do with it? Even a 7 year old child should be expected to know that cattle are Native to Europe.
Now you're making excuses for your own ignorance.
You're a joke.
Right because i should have known considering Euros are lactose tolerant. I guess I did know this and got confused. It's 6:00am here. Damn, slip of the mind. This will be your single "win" in all the arguments throughout this debate. Hooray for you. I still won the war. So, you still lose. Care to address anything other than petty slip ups?
You haven't because you can't.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
I'm a "joke", a "coward", a "child", "ignorant", "biased", "foolish", and "racist". Any more epithets?
Yet I'm the one with the "ad hominem" attacks.
This is too easy.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I honestly don't know of any adult who knows as LITTlE as you do.
You must not know many intelligent people or many people period. You know all about me because I said there were no cattle in Europe, LOL. This means I'm dumb yet IQ data gathered for 100 years means nothing. lol
I've articulated my points and it's all laid out for those reading. Let them be the judge.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: "If you have read the Mismeasure of Man, please present your critique of it.
Cutting and pasting is no substitute for reading and learning. Don't you know that?"
quote:Ok, and you read Hart's book. Deal?
No, because I know the difference between mining gold, and eating turds.
You don't.
The very fact that you are attempting to debate biological determinism but have not read Mismeasure of Man - the most important deconstruction of this pseudo scientific notion, once again marks you as a fool, unworthy of serious consideration.
You keep eating your turds.
quote:Shaun writes: I'm a fool, clown, racist, loser, any other ephitats? Let them be the judge.
^ Consider yourself judged then.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: No, because I know the difference between mining gold, and eating turds.
You don't.
The very fact that you are attempting to debate biological determinism but have not read Mismeasure of Man - the most important deconstruction of this pseudo scientific notion, once again marks you as a fool, unworthy of serious consideration.
That book is deemed rubbish by Gould's colleagues. Just because it supports your undying belief in racial equality doesn't make it any less of a political tract with no teeth.
quote: You keep eating your turds.
Seriously, take your own advice. There are more legitimate condemnations of Gould's work then of Jensen's or even Rushton's for that matter. The only criticims they receive are the same ones that I'm hearing over and over. Personal attack one after another. This simply means that truth is hitting too close for comfort.
quote:Shaun writes: I'm a fool, clown, racist, loser, any other ephitats? Let them be the judge. Consider yourself judged then.
Brilliant.
I'm glad you added in the other ad hominem "loser" that you used. Of all those in this thread you certainly have the sharpest most foul tongue. This says a lot about your reasoning ability or lack thereof and that my words make you feel uncomfortable.
Keep it up for all those who are reading this. They're the judges, not you.
Maturity and civility in discourse is above some of us.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:That book is deemed rubbish by Gould's colleagues.
Wrong again, as Mismeasure of Man is cited by Geneticists Spencer Wells, Rick Kittles, SOY Keita and many other of the most esteemed biological scientists.
Of course you haven't read *any of the above* so again your remarks remain a worthless exhibition of ignorant noise-making.
Isn't that so?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Of all those in this thread you certainly have the sharpest tongue.
You think my tongue is sharp, because your mind is so dull.
It's true that I 'cut to the quick', but then you're and easy mark, so....
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
The reason why the Ancient Greeks and others often attributed intelligence to Africans (or Egyptians) is because they were unaware of pre-existing societies in the Middle East that arose before Egypt (largely because few monuments remained), that invented writing and so forth. This mis-application made Ancient writers over-estimate the contribution to civilization that places like Egypt actually had.
Similarly the great architectural structures that survive in Egypt are striking and attest to understanding of building, planning, and at least simple math. But people forget the other componenets of culture that make them unique and great: their law, philosophies, level of understanding of mathematical theories, sciences, etc.
That is complete and utter NONSENSE. They admired the Egyptians because the Egyptians were one of the greatest civilizations ANYWHERE at that time and because they knew them to be quite ancient. You are kidding if you believe that they were UNAWARE of the other civilizations. In fact, that is a LIE. Don't you know the Greeks did not really ENTER EGYPT until AFTER they had been conquered by the Persians? Isn't Persia one of those "other cultures" of the Middle East? You talk so much BS that it is deafening. Not to mention they went on a campaign AGAINST civilizations like the Persians in the Middle East, so OF COURSE they knew about them. All of this is just another example of historical revisionism as practiced by White Europeans who have a need to diminish the status of ancient Egypt because it was black and because it SQUASHES their fantasy of whites being the supreme beings behind all important elements of civilization.
Egyptian math was not simple. That again is a reflection of modern revisionist attempts to keep ancient Egypt from its rightful place in history as inventors of mathematics and geometry. Ancient Egyptians developed mathematical abilities long before the Greeks knew such things. And the Greeks used the math of the Egyptians and others to build on and develop their own mathematics.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by markellion: So I have a question, with the harsh conditions of many places in Africa shouldn't black people have high intelects?
That's a point one could certainly argue.
All in all though, the conditions are still more hospitable than in colder climates where death is imminent unless one can find or create shelter, clothing, etc.
My guess is that there probably are a few small select populations in Africa that do in fact have exceptionally high IQs.
But Hart also argues that agriculture only usually gives rise when there is a lack of beasts to hunt. When animals abound and can be hunted for food, there is no impetus for agriculture.
This is why, he suggests, that Southern America developed agriculture. After killing off all the large animals species that once thrived there, the Natives had to find ways to survive. They did so on the few types of crops available.
I didn't even know that there were so many large wild animals that used to live on the Continent. The idea that Natives respect Mother Nature is something of recent mythology.
Hart's thesis is an absolute joke. Humans have been gathering plants to eat for hundreds of thousands of years. That is why they are called hunter GATHERERS. The difference between hunter gathering and agriculture being that the hunter gatherer finds plants in the wild, while the use of agriculture means planting seeds and growing plants under controlled conditions. Therefore, the process of developing agriculture primarily has to do with learning the process of planting seeds and maintaining the proper environment for them to grow into plants. It is quite likely that man has been tentatively moving towards agriculture for quite a long time prior to the dates that are generally accepted, mainly because such attempts were small scale and did not result in a widespread change to the hunter gatherer lifestyle. Again, he is trying to deny INTELLIGENCE on the part of those who invented agriculture OUTSIDE of the middle east, by claiming ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES for agricultural development everywhere else, but not in the Fertile Crescent.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Like I said, under unique selective pressure, ANY group could have high intelligence. It's evolution baby. Such selective pressures have not been apparent in Africa.
But didn't the human brain, along with "human intelligence" develop in Africa to begin with? Surely you have no idea what you're talking about, and it's laughable, really.
I enjoy how much you humiliate yourself.
It's your contention that because humans first developed in Africa that this somehow means humans across the globe all have the same intelligence?
Are you familiar with evolutionary theory?
Let me ask all of you some questions:
1) Do you believe all individuals are of equal intelligence?
2) Do you believe that all population groups have the same average intelligence?
3) How much of a role do you think genes plays in intelligence? 100%? 0%? Is it all environment? That is, if we could give raise two people exactly the same they will come out to have the same intelligence?
Here's the point you are missing Sshaun.
If take two captives and give one a book and a nice house and lessons on all sorts of topics and freedom to own a business and the other I put into a cage and only allow out to work from dusk til dawn, which of the two would produce offspring with higher IQ? What is the reason for this difference? Is it ENVIRONMENTAL pressure or SOCIAL pressure?
Europeans are not the standard by which intelligence should be measured. Notwithstanding their material progress, much of what European "civilization" has produced over the last 500 years is a REGRESSION not PROGRESS. All this talk about IQ is a way of ignoring the reality of the DESTRUCTIVE FORCE that Europe has been in world history for the last 500 years. That HAS NOTHING to do with IQ. It has EVERYTHING to do with a form of culture and world view that uses VIOLENCE, DEATH and DESTRUCTION to guarantee a better life FOR ITSELF and DESTRUCTION for everyone else. All this B.S. about IQ is just a diversion from THE FACTS to try and sugar coat a turd. Most of Europe's leaders were not liberal they were TYRANTS and DICTATORS. They HAD no democracy except in THEORY for MOST of their history. The RISE of Europe is due to GUNS, BOMBS and BULLETS, not IQ. They just want to create this FICTION of IQ in order to JUSTIFY all the death, destruction and oppression they have caused world wide and make themselves LOOK GOOD for it. Even more importantly they want to make the people they OPPRESSED LOOK BAD by making it seem that they DESERVED to get oppressed because they had lower IQ. Bulls*t. When Europe spread its empire around the world, the only thing they cared about was power and violence, IQ was NOT an issue. Which makes all this nonsense about IQ as the basis for the rise of Western Europe, blatantly a boatload of BS.
If THAT is the measure and STANDARD by which civilization should be measured, then God help us all, because we would KILL OURSELVES.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
You keep saying that this IQ stuff isn't bogus, yet you keep posting BOGUS NONSENSE. Civilization started IN AFRICA. You don't determine where civilization started by looking at IQ. THAT IS BULLSH*T. You cant see the forest for the trees. IQ is something WHITES want to use to PREDICT who "deserves" a greater share of the world's resources and the best standard of living. It allows them to pretend that their HOARDING and GREED are based on natural evolution and "intelligence". They want to believe that exterminating those who are "not intelligent", in their OWN WAY OF DEFINING IT, is a GOOD THING. They want to believe that by looking at IQ they can JUSTIFY TAKING the majority of wealth and resources from places like AFRICA. This isn't about HISTORY, other than to LIE AND DISTORT history in order to support a NONSENSE VIEW of IQ as the basis of the evolution of human civilization. That NONSENSE is ABSURD. Since IQ has been KNOWN to change among populations measured since the beginning of such tests, what the hell makes you think that IQ has ALWAYS been the same? What was the IQ of the average Moorish African versus a Nordic German? What was the IQ of an Egyptian in the Old Kingdom versus a central Asian nomad? IQ tells us many things, but it is NOT GENETIC and it DOES NOT tell you the reasons for the development of civilization. THAT is BULLS*T. If the Greeks were so smart, then how come they got wiped out?
Civilization is a CULTURAL expression. There is NO ONE WAY to express knowledge and intelligence. There are MANY WAYS. America is a culture that is historically based on racist ideals of white supremacy, even before they had a pot to p*ss in or a window to throw it out of, they believed in this. Most of what they have today came from racist oppression and genocide not IQ an intelligence, unless you equate IQ with racist, homicidal and genocidal maniacs. It should be no coincidence that those who have been the ones talking the LOUDEST about intelligence in Europe historically and the "superior" intelligence of WHITES have been PRECISELY those who have been the biggest liars, thieves, rapists, murderers and savage minded criminals ever. Give it a rest. The development of "Western" civilization has less to do with IQ and more to do with savagery and INHUMANITY than "intelligence". All this B.S. about IQ is just a diversion to keep weak minded individuals from looking at the facts of history versus some pure fantasy nonsense.
Your contention that IQ is a meaningless made-up abstract derived to oppress people is false. That is not the origin of IQ (though it has been abused a lot in the past) nor what it measures. Only by applying things like IQ can we get an idea about how individuals function differently and what their strengths and weaknesses are.
You say it is a product of America. Maybe, but the America is a reflection of the modern world and IQ has predictive value in the modern world. In an ideal world, we would not pass failing students to go on to hire grades with IQs of 80 because we're setting them up for failure. They cannot handle the academics at high levels. This merely encourages frustration, drop-outs, low self-esteem, and Lord knows what else.
Shaun, the reason people fail at higher levels of education is because of INADEQUATE education at LOWER LEVELS. RACE and "intelligence" have ALWAYS been a factor behind NOT ALLOWING blacks to get EDUCATED in the US. The point is that these things have LIMITED access for blacks to primary education and the education that they DID GET was often fairly rudimentary compared to that of whites. After the 60s, white flight from the inner cities, combined with poverty and crime caused inner city schools to fall WELL BELOW the standards of the average WHITE school. THEREFORE, the reason BLACKS are not faring well in higher education is because of LACK of proper education at the lower levels, COMBINED with poverty, violence and other socioeconomic factors. IT IS NOT IQ. Yet IQ theories of RACE allow inner city schools to CONTINUE TO FAIL and CONTINUE to keep BLACKS undereducated and NOT prepared to advance to higher levels of education.
Posted by demMuhfughan African AmericanZ (Member # 10819) on :
Concentrating on politics gets you nowhere, if not backsliding, on matters of science.
quote:His book is of the politically correct variety yet he STILL got called out. This means it's piss poor science.
^^Use of the sarcastic term "politically correct"? This dude is definitely politically driven, it's even MORE obvious now.
He implies that it gives them a leg up (although anything 'PC' gets routinely called out for being so, even on a regular basis.
quote:That book is deemed rubbish by Gould's colleagues.
^^ And like most trolls who come here with political agendas, he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to science or politics.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Wrong again, as Mismeasure of Man is cited by Geneticists Spencer Wells, Rick Kittles, SOY Keita and many other of the most esteemed biological scientists.
I think raso said it all on the first page (and ticked him off).:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I'll play along with this troll-bait thread for one post.
White American IQ score = 100 Jewish American IQ score = 114
Does Hart explain the IQ gap between Hybrid Jews and Aryan Whites?
Does he explain why Hybrid European Jews who have more African ancestry than whites also have higher IQ's and greater intellectual acheivement, in spite of the racism they face in Europe?
Does he believe whites are genetically inferior to Jews?
Is Jewish intellectual acheivement the result of 'hybrid vigour'? IE - the fact that Jews are a mixture of European Asian and African, unlike low IQ white Europeans who are the product of recessive inbreeding?
Does Hart elaborate on the need for European whites to practise discrimination against Hybrid Jews in order to counter-balance the natural intellectual superiority of Jew Hybrids, and compensate for white racial inferiority?
If that is not the reason for white anti-semitism, what then in Hart's view...is?
Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
Here's a link to the person with the highest IQ ever recorded. She has German and Italian ancestory. She's not Asian, African, considering her Italian ancestory she's probably not completely white, and I don't think she's Jewish. What can we make of this? No one can really claim her. LOL.....Maybe genetic diversity is a good thing afterall?
The reason why the Ancient Greeks and others often attributed intelligence to Africans (or Egyptians) is because they were unaware of pre-existing societies in the Middle East that arose before Egypt (largely because few monuments remained), that invented writing and so forth. This mis-application made Ancient writers over-estimate the contribution to civilization that places like Egypt actually had.
Similarly the great architectural structures that survive in Egypt are striking and attest to understanding of building, planning, and at least simple math. But people forget the other componenets of culture that make them unique and great: their law, philosophies, level of understanding of mathematical theories, sciences, etc.
So what do you think about what I pointed out before, a 7,000 year old Civilization in the Sudan
Also you know inferior races like Mexicans had the most advanced calenders in the world, more advanced that what we have
edit: Forgot to mention that Egyptions had a more advanced calender than we do too, but I think the Meso American ones were the most advanced. And that's just one aspect of these advanced Civilizations
Also, even if you think the Egyptions wern't black people they were mixed at least, and thus inferior to the pure races
Also Arabs are impure, mixed with African blood, yet us white folk owe much of our Civilization to them. And this has been mentioned before Jews are also impure, mixed with inferior people. The Nazis would tell you that
Oh and one last thing, the lowliest most inferior subspecies of human had one of the first Civilizations on the planet in the Sudan 5,000 B.C. ! , and had the respect of the wise Greeks
The reason why the Ancient Greeks and others often attributed intelligence to Africans (or Egyptians) is because they were unaware of pre-existing societies in the Middle East that arose before Egypt (largely because few monuments remained), that invented writing and so forth. This mis-application made Ancient writers over-estimate the contribution to civilization that places like Egypt actually had.
Similarly the great architectural structures that survive in Egypt are striking and attest to understanding of building, planning, and at least simple math. But people forget the other componenets of culture that make them unique and great: their law, philosophies, level of understanding of mathematical theories, sciences, etc.
So what do you think about what I pointed out before, a 7,000 year old Civilization in the Sudan
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Here's a link to the person with the highest IQ ever recorded. She has German and Italian ancestory. She's not Asian, African, considering her Italian ancestory she's probably not completely white, and I don't think she's Jewish. What can we make of this? No one can really claim her. LOL.....Maybe genetic diversity is a good thing afterall?
Or maybe as suggested by the American Psychological Association, she is just a blessed "individual" since individuals are the proven outliners. It is senseless to insist that her ancestry, either way has anything to do with her individual uniqueness.
As for the confused troll, I believe Rasol handled him rather well.. Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
I think it's rather useless to talk about the diparity between groups concerning intelligence until all groups have had at least some intellectual atmosphere in which to cultivate their potential both biologically and enviromentally. I believe there is absolutely no group that is potentially superior or infereior by leaps and bounds.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Also not to forget advanced societies south of the Sahara, like the Dogan
Binen, Kilwa, Songhay, and all developed by inferior people
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
A biological genetic difference exists between wild and domesticated plant varities of same or near species. This allows us to arrive at approximate dates for seed agriculture versus gathering wild croppage. However in the case of oil palm some consider the clearing of the surrounding area and trimming other nearby trees, both so that the oil palm yieled a better product, to also be agriculture since more than simple gathering was done.
There is some controversy as to how to measure IQ scores--especially the very high ones. The Wiki article is not clear as to what Von Savant's true NOMINAL score is. Apart from that hwt excatly does she do? It seems as if there's nothing creative about her intellect. True.
Note that the score of 200[the author made a wrong calculation] was assigned to 4 year old U.S. black girl Pompila Watson some 30 years ago. I read it and saw her photograph in Jean Pierre Hebert's La Race et l'Intelligence.
I would assume too that the youngest student to ever enter the University of Paris[14 years]is an Invoirean who aced all the bac tests in mathematics and physics about 3 years would also above 180 on the kinds of inferential questions posed on IQ tests.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
sshaun002
Slaves in Egypt?
Hardly any! Please check it
I'm not sure what you mean. There were no Africans in Europe at this time, only people from the Fertile Cresent and other Middle Eastern peoples invaded the Europeans.
At that time there were the then-labeled Grimaldi Negroids with their Auragnacian culture in Southern Europe--near the France-Italy border.
The Holocaust in Germany?
Fueled mainly because the Nazi race scientists saw the Jews--as they put it-- as a racially inferior bacillus requiring a sanitizing cleansing from the Ayran lands of Europe.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Are you and Hart admitting that Jews are intellectually superior to whites?
Yes or no?
quote:Are you and Hart denying that Jews have more African blood than whites? Yes or no?
quote:Shaun's nonanswer: Already answered.
^ Obfuscation yet again.
Answer....yes, or no?
Yes, Jews are on average intellectually superior.
I've answered your other question. There is nothing about it in Hart's book. It's merely a book, it can't cover every single detail known to man, but it does a good job of accounting for much if not most of what we see. That makes it a reasonable thesis. If the topic wasn't as controversial, the evidence provided would be accepted by most readers.
With regard to Jews, I've already said that African ancestry would not preclude high intelligence if high intelligence was selected for.
If we get the cream of the crop Africans and breed them over centuries and allow the dull ones to perish, we could very well create the Black version of Jews. This is just a process of eugenics.
you are comparing one group of folks to a whole group with many different cultures.it is like comparing french to all the slavs or folks from india to all of east asia.if you compare it is best to break it down like india to china etc.ibos in nigeria tend to be very smart and a called th jews of nigeria,of course they are not jews.the best way to compare is group to group ibos compare to jews,ibos compare to french,you get the point?and that out of date study is comparing whole group to a narrow group call the western whites.i bet eastern europeans and other whites of south aamerica and other places are not in that study,anyway like i said this is non-sense.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Of all those in this thread you certainly have the sharpest tongue.
You think my tongue is sharp, because your mind is so dull.
It's true that I 'cut to the quick', but then you're and easy mark, so....
Great, you've added "dull" to the long list of insults. You continue to demote your own position, without realizing it.
Your attempt to discredit the messenger with insults thus rendering all that he says null and void has failed.
You mention people like Spencer Wells. If you read his book, you'd realize you have to read between the lines in what he writes. It's a lot like the APA which says there is no reason to believe there is genetic differences in intelligence among different races, yet everything else they write suggests exactly the opposite. Similar references are made in Spencer Well's book. But like I said, in the political climate why risk having your name run thru the mill? It's not worth his career to tell it like he sees it and how evolution has ordained it.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: "Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000."
I meant to say that the CHILDREN of middle-class blacks score lower than the CHILDREN of poor Whites. It is thought that this is probably due to regression towards the mean in offpsring.
Obviously nonsense, since indigenous black African immigrants out perform both whites and Asians, academically. This trend is seen in both Britain and America.
DO African immigrants make the smartest Americans? If you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up. - Click Here
Your original research is very sloppy.
Also see: "African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree", The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31
I AGREE.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: "Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000."
I meant to say that the CHILDREN of middle-class blacks score lower than the CHILDREN of poor Whites. It is thought that this is probably due to regression towards the mean in offpsring.
Obviously nonsense, since indigenous black African immigrants out perform both whites and Asians, academically. This trend is seen in both Britain and America.
DO African immigrants make the smartest Americans? If you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up. - Click Here
Your original research is very sloppy.
Also see: "African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree", The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31
You are not quite correct. Many Igbo claim Israel descent and practice Judaism. The claim to Israel relations was first ascertained in the west from the writings of Equiano. The Wiki page on Jews of Beled es Sudan was authored by an Igbo Jew. Nor are Igbo the only delta Nigerians who say they are of Israel and who have Sepher Torah, sidduriym, tallitoth, tephilin, and kehilath.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: ibos in nigeria tend to be very smart and a called th jews of nigeria,of course they are not jews.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Shaun: Your attempt to discredit the messenger
Impossible, as you have zero credibility to begin with - discussing books you haven't read about topics you don't understand.
Your function here is merely to amuse us, you're quite delusional to believe otherwise.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
It seems like Hart is at ES promoting his own book.
Not enough sales, eh?
Yes this is why the link is buried 4 pages in while the FREE link is posted at the very beginning of the thread and peppered throughout the thread.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Shaun: Your attempt to discredit the messenger
Impossible, as you have zero credibility to begin with - discussing books you haven't read about topics you don't understand.
Your function here is merely to amuse us, you're quite delusional to believe otherwise.
Take your own advice. You've been summarily beat down with logic in this thread repeatedly. Your only replies have been empty insults.
Yet another post of yours containing no substance except to say "ha! you're all wrong, and we're right because we say so! we don't care about the way you single handedly handed our asses to us, we're still right because you're a loser and racist!"
Schoolyard stuff.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
I don't have to read all the books you talk about to know what the FULL implications of evolution and human biodiversity really means.
You too know what it means, but you can't face the facts Jack.
I know, I know, I'm wrong because YOU say I have zero credibility. Evolutionary theory is fraudelant; we've all been duped!
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Do yourself a favor Rasol. Save any shred of dignity you may have left and ignore this thread. Pretend it doesn't exist. You've shown that you're able to deny reality, so do so with regard to this thread. The world will seem like a better place to you.
Let those who are interested in hammering this stuff out intelligently do so without the interruption of nonsense and clatter.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Celt: I believe there is absolutely no group that is potentially superior or infereior by leaps and bounds.
By stressing "leaps and bounds", you leave open the possibility that you believe in group superiority, nonetheless, which would indeed merely be a "belief" since there is no such thing as ingroup homogeneity relative to other groups (our said "groups" are merely social creations) nor are their any genetic components yet found that can be attributed to general intelligence.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Do yourself a favor Rasol. Save any shred of dignity you may have left and ignore this thread. Pretend it doesn't exist. You've shown that you're able to deny reality, so do so with regard to this thread. The world will seem like a better place to you.
Let those who are interested in hammering this stuff out intelligently do so without the interruption of nonsense and clatter.
The more well informed and articulate Rasol has obviously pushed a few of your buttons. You've been exposed long ago as a weasel who merely creates his OWN distorted reality while building the nerve to criticize what is demonstrably real. It has been shown that you have no real interest in gathering information, but rather to impose your own political agenda, reinforced by discarded psuedoscience. You've been reduced to admitting that you haven't even reviewed the literature in which you look to criticize. Surely you're a joke and as alluded to, are only here as a comic relief. The panic seen in your back to back posts apparently expose you as a beaten man who realizes that he's wasting his life away adhering to such intellect draining ideologies, which have done little more than brain rape you of any common sense that you may or may not have been born with, initially. You have about as much credibility as an Astrophysicist writing a book about IQ and world history.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by Celt: I believe there is absolutely no group that is potentially superior or infereior by leaps and bounds.
By stressing "leaps and bounds", you leave open the possibility that you believe in group superiority, nonetheless, which would indeed merely be a "belief" since there is no such thing as ingroup homogeneity relative to other groups (our said "groups" are merely social creations) nor are their any genetic components yet found that can be attributed to general intelligence.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Do yourself a favor Rasol. Save any shred of dignity you may have left and ignore this thread. Pretend it doesn't exist. You've shown that you're able to deny reality, so do so with regard to this thread. The world will seem like a better place to you.
Let those who are interested in hammering this stuff out intelligently do so without the interruption of nonsense and clatter.
The more well informed and articulate Rasol has obviously pushed a few of your buttons. You've been exposed long ago as a weasel who merely creates his OWN distorted reality while building the nerve to criticize what is demonstrably real. It has been shown that you have no real interest in gathering information, but rather to impose your own political agenda, reinforced by discarded psuedoscience. You've been reduced to admitting that you haven't even reviewed the literature in which you look to criticize. Surely you're a joke and as alluded to, are only here as a comic relief. The panic seen in your back to back posts apparently expose you as a beaten man who realizes that he's wasting his life away adhering to such intellect draining ideologies, which have done little more than brain rape you of any common sense that you may or may not have been born with, initially. You have about as much credibility as an Astrophysicist writing a book about IQ and world history.
Yes the more informed Rasol knows so much that his only replies have been insults of which you now partake as well.
Next...
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^I've seen no such insults, actually. These are observations of clarity, nothing he really says about you has been absent of demonstration. You've embarrassed yourself multiple times in this thread. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
This is what happens when you romanticize reality and hope that those "draining ideologies" just go away by ignoring them. They continue to fester, they gain more momentum, more evidence, and it hits you like a ton of bricks.
With regard to IQ, there is mountains of evidence supporting my side, only scattered tattered bits supporting yours (propped up by mainstream non-scientist journalists and hacks like Lieberman who claim race doesn't exist yet did an study on race; what did he do, get two White kids and call one of them black to find that their IQ is equal? lol). Had you not ignored this for so long, it wouldn't have been so hard a pill to swallow.
Watson knew it. Spencer knows it. You now know it. I know it. It's not so hard is it? It's generally excepted anyway, but we can still live in polite society. Equality under the law doesn't mean we have to be biologically the same.
You can't and shouldn't supress knowledge. Have you learned anything from the story of Galileo?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^I've seen no such insults, actually. These are observations of clarity, nothing he really says about you has been absent of demonstration. You've embarrassed yourself multiple times in this thread.
Those who deny evolution and biodiversity have embarrased themselves. Which camp do you fall in?
None of you answered my questions which I posted about three times with regard to evolution and intelligence. I wonder why...
It's just not worth your time, because it's racist, right? haha
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
This nifty little talbe sums up your reactions (you and Rasol specifically)
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: [qb] ^I've seen no such insults, actually. These are observations of clarity, nothing he really says about you has been absent of demonstration. You've embarrassed yourself multiple times in this thread.
Those who deny evolution and biodiversity have embarrased themselves. Which camp do you fall in?
No, but obviously the intellectual drain that I've mentioned is in full effect since this is a red herring and it is clear that you have a very loose grasp on such concepts (as evolution and biodiversity). This is apparent given your ad hominem attacks against some of the anthropologists and geneticists that I've cited, using biodiversity as the central argument against your delusional claims.
quote:None of you answered my questions which I posted about three times with regard to evolution and intelligence. I wonder why...
Your questions are merely rhetorical and clearly are misguided since they have no bearing on the discussion. But feel free to ask again though.
quote:It's just not worth your time, because it's racist, right? haha
I'm not concerned with racism since it is childish, but willing stupidity is a lot more offensive imo.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You are not quite correct. Many Igbo claim Israel descent and practice Judaism. The claim to Israel relations was first ascertained in the west from the writings of Equiano. The Wiki page on Jews of Beled es Sudan was authored by an Igbo Jew. Nor are Igbo the only delta Nigerians who say they are of Israel and who have Sepher Torah, sidduriym, tallitoth, tephilin, and kehilath.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: ibos in nigeria tend to be very smart and a called th jews of nigeria,of course they are not jews.
or it is quite possible that they were influence by the religion instead of coming from southwest asia just like the many jews of europe.I think this is the case.I will look more into it however.
i got this from wiki too- quote- The outreach to Nigerian Jews by the larger community gained official status between 1995-1997, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin sent a team to Nigeria to find the “Lost Tribes.”[3] There are currently several Jewish communities across Nigeria and the structure is getting stronger. There are 26 synagogues across the country and the community is estimated at around 40,000 individuals, in a country with a population of 140,000,000.
i think the ibo groups is over 10 million.i have to check a updated census,but that number of 40,000 is really small compared to the overall ibo group. update-nigeria's overall population should be around 148 million at least by now.some say is higher.
other info from wiki. Origin Though the Igbo did migrate to their present location thousands of years ago, possibly from Egypt/Sudan, theories concerning their origin have ranged from the confluence of the Niger and Benue rivers to as places as far away as Egypt and Israel and Ancient Meroe (Sudan). What is known is that Igbos did expand from the original lands of the Nri Kingdom. To give some directions in the issue, we must look at the Nri Kingdom as well as oral traditions (though sometimes fragmentary), genetics and linguistics (anthropologically).
...like any group of people, they are anxious to discover their origin and reconstruct how they came to be how they are. ...their experiences under colonialism and since Nigeria’s Independence have emphasized for them the reality of their group identity which they want to anchor into authenticated history.[3]
Analysis of the sources available has led researchers to the Nri Kingdom. The Nri Kingdom is the oldest Kingdom in what is now known as Nigeria today. Exact dating of its establishment is not known and made even more obscure since modern day popular dating of the Nri Kingdom, 900AD, conflicts with the establishment of another ancient kingdom in Nigeria, the Benin Kingdom which is also popularly dated to 900AD. Via Igbo oral tradition and studies and anthropological evidences, the Nri Kingdom was founded by the progenitor Eri(or Eru). Nri (founder
of the Nri-Clan) was the son of Eri. Speculation of the origin of the Igbo begins when one starts to trace the origin of Eri. By archeological account, in around 2345BC in Ancient Egypt, "M-Eru-ka (or Eru/Eri)" became a high priest to Pharaoh Teti. Because of this, the Egyptian origin of the Igbo people as many have insisted is also backed by linguistic evidences proving many Ancient Egyptian words survive in the Igbo language today and has led researchers to focus in this area. A small list of Ancient Egyptian words which survive in the Igbo language are as follows:
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: No, but obviously the intellectual drain that I've mentioned is in full effect since this is a red herring and it is clear that you have a very loose grasp on such concepts (as evolution and biodiversity). This is apparent given your ad hominem attacks against some of the anthropologists and geneticists that I've cited, using biodiversity as the central argument against your delusional claims.
Keep telling yourself that. Hope it works out for you.
We're just like breeds of dogs if you want a simple analogy. That's evolution baby.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Reality is stubborn. Biological reality will NOT change because you want it to. It will NOT change because of the political winds of our time. It will NOT change because it is "wrong". It will NOT change because of faith. It will NOT change despite all the ad hominems one wants to use to condemn it or the messenger. It will NOT change except by evolutionary processes.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Shaun: Your attempt to discredit the messenger
Impossible, as you have zero credibility to begin with - discussing books you haven't read about topics you don't understand.
Your function here is merely to amuse us, you're quite delusional to believe otherwise.
Take your own advice. You've been summarily beat down with logic in this thread repeatedly. Your only replies have been empty insults.
Yet another post of yours containing no substance except to say "ha! you're all wrong, and we're right because we say so! we don't care about the way you single handedly handed our asses to us, we're still right because you're a loser and racist!"
Schoolyard stuff.
^^I leave this thread hoping to find it where I left off (nowhere) and come back to see the *circus* continues...meanwhile:
exhibit a: You fail to explain (everytime) Why mongolia today (homeland of his intellectual superman) has progressed no further economically and technologically than the average nation in black Africa.
exhibit b:
quote:The average White IQ is 100. The average Black IQ is 85. Therefore if you have two black parents with IQs of 110, they can very easily have a child with an IQ of 100 or below. Meanwhile, the normal distribution of the White IQ means that even a poor White can have a higher IQ than 100. Hence, his academic success over the Middle-class black peer.
Wrong.The US black IQ today, as reported,(Flynn and Dickens 2006) stands at 91, 3 points behind *Israel* at 94.
exhibit c:
quote:Q DOES sufficiently explain/correlate with GDP. That doesnt' mean there aren't going to be the few minority exceptions to the RULE. Barbados doesn't fit into the model. Why? Because it is unique - it is a small population with huge external capital investment in it - because it is a tax haven. Dig a little deeper into every outlier and you the explanation becomes clearer.
Ofcourse you fail to explain *specifically* what makes Ireland an "outlier" and why Germany falls (17 and 15 places respectively) in both GDP and quality of life behind Ireland. Even as Ireland is an "outlier" in your view,(which by the way is equal to the so-called black IQ at 91) you *cannot* explain such a large gap. After all, supposing Ireland was an outlier, why is'nt Germany atleast in the top 10 in HDI? Does that mean Germany an "outlier" as well?
It's one of many. People belong to races, the long established races we've always known and can see with our own eyes.
number 1:
quote: We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program).
your study is based upon hypertension and its geographical distribution as determined by historical population relationships. It says they can be correlated with self-reported geographical groups. It *does not* present a genetic basis for interpopulation IQ discrepancies nor the basis of this upon self-reported groups. Not exactly what you are looking to find.
it does not counteract the study I cited as it *specifically states* its intents and purposes as to what it looks for in its *finds*:
whether differences between continental groups, although small, are nevertheless large enough to confidently assign individuals to their continent on the basis of their genotypes;
[B]whether the observed genotypes naturally cluster into continental or population groups when the sample source location is ignored.[B]
And the results which you *continuously* ignore:
quote:Two data sets suggest the existence of three and four major groups of genotypes worldwide, respectively, and the two groupings are inconsistent. [B]These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.[B]
You are looking for
1) A total Genetic basis for IQ and the historical accomplishment of certain groups, and by extension that blacks are (ofcourse) "intellectually inferior".
2) That this genetic basis varies by arbitrary geographical "race" despite a) modern humans being less than 150,000 years old b) most human genetic variation with Africa itself c) All human beings having alive having less total diversity than a single troop of chimpanzees. d)All modern human intelligence having come from the plains and savannah environments of Africa in the first place.
Since you have found none, you reach and grab for any and every study that *might* seem to confirm your worldview (and psychological gratification that goes along with it) and I'm sorry to say thats quite sad.
Try again.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: This is what happens when you romanticize reality and hope that those "draining ideologies" just go away by ignoring them.
Of course I'm to ignore any ideology since it hinders the process of fact finding in the context of science. Your particular ideology is simply an interference to objectivity, which is why you drown the thread with so much meaningless rhetoric. Though I do appreciate you owning up to the fact that you are indeed nothing more than a victim of ideology.
quote:They continue to fester, they gain more momentum, more evidence, and it hits you like a ton of bricks.
More nonsense from you. It's ironic that you criticize wordsmiths given that the majority of your posts consists of delusional rantings about the inevitability of evidence piling up in favor of your seemingly bunk thesis. Though us undistracted, rational people can see the contrast in that mainstream academia surely doesn't see such a trend, especially the American Psychological Association, who directly contradicts you ("what little evidence there is, fails to support the genetic explanation"). Of course, you live in a world external to our perception.
quote:With regard to IQ, there is mountains of evidence supporting my side, only scattered tattered bits supporting yours (propped up by mainstream non-scientists and hacks like Lieberman who claim race doesn't exist yet did an study on race; what did he do, get two White kids and call one of them black to find that their IQ is equal? lol). Had you not ignored this for so long, it wouldn't have been so hard a pill to swallow.
Fibs, ad hominems, distortions, generalizations, and plain old delusions are what you've been pathetically reduced to in repetition. Now Lieberman is a "hack", but Rushton isn't, and now the American Psychological Association is wrong, but you, a referenceless and ideologically driven/anonymous poster on Egypt search, are right, as far as presenting the established consensus view? Surely these illusions of yours have taken you to the deep end of fairy tale lake.
quote:Watson knew it. Spencer knows it. You now know it. I know it. It's not so hard is it? It's generally excepted anyway, but we can still live in polite society. Equality under the law doesn't mean we have to be biologically the same.
The people you cite had absolutely no evidence to offer, which is convenient since when one "knows" something, they often are able to demonstrate it, which isn't the case. Watson's own scientific colleagues condemned him, as well as his audience, so by "everybody", I assume that you mean Watson. Surely racist people still exist, so this isn't surprising that racist people would make racist comments. What separates that from science is being able to prove it. Surely, "everybody" in the middle ages knew that Europeans were dull witted and barbaric, as many still in fact hold true today.
quote:You can't and shouldn't supress knowledge. Have you learned anything from the story of Galileo?
Have you learned anything whatsoever?
Lieberman buried Rushton anyhow.. Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
Concerning the biodiversity you speak of, it is obviously poorly misunderstood in the context of "evolutionary psychology", which is seen by many as an impending nuisance to evolutionary biology.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
Fatimah Jackson Biological Anthropology Research Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 29742, U.S.A. (fj6@umail.umd.edu). 30 viii 00
Lieberman’s essay eloquently details the historical anomaly and scientific fallacy of continued racial profiling among contemporary “evolutionary” psychologists. It is indeed a paradox that an archaic and illfounded concept, that of human biological races, remains central to psychology’s hierarchical paradigm in spite of the mounting genetic data that challenge the very foundations of this approach. Since there are no valid scientific grounds for the application of racial (subspecific) taxonomies in reference to Homo sapiens sapiens, the key questions become why evolutionary psychology needs a race concept, what it is about the archaic aggregate partitioning of modern humanity that validates evolutionary psychology models, and what recent shifts in the sequence of ranked cultural and geographical groups mean for the overall dynamics of the evolutionary psychology paradigm.
Without a doubt, evolutionary psychology remains handicapped by the current primitive state of behavioral genetics and by our extremely inadequate understanding of gene-environment and gene-gene interactions. It is still a subfield that is inordinately dependent upon conjecture and extrapolation. Even in this exercise, it is hindered by an inability to understand cross-culturally most of the complex behavioral phenotypes it seeks to quantify. Its intellectual reference point is highly if not exclusively Eurocentric, and it has yet to recognize and embrace multiculturalism as fundamental to the human condition. Within evolutionary psychology, normalcy condition. Within evolutionary psychology, normalcy continues to be defined within a limited sociocultural context. As targeted groups deviate from a reference Caucasoid- based standard, their “pathology” intensifies.
Evolutionary psychology has yet to prove itself relevant to assessments of human biodiversity, whether this variation is expressed across geographical space or through historical time. Where evolutionary psychology and psychology in general are most effective, however, is in the analysis, interpretation, and prediction of the behaviors of Western European peoples and their cultural descendants. Many psychologists need the stasis of racial stratification to produce some level of validity for their models, most of which represent culture-bound syndromes. By partitioning modern humanity into 19th-century taxonomic categories and adhering to 19th-century evaluations of absolute human merit and intellectual advancement, psychologists can test and refine their Western European-oriented models of human behavior. Outliers can be minimized, type 1 and type 2 errors reduced, and statistical congruity enhanced without having to factor in the messy considerations of cultural and ecological diversity. Racial partitioning allows evolutionary psychologists to concretize a “human standard” based on a small slice of humanity which has conveniently already been preemptively placed at the apex of the mental development hierarchy. The C 1 M 1 N paradigm reigned supreme as one biased assessment after another was designed to reaffirm it. In the dominant Western world view, no other scheme would have made geopolitical, economical, or sociocultural sense.
Now pseudoscientists have seemingly shifted the sequence of the C 1 M 1 N hierarchy while continuing to remain loyal to the illogical and dysfunctional racial paradigm. This shift to M 1 C 1 N is, however, illusory. There has been no change in the power relationships among the demarcated groups. What has changed is that it is no longer essential for “Caucasoids” to be at the top of all-important human categories. In fact, to continue to assert such an easily falsifiable notion would be ridiculous. What is essential sociopolitically and for the psychodynamics of evolutionary psychology is for “Caucasoids” to be at the center of all-important human categories, to show group superiority through balance and integration (see Rushton 1996b). Indeed, this is the new message of the M 1 C 1 N sequence. It is deemed acceptable for “Mongoloids” to have larger brains and better performance on intelligence tests than “Caucasoids, since they are (presumably) sexually and reproductively compromised with small genitalia, low fertility, and delayed maturity. Hence, by this twisted model, they are actually unbalanced and in disequilbrium. Therefore, the craniometric and cognitive superiority of “Mongoloids,” Rushton would have us believe, masks their continued overall inferiority. “Negroid” deficiencies1 aresimply the converse of “Mongoloid” limitations. If “Caucasoid” superiority is to be affirmed and stabilized, it must be wedged between the reciprocal inferiorities of “Mongoloids” and “Negroids.”
There is much real science to dispute the contrived and reactionary assertions of Rushton. Lieberman has touched on many of the most salient arguments. In modern humans, intraspecific correlation between brain size and various measures of “intelligence” is nonexistent (Henneberg 1998). Furthermore, since Homo sapiens sapiens displays significant variability in a number of body parameters (Peters et al. 1998), we do not yet have a meaningful algorithm for the comparison of brain size among various geographical groups. What we do know is that within human families, brain size does not predict general cognitive ability; nongenetic events play a significant role in brain volume and cognitive ability associations (Schoenemann et al. 2000). Metabolic differences in brain chemistry do exist between individuals, and cortical dopamine levels have been suggested as being correlated with changes in brain size, complexity, and cognitive abilities during human evolution (Previc 1999). Yet cognitive performance differences have not been easily linked to diversity in various brain mechanisms (Deary and Caryl 1997).
By ignoring within-group variability and significant confounding environmental factors, Rushton’s aggregate approach is deceptive. The subjectivity of his sampling strategy re-creates a North-South dichotomy in intellectual potential and attainment. The “new” cognitive sequence M 1 C 1 N is built on the same old misinterpretations and reinforces the same old lies. Lieberman’s essay highlights the need for continued explicit assessments of the causes and effects of Caucasoid-centrism and Western European-oriented racialism on the conduct of science and the development of our society. Only when we identify and treat the diseased roots of Rushton’s evolutionary psychology will be in a position to develop a truly revolutionary, nonracial, evolutionary science of the mind.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Understand that I wrote many Igbo not the Igbo.
Anyway glad you've looked into for a minute since you originally posted your reply. Delve into it as a real research project project including gathering field data from Igbo informants of varying opinions then get back to me.
As for the numbers, I fail to see their relevency. In a world population of billions there are only at best 14 million Jews.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You are not quite correct. Many Igbo claim Israel descent and practice Judaism. The claim to Israel relations was first ascertained in the west from the writings of Equiano. The Wiki page on Jews of Beled es Sudan was authored by an Igbo Jew. Nor are Igbo the only delta Nigerians who say they are of Israel and who have Sepher Torah, sidduriym, tallitoth, tephilin, and kehilath.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: ibos in nigeria tend to be very smart and a called th jews of nigeria,of course they are not jews.
or it is quite possible that they were influence by the religion instead of coming from southwest asia just like the many jews of europe.I think this is the case.I will look more into it however.
i got this from wiki too- quote- The outreach to Nigerian Jews by the larger community gained official status between 1995-1997, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin sent a team to Nigeria to find the “Lost Tribes.”[3] There are currently several Jewish communities across Nigeria and the structure is getting stronger. There are 26 synagogues across the country and the community is estimated at around 40,000 individuals, in a country with a population of 140,000,000.
i think the ibo groups is over 10 million.i have to check a updated census,but that number of 40,000 is really small compared to the overall ibo group. update-nigeria's overall population should be around 148 million at least by now.some say is higher.
other info from wiki. Origin Though the Igbo did migrate to their present location thousands of years ago, possibly from Egypt/Sudan, theories concerning their origin have ranged from the confluence of the Niger and Benue rivers to as places as far away as Egypt and Israel and Ancient Meroe (Sudan). What is known is that Igbos did expand from the original lands of the Nri Kingdom. To give some directions in the issue, we must look at the Nri Kingdom as well as oral traditions (though sometimes fragmentary), genetics and linguistics (anthropologically).
...like any group of people, they are anxious to discover their origin and reconstruct how they came to be how they are. ...their experiences under colonialism and since Nigeria’s Independence have emphasized for them the reality of their group identity which they want to anchor into authenticated history.[3]
Analysis of the sources available has led researchers to the Nri Kingdom. The Nri Kingdom is the oldest Kingdom in what is now known as Nigeria today. Exact dating of its establishment is not known and made even more obscure since modern day popular dating of the Nri Kingdom, 900AD, conflicts with the establishment of another ancient kingdom in Nigeria, the Benin Kingdom which is also popularly dated to 900AD. Via Igbo oral tradition and studies and anthropological evidences, the Nri Kingdom was founded by the progenitor Eri(or Eru). Nri (founder
of the Nri-Clan) was the son of Eri. Speculation of the origin of the Igbo begins when one starts to trace the origin of Eri. By archeological account, in around 2345BC in Ancient Egypt, "M-Eru-ka (or Eru/Eri)" became a high priest to Pharaoh Teti. Because of this, the Egyptian origin of the Igbo people as many have insisted is also backed by linguistic evidences proving many Ancient Egyptian words survive in the Igbo language today and has led researchers to focus in this area. A small list of Ancient Egyptian words which survive in the Igbo language are as follows:
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Watson knew it. Spencer knows it.
Those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other so why put them in the same context.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:exhibit a: You fail to explain (everytime) Why mongolia today (homeland of his intellectual superman) has progressed no further economically and technologically than the average nation in black Africa.
Too few of them left and they live in a cold desolate areas of the world. Those involved in the warrior raids in history are now European and Asian hybrids assimilited for centuries living in Europe and Northern China.
quote:Ofcourse you fail to explain *specifically* what makes Ireland an "outlier" and why Germany falls (17 and 15 places respectively) in both GDP and quality of life behind Ireland. Even as Ireland is an "outlier" in your view,(which by the way is equal to the so-called black IQ at 91) you *cannot* explain such a large gap. After all, supposing Ireland was an outlier, why is'nt Germany atleast in the top 10 in HDI? Does that mean Germany an "outlier" as well?
Ireland is a lot like Barbados, an important center for international financial transactions. I'm not sure what your point is. Average IQ of a nation is average intelligence, nothing more nothing less. The nation with the highest IQ average doesn't mean they'll get to Mars first, but all things being equal, they're the most likely to.
Your attempts to downplay predictive value of IQ are weak. Nothing in life, especially history or the future is 100% predictive as other factors are always involved. This doesn't change the importance or role of intelligence one iota.
quote:Wrong.The US black IQ today, as reported,(Flynn and Dickens 2006) stands at 91, 3 points behind *Israel* at 94.
exhibit c:
These are gains in raw test scores, not in g.
And for that matter, don't compare IQ of Black Americans with Black Africans. The former are hybrids, the latter are overwhelmingly not.
quote:your study is based upon hypertension and its geographical distribution as determined by historical population relationships. It says they can be correlated with self-reported geographical groups. It *does not* present a genetic basis for interpopulation IQ discrepancies nor the basis of this upon self-reported groups. Not exactly what you are looking to find.
it does not counteract the study I cited as it *specifically states* its intents and purposes as to what it looks for in its *finds*:
whether differences between continental groups, although small, are nevertheless large enough to confidently assign individuals to their continent on the basis of their genotypes;
[B]whether the observed genotypes naturally cluster into continental or population groups when the sample source location is ignored.[B]
quote:1) A total Genetic basis for IQ and the historical accomplishment of certain groups
No, I'm not. Genetics and environment play a 50/50. If environment didn't matter, Europeans and Northern Chinese would likely have developed civilization first. This did not happen due to environmental factors.
quote:2) That this genetic basis varies by arbitrary geographical "race" despite a) modern humans being less than 150,000 years old b) most human gentic variation with Africa itself c) All human beings having alive having less total divristy than a siingle troop of chimpanzees.
Colors of the light spectrum such as the colors Red and yellow don't exist because there are shades of red-orange-dark-yellow in between?
Because most variation is within Africa means that populations scattered around the world for 150k years aren't different physically and mentally on average? We know this is not the case. Everything shows that we are different in both ways.
All it would take is a single mutation to make enormous differences between populations just as they do between individuals. It doesn't matter if we're 99.999% the same. That .0001% is all that's needed to observe large differences.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:Watson knew it. Spencer knows it.
Those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other so why put them in the same context.
They do have a lot in common. Both were/are involved in breakthrough research on humanity.
However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
If Spencer ever said there are likely average differences between races in intelligence he would be outcast, his research stopped, fired from his job, attacked for the remainder of his life. Nevertheless, what his research implies is clear.
PC keeps people in check.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Reality is stubborn. Biological reality will NOT change because you want it to. It will NOT change because of the political winds of our time. It will NOT change because it is "wrong". It will NOT change because of faith. It will NOT change despite all the ad hominems one wants to use to condemn it or the messenger. It will NOT change except by evolutionary processes.
Your use of anaphora clearly displays your ineffectiveness, which is why you feel compelled to resort to such redundant rhetorical devices. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE]Of all those in this thread you certainly have the sharpest tongue.
You think my tongue is sharp, because your mind is so dull.
It's true that I 'cut to the quick', but then you're and easy mark, so....
quote:Great, you've added "dull" to the long list of insults.
It seems you are too dull to notice the my use of dull simply juxtaposes your use of sharp.
In other words, it went right over your dull head.
Whining about 'being insulted' is just another form of excuse making for your intellectual failures.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: This is what happens when you romanticize reality and hope that those "draining ideologies" just go away by ignoring them.
Of course I'm to ignore any ideology since it hinders the process of fact finding in the context of science. Your particular ideology is simply an interference to objectivity, which is why you drown the thread with so much meaningless rhetoric. Though I do appreciate you owning up to the fact that you are indeed nothing more than a victim of ideology.
quote:They continue to fester, they gain more momentum, more evidence, and it hits you like a ton of bricks.
More nonsense from you. It's ironic that you criticize wordsmiths given that the majority of your posts consists of delusional rantings about the inevitability of evidence piling up in favor of your seemingly bunk thesis. Though us undistracted, rational people can see the contrast in that mainstream academia surely doesn't see such a trend, especially the American Psychological Association, who directly contradicts you ("what little evidence there is, fails to support the genetic explanation"). Of course, you live in a world external to our perception.
quote:With regard to IQ, there is mountains of evidence supporting my side, only scattered tattered bits supporting yours (propped up by mainstream non-scientists and hacks like Lieberman who claim race doesn't exist yet did an study on race; what did he do, get two White kids and call one of them black to find that their IQ is equal? lol). Had you not ignored this for so long, it wouldn't have been so hard a pill to swallow.
Fibs, ad hominems, distortions, generalizations, and plain old delusions are what you've been pathetically reduced to in repetition. Now Lieberman is a "hack", but Rushton isn't, and now the American Psychological Association is wrong, but you, a referenceless and ideologically driven/anonymous poster on Egypt search, are right, as far as presenting the established consensus view? Surely these illusions of yours have taken you to the deep end of fairy tale lake.
quote:Watson knew it. Spencer knows it. You now know it. I know it. It's not so hard is it? It's generally excepted anyway, but we can still live in polite society. Equality under the law doesn't mean we have to be biologically the same.
The people you cite had absolutely no evidence to offer, which is convenient since when one "knows" something, they often are able to demonstrate it, which isn't the case. Watson's own scientific colleagues condemned him, as well as his audience, so by "everybody", I assume that you mean Watson. Surely racist people still exist, so this isn't surprising that racist people would make racist comments. What separates that from science is being able to prove it. Surely, "everybody" in the middle ages knew that Europeans were dull witted and barbaric, as many still in fact hold true today.
quote:You can't and shouldn't supress knowledge. Have you learned anything from the story of Galileo?
I've read all the sources you've cited. I've investigated it because I'm interested in the topic. So to say I've only focused on one ideology is completely flawed. All the research leads to this ideology.
I'm not into playing coy or being naive about what the APA says. Anybody remotely intelligent can see that they're saying genetics is at the root of race disparities without actually saying it. Truth eventually trumps politics. It's just a matter of time.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Just tell me please that you don't buy this bunk.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: other info from wiki.
The Nri Kingdom is the oldest Kingdom in what is now known as Nigeria today. ... modern day popular dating ... 900AD ...
But if so, you reall need to go here and skip down to the FOUNDATIONS section. Also go here and pay attention to several of Myra's posts.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
I've read all the sources you've cited. I've investigated it because I'm interested in the topic. So to say I've only focused on one ideology is completely flawed. All the research leads to this ideology.
I'm not into playing coy or being naive about what the APA says. Anybody remotely intelligent can see that they're saying genetics is at the root of race disparities without actually saying it. Truth eventually trumps politics. It's just a matter of time.
Clearly you haven't read anything I've cited since you've provided no competent rebuttal. Your political spin garbage is non-applicable to the scientific assessments being addressed, but of course the premise of your entire argument stems from political ideology, so I expect nothing more I suppose.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE]Of all those in this thread you certainly have the sharpest tongue.
You think my tongue is sharp, because your mind is so dull.
It's true that I 'cut to the quick', but then you're and easy mark, so....
quote:Great, you've added "dull" to the long list of insults.
It seems you are too dull to notice the my use of dull simply juxtaposes your use of sharp.
In other words, it went right over your dull head.
Whining about 'being insulted' is just another form of excuse making for your intellectual failures.
More insults. Have you anything else to add?
"Whining" added to the list. It's amazing how you can't see the irony in your post.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
I've read all the sources you've cited. I've investigated it because I'm interested in the topic. So to say I've only focused on one ideology is completely flawed. All the research leads to this ideology.
I'm not into playing coy or being naive about what the APA says. Anybody remotely intelligent can see that they're saying genetics is at the root of race disparities without actually saying it. Truth eventually trumps politics. It's just a matter of time.
Clearly you haven't read anything I've cited since you've provided no competent rebuttal. Your political spin garbage is non-applicable to the scientific assessments being addressed, but of course the premise of your entire argument stems from political ideology, so I expect nothing more I suppose.
You posted politics, not science. This is about science, not condeming people because biological truth may hurt peoples' feelings.
Refer to the table yet again, please. Digest it for awhile.
Heck, Imus was condemned by his colleagues for being a racist. Is Imus racist? No. But what he said was not PC, so "everybody" condemned him. In the end, he won millions in his lawsuit, because he was right and "all of them" were wrong.
In science, reaction is that much worse. When studies show an ugly truth and that truth is reported it's backlash city.
All of your attempts at obfuscation fall flat. I used to use the very same arguments you all have, but I realized I was being disingenuine in the face of reality.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
According to Rasol:
1) ALL people are of EQUAL intelligence
2) ALL races are of EQUAL intelligence
3) Environment has NO ROLE in the development of civilization but plays 100% ROLE in the development of individual intelligence.
4) Genes play NO ROLE in intelligence and intelligence is NOT heritable.
5) There is no Black-White IQ gap despite 100 years of research to the contrary.
6) IQ is meaningless
7) Race doesn't exist.
8) Evolution can lead to new species being created, various breeds, all with different morphologies, temperament, dispositions, intelligences, but the same laws of evolution do NOT hold true for humans. It's just inapplicable, because, well, he says so.
That pretty much sums up Rasol's position and yours. It's really trite stuff and easily refuted. You've been beaten in this debate folks.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: It's amazing how you can't see the irony in your post.
The principal irony in this thread has already been denoted.....
You advocate for the notion of innate intelligence, while providing a personal example of ineducable illiteracy.
You attempt to take a false pride in the notion of 'group IO', but lack the self respect that is required in order for you to educate yourself.
You nothing about Ancient Egypt:
And nothing about Evolutionary Biology:
^ ..and you likely never will.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote: It's amazing how you can't see the irony in your post.
The principal irony in this thread has already been denoted.....
You advocate for the notion of innate intelligence, while providing a personal example of ineducable illiteracy.
You attempt to take a false pride in the notion of 'group IO', but lack the self respect that is required in order for you to educate yourself.
More diffusion, deception, and attacks.
The usual "educate yourself" ad hominem or "read this book" appeals to authority. You've been served in this thread.
Your main reponses have been:
1) Name-calling
2) Refer to Mismeasure of Man (laughable) and other books which support MY position not yours, if you're not naive enough not to see it
Aside from that, you've offered nothing.
Refer to The Bell Curve as a start. If you want something more damning and of higher caliber read Jensen's book the G Factor.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: You posted politics, not science. This is about science, not condeming people because biological truth may hurt peoples' feelings.
Refer to the table yet again, please. Digest it for awhile.
Heck, Imus was condemned by his colleagues for being a racist. Is Imus racist? No. But what he said was not PC, so "everybody" condemned him. In the end, he won millions in his lawsuit, because he was right and "all of them" were wrong.
In science, reaction is that much worse. When studies show an ugly truth and that truth is reported it's backlash city.
All of your attempts at obfuscation fall flat. I used to use the very same arguments you all have, but I realized I was being disingenuine in the face of reality.
No, what I posted was an assessment put fourth by a renowned geneticist in direct critique of a supposed discipline imposing its self onto their field as an authoritative reference for human biodiversity. Data was cited therein, yet you have miserably failed to comment. This is not surprising since you've been exposed previously as feigning an interest in the literature in question, the same literature which you've yet to read, yet choose to criticize politically. Your table is spin garbage, not data.
Hopefully you remember when I addressed the IQ and Wealth of Nations? Well here's a relevant paper with the accompanying data table, which basically again, refutes your bogus position, as has been done ad nauseum by so many. .................................................................
A Few Thoughts on IQ and the Wealth of Nations
By Steve Sailer
I want to contribute some observations about the landmark book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn of the U. of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the U. of Helsinki. It was the subject of an extremely informative Feb. 27th VDARE.COM review by J. Philippe Rushton, which this is intended to complement.
The book's content is irresistible - at its heart is a table of the average IQ scores of 81 different countries, most drawn from studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The national average IQs range from 107 for Hong Kong to 59 for Equatorial Guinea.
Lynn and Vanhanen benchmarked their IQ results so that Britain is 100. America scores 98 on this scale, and the world average is 90. IQ's are assumed to form a normal probability distribution ("bell curve") with the standard deviation set at 15. Here are a few examples:
Admit it, you want to know what the rest of the table says! Beyond satisfying sheer curiosity, though, the strong correlation between IQ and the wealth of nations is of world-historical importance. From now on, no public intellectual can seriously claim to be attempting to understand how the world works unless he takes IQ into account.
How much can we trust these IQ results?
As soon as I received the book, I turned to Appendix 1, where Lynn and Vanhanen describe all 168 national IQ studies they've found - an average of just over two per country.
Are the results internally consistent? In other words, when there are multiple studies for a single country, do they tend to give roughly the same answer?
I expected a sizable amount of internal divergence. I spent 18 years in the marketing research industry, so I know how expensive it is to come up with a nationally representative sample. Further, Lynn and Vanhanen use results from quite different IQ tests. They rely most on the non-verbal Raven's Progressive Matrices, which were designed to be used across cultures, even by illiterates. Yet, they also have a lot of results from the Wechsler exams, which are more culture dependent - the Wechsler include a vocabulary subtest, for example. And they report results from other IQ tests, including a few from the oddball Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Man test. Also, sample sizes vary dramatically, from a few dozen in some obscure countries to 64,000 for one American study. Finally, some studies were of children, others of adults.
This doesn't sound promising. Nevertheless, the results show a high degree of internal consistency. Here are the first eight countries for which they have multiple scores:
Argentina: 93 and 98 Australia: 97, 98, and 99 Austria: 101, 103 Belgium: 99, 103, 98 Brazil: 88, 84, 90, and 85 Bulgaria: 94, 91 China: 100, 92.5, 103.4 Democratic Republic of Congo: 73, 72
That's not bad at all. In fact, leaving aside China, the results are remarkably consistent. There are, of course, a few countries for which different studies came up with quite divergent results, especially Poland, where the two scores Lynn and Vanhanen found were 92 and 106. Still, the correlation among results when there are two or more studies for a country is a striking 0.94.
You shouldn't take every score on faith. The reported IQ for Israel (only 94????!!!) has elicited much criticism. Lynn has replied that he wanted to publish the data as he found it, even if some of it looked implausible. His hope is to encourage further research to resolve seeming anomalies.
The IQ structures of the two giga-countries, China and India, demand more intense study, in part because the future history of the world will hinge in no small part on their endowments of human capital. The demography of India is especially complex due to its caste system, which resembles Jim Crow on steroids and acid. By discouraging intermarriage, caste has subdivided the Indian people into an incredible number of micro-races. In India, according to the dean of population genetics, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, "The total number of endogamous communities today is around 43,000…" We know that some of those communities - such as the Zoroastrian Parsees of Bombay - are exceptionally intelligent.
But we can't say with any confidence what is the long run IQ potential of Indians overall. Their current IQ score (81) is low, especially compared to China (100), the other country with hundreds of millions of poor peasants. Yet, keep in mind just how narrow life in rural India was for so long. In 1952, on the fifth anniversary of independence, the Indian government commissioned a survey to find out if the average Indian villager had heard yet that the British had gone. The study was quietly cancelled when early results showed that the average villager had never heard that the British had ever arrived!
It appears likely that some combination of malnutrition, disease, inbreeding, lack of education, lack of mental stimulation, lack of familiarity with abstract reasoning and so forth can keep people from reaching their genetic potential for IQ. Lynn himself did early studies demonstrating that malnutrition drives down IQ. The co-authors conclude their book by recommending that
"The rich countries' economic aid programs for the poor countries should be continued and some of these should be directed at attempting to increase the intelligence levels of the populations of the poorer countries by improvements in nutrition and the like."
A clear example of how a bad environment can hurt IQ can be seen in the IQ scores for sub-Saharan African countries. They average only around 70. In contrast, African-Americans average about 85 [but has since then, increased by 6 pts relative to whites]. It appears unlikely that African-Americans’ white admixture can account for most of this 15-point gap because they are only around 17%-18% white on average, according to the latest genetic research. (Thus African-Americans white genes probably couldn't account for more than 3 points of the gap between African-Americans and African-Africans.) This suggests that the harshness of life in Africa might be cutting ten points or more off African IQ scores.
Similarly, West Africans are significantly shorter in height than their distant cousins in America, most likely due to malnutrition and infections. The two African-born NBA superstars, Hakeem Olajuwon and Dikembe Mutombo, are both from the wa-benzi [people of the (Mercedes ) Benz]upper class. Only the elite in Africa gets enough food and health care to grow up to be NBA centers.
This also implies that African-Americans might be able to achieve higher IQs too, although the environmental gap between white Americans and black Americans appears to be much smaller than between black Americans and black Africans. As I pointed out in VDARE in 2000, the most promising avenue for improving African-Americans' IQs is by promoting breastfeeding among blacks mothers, who nurse their babies at much lower rates than whites.
In fact, we know that IQ is not completely fixed over time because raw test scores have been rising for decades, about 2 to 3 points per decade. To counteract this, the IQ test-making firms periodically make it harder - in absolute terms - to achieve a score of 100. Lynn was possibly the first scientist to make this phenomenon widely known, although New Zealand political scientist James Flynn has gotten more credit for this recently. And, indeed, Lynn and Vanhanen scrupulously adjust the test results in their book to account for when each test was taken.
While the causes of the Lynn-Flynn Effect remain rather mysterious, it does resemble several other ongoing phenomena. For example, human beings are getting taller, living longer, and having fewer of their babies die during infancy.
One might expect IQ scores to converge as the richest nations experience diminishing marginal returns on improvements in nutrition, health, and education. By way of analogy, consider how, after 1950, average height has not grown as fast in already well-fed America as it has in rapidly developing East Asia.
It's unlikely the Japanese will ever be as tall on average as, say, Lithuanians or Croatians or African-Americans. But the gap has closed. This partial convergence in height is why you now see 6'-2" East Asian baseball pitchers like Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park starring in the American big leagues. Last year Wang Zhizhi, 7’-1” became the first Asian ever to join the NBA.
Perhaps that kind of convergence will happen with IQ scores someday. But the evidence that it is happening now isn't terribly strong. The odd thing about the Lynn-Flynn Effect is that it doesn't seem to have had much impact on comparative rankings of IQ over time. The smart seem to keep on getting smarter.
For instance, one of the best-documented examples of a country with rising raw IQ scores is the Netherlands (current IQ: 102). But even as far back as the 17th Century, the general opinion of mankind was that the Dutch had a lot on the ball.
One potential explanation for why IQ gaps don't seem to be narrowing (for example, the white-black IQ gap in America has been about 15 points for 80 years or so) was offered by Flynn recently. He argued that smart people, because they find cognitive challenges pleasurable, seek out more mentally stimulating environments, which in turn exercise their brains more, making them even smarter. This suggests, for example, that the Dutch will tend to become, say, Internet addicts demanding constant fixes of new information and argument, and thus continue to grow in mental firepower.
While unproven, Flynn’s suggestion seems possible. In absolute terms, it's a virtuous circle. But it seems unlikely to lead to the closing of the relative gap.
Ultimately, though, it is hard to avoid concluding that intellectual and income differences between nations stem to some extent from genetic differences. The results simply cluster too much by race. All the countries populated by Northeast Asians score between 100 and 107. The European-populated lands score between 90 and 102. Southeast Asian nations cluster in the low 90s. The Caucasian countries in North Africa and western Asia score mostly in the 80s. And so forth.
The correlation between national IQ and national income is very high. For the 81 countries, the r is .73 for GDP measured in purchasing power parity terms (which makes poor nations with lots of subsistence farmers look better off than they do in standard measures of just the cash economy). In the social sciences, correlations of 0.2 are said to be "low," 0.4 are "moderate," and 0.6 are "high." So 0.73 is most impressive.
This doesn't mean that a high IQ alone is the cause of a high income. Causation probably runs in both directions, in another virtuous circle. Rich countries tend to produce enough food to stave off malnutrition, for instance, which probably leads to higher IQs, which leads to even higher food production due to more sophisticated farming techniques.
Interestingly, per capita income correlates almost as strongly with a nation's level of economic freedom as it does with its level of intelligence. But that's in large part because economic freedom and IQ correlate with each other - at the high level of 0.63.
Freedom and brains probably contribute to each other. Although there are obvious exceptions, countries with smart workers (and smart leaders) tended to find that the capitalist system generated wealth. So there was less impetus to experiment with command economies than in places where free enterprise wasn't getting the job done.
But it could also be that freedom exercises the brain - West Germans averaged 103 while East Germans scored only 95. My pet theory is that having to make all the choices between products available in a successful capitalist economy stimulates mental development. (I believe this because, as I get older and stupider, I increasingly find shopping to be intellectually exhausting.) But evidence for this is not abundant.
Culture can play a role as well - at the extreme, contrast two countries with almost identical per capita GDPs: Barbados and Argentina (at least before Argentina's recent economic collapse). Don't cry for Argentina, because it is blessed with ample IQ (96). But it's dragged down by a notorious lack of economic and political self-discipline. In contrast, Barbados, despite an average IQ of 78, is one of the most pleasant countries in the 3rd World due to its commitment to maintaining a veddy, veddy English culture.
Still, these two countries are close to being the exceptions that prove the rule. The explanatory power of the "cultural realist" models like Thomas Sowell’s are necessarily more limited than those of "biocultural realist" like Richard Lynn. In general, cultures that emphasize, say, foresight are generally found in countries where people have enough IQ to be foresighted. Maybe people in northern countries tend to have higher IQs because people too unintelligent to effectively prepare for winter tended to get removed from the gene pool.
The IQ-income correlation is not perfect either. But even where it breaks down - most notably with China - IQ helps explain otherwise puzzling developments like the recent headline in the New York Times announcing "Globalization Proves Disappointing."
Globalization, or the fast-paced growth of trade and cross-border investment, has done far less to raise the incomes of the world's poorest people than the leaders had hoped, many officials here say. The vast majority of people living in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East are no better off today than they were in 1989..."
On the other hand, hundreds of billions in private investment have poured into China, which, despite its parasitical ruling caste, has enjoyed strong economic growth.
So what's the story behind this story? Apparently, capital flows to where wages are low but IQs are high - pre-eminently China, where the average IQ is two points higher than the U.S. already and likely to go higher as economic development continues.
In contrast, these other regions (with the exception of Argentina) average IQs of 90 or less, sometimes considerably less.
This is not to disparage free markets - there's no alternative. The point is simply that humans differ greatly in productive capacity, so not everyone benefits from economic competition to the same extent.
The implications for immigration policy are clear.
First, any conceivable level of immigration to America is insufficient to make any difference in the welfare of the billions of foreigners living in poverty.
Second, in a world where the average IQ is 90, America's nepotism-driven immigration system (legal and illegal) will continue to import primarily foreigners with two-digit IQs. These immigrants' skills are typically insufficient to compete with our native IQ elite, but are ample for driving down the wages of our fellow American citizens who were not blessed in the IQ lottery.
The morality of such a system I leave to the reader to decide.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: This is what happens when you romanticize reality and hope that those "draining ideologies" just go away by ignoring them. They continue to fester, they gain more momentum, more evidence, and it hits you like a ton of bricks.
With regard to IQ, there is mountains of evidence supporting my side, only scattered tattered bits supporting yours (propped up by mainstream non-scientist journalists and hacks like Lieberman who claim race doesn't exist yet did an study on race; what did he do, get two White kids and call one of them black to find that their IQ is equal? lol). Had you not ignored this for so long, it wouldn't have been so hard a pill to swallow.
Watson knew it. Spencer knows it. You now know it. I know it. It's not so hard is it? It's generally excepted anyway, but we can still live in polite society. Equality under the law doesn't mean we have to be biologically the same.
You can't and shouldn't supress knowledge. Have you learned anything from the story of Galileo?
What is YOUR side? The point here is that MODERN societies like "The West" were built on a propensity and willingness to USE VIOLENCE to gain the upper hand militarily, economically and socially. THAT has nothing to do with IQ. The wholesale PLUNDER of the Americas was the result of GREED, not IQ. The creation of slavery was the result of GREED, not IQ. IQ has NOTHING to do with the rise of MODERN civilization in the way you are TRYING to pretend. The fact is that Africa and elsewhere HAD civilizations and organized societies LONG before Europe and that the ONLY reason people like the natives and Africans are not MORE developed is because of the history of the oppression and destruction of the civilizations and societies of these peoples by "The West". And the funny part is that this ONLY came about due the "the West" learning about gunpowder FROM THE MOOORS. Again, IQ has nothing to do with this. The Chinese, Arabs and African Moors had gunpowder BEFORE Europe, yet did not take it to the level of Europeans. Is this because of CULTURE or because of IQ? It is largely because of CULTURE, especially in China, but also among the Muslims. That IS NOT IQ. Europeans did not originate it, but that ONE TECHNOLOGY, is the MAIN reason that they eventually became predominant on the world stage. And AGAIN, if it WASNT for the MOORS in Spain, a LOT OF THIS would NOT have happened. Another thing that "The West" learned from the Moors was the importance of EDUCATION. It is from the Moors that Europe began developing advanced education in Universities and schools. Because before the Moors, MOST of Europe was illiterate. After this, the Christian Church became the source of most education, copying the models of the Madrassas of Moorish Spain. THAT system is what eventually began the great amount of knowledge and "higher IQ" of the average European. Unfortunately for Islam, the loss of Moorish Spain, with numerous arabic works on math, science and philosophy, was unrecoverable. They never regained their predominance in the sciences since this time. So take that B.S. about IQ and "intelligence" somewhere and learn REAL HISTORY not nonsense.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: You posted politics, not science. This is about science, not condeming people because biological truth may hurt peoples' feelings.
Refer to the table yet again, please. Digest it for awhile.
Heck, Imus was condemned by his colleagues for being a racist. Is Imus racist? No. But what he said was not PC, so "everybody" condemned him. In the end, he won millions in his lawsuit, because he was right and "all of them" were wrong.
In science, reaction is that much worse. When studies show an ugly truth and that truth is reported it's backlash city.
All of your attempts at obfuscation fall flat. I used to use the very same arguments you all have, but I realized I was being disingenuine in the face of reality.
No, what I posted was an assessment put fourth by a renowned geneticist in direct critique of a supposed discipline imposing its self onto their field as an authoritative reference for human biodiversity. Data was cited therein, yet you have miserably failed to comment. This is not surprising since you've been exposed previously as feigning an interest in the literature in question, the same literature which you've yet to read, yet choose to criticize politically. Your table is spin garbage, not data.
Hopefully you remember when I addressed the IQ and Wealth of Nations? Well here's a relevant paper with the accompanying data table, which basically again, refutes your bogus position, as has been done ad nauseum by so many. .................................................................
A Few Thoughts on IQ and the Wealth of Nations
By Steve Sailer
I want to contribute some observations about the landmark book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn of the U. of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the U. of Helsinki. It was the subject of an extremely informative Feb. 27th VDARE.COM review by J. Philippe Rushton, which this is intended to complement.
The book's content is irresistible - at its heart is a table of the average IQ scores of 81 different countries, most drawn from studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The national average IQs range from 107 for Hong Kong to 59 for Equatorial Guinea.
Lynn and Vanhanen benchmarked their IQ results so that Britain is 100. America scores 98 on this scale, and the world average is 90. IQ's are assumed to form a normal probability distribution ("bell curve") with the standard deviation set at 15. Here are a few examples:
Admit it, you want to know what the rest of the table says! Beyond satisfying sheer curiosity, though, the strong correlation between IQ and the wealth of nations is of world-historical importance. From now on, no public intellectual can seriously claim to be attempting to understand how the world works unless he takes IQ into account.
How much can we trust these IQ results?
As soon as I received the book, I turned to Appendix 1, where Lynn and Vanhanen describe all 168 national IQ studies they've found - an average of just over two per country.
Are the results internally consistent? In other words, when there are multiple studies for a single country, do they tend to give roughly the same answer?
I expected a sizable amount of internal divergence. I spent 18 years in the marketing research industry, so I know how expensive it is to come up with a nationally representative sample. Further, Lynn and Vanhanen use results from quite different IQ tests. They rely most on the non-verbal Raven's Progressive Matrices, which were designed to be used across cultures, even by illiterates. Yet, they also have a lot of results from the Wechsler exams, which are more culture dependent - the Wechsler include a vocabulary subtest, for example. And they report results from other IQ tests, including a few from the oddball Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Man test. Also, sample sizes vary dramatically, from a few dozen in some obscure countries to 64,000 for one American study. Finally, some studies were of children, others of adults.
This doesn't sound promising. Nevertheless, the results show a high degree of internal consistency. Here are the first eight countries for which they have multiple scores:
Argentina: 93 and 98 Australia: 97, 98, and 99 Austria: 101, 103 Belgium: 99, 103, 98 Brazil: 88, 84, 90, and 85 Bulgaria: 94, 91 China: 100, 92.5, 103.4 Democratic Republic of Congo: 73, 72
That's not bad at all. In fact, leaving aside China, the results are remarkably consistent. There are, of course, a few countries for which different studies came up with quite divergent results, especially Poland, where the two scores Lynn and Vanhanen found were 92 and 106. Still, the correlation among results when there are two or more studies for a country is a striking 0.94.
You shouldn't take every score on faith. The reported IQ for Israel (only 94????!!!) has elicited much criticism. Lynn has replied that he wanted to publish the data as he found it, even if some of it looked implausible. His hope is to encourage further research to resolve seeming anomalies.
The IQ structures of the two giga-countries, China and India, demand more intense study, in part because the future history of the world will hinge in no small part on their endowments of human capital. The demography of India is especially complex due to its caste system, which resembles Jim Crow on steroids and acid. By discouraging intermarriage, caste has subdivided the Indian people into an incredible number of micro-races. In India, according to the dean of population genetics, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, "The total number of endogamous communities today is around 43,000…" We know that some of those communities - such as the Zoroastrian Parsees of Bombay - are exceptionally intelligent.
But we can't say with any confidence what is the long run IQ potential of Indians overall. Their current IQ score (81) is low, especially compared to China (100), the other country with hundreds of millions of poor peasants. Yet, keep in mind just how narrow life in rural India was for so long. In 1952, on the fifth anniversary of independence, the Indian government commissioned a survey to find out if the average Indian villager had heard yet that the British had gone. The study was quietly cancelled when early results showed that the average villager had never heard that the British had ever arrived!
It appears likely that some combination of malnutrition, disease, inbreeding, lack of education, lack of mental stimulation, lack of familiarity with abstract reasoning and so forth can keep people from reaching their genetic potential for IQ. Lynn himself did early studies demonstrating that malnutrition drives down IQ. The co-authors conclude their book by recommending that
"The rich countries' economic aid programs for the poor countries should be continued and some of these should be directed at attempting to increase the intelligence levels of the populations of the poorer countries by improvements in nutrition and the like."
A clear example of how a bad environment can hurt IQ can be seen in the IQ scores for sub-Saharan African countries. They average only around 70. In contrast, African-Americans average about 85. It appears unlikely that African-Americans’ white admixture can account for most of this 15-point gap because they are only around 17%-18% white on average, according to the latest genetic research. (Thus African-Americans white genes probably couldn't account for more than 3 points of the gap between African-Americans and African-Africans.) This suggests that the harshness of life in Africa might be cutting ten points or more off African IQ scores.
Similarly, West Africans are significantly shorter in height than their distant cousins in America, most likely due to malnutrition and infections. The two African-born NBA superstars, Hakeem Olajuwon and Dikembe Mutombo, are both from the wa-benzi [people of the (Mercedes ) Benz]upper class. Only the elite in Africa gets enough food and health care to grow up to be NBA centers.
This also implies that African-Americans might be able to achieve higher IQs too, although the environmental gap between white Americans and black Americans appears to be much smaller than between black Americans and black Africans. As I pointed out in VDARE in 2000, the most promising avenue for improving African-Americans' IQs is by promoting breastfeeding among blacks mothers, who nurse their babies at much lower rates than whites.
In fact, we know that IQ is not completely fixed over time because raw test scores have been rising for decades, about 2 to 3 points per decade. To counteract this, the IQ test-making firms periodically make it harder - in absolute terms - to achieve a score of 100. Lynn was possibly the first scientist to make this phenomenon widely known, although New Zealand political scientist James Flynn has gotten more credit for this recently. And, indeed, Lynn and Vanhanen scrupulously adjust the test results in their book to account for when each test was taken.
While the causes of the Lynn-Flynn Effect remain rather mysterious, it does resemble several other ongoing phenomena. For example, human beings are getting taller, living longer, and having fewer of their babies die during infancy.
One might expect IQ scores to converge as the richest nations experience diminishing marginal returns on improvements in nutrition, health, and education. By way of analogy, consider how, after 1950, average height has not grown as fast in already well-fed America as it has in rapidly developing East Asia.
It's unlikely the Japanese will ever be as tall on average as, say, Lithuanians or Croatians or African-Americans. But the gap has closed. This partial convergence in height is why you now see 6'-2" East Asian baseball pitchers like Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park starring in the American big leagues. Last year Wang Zhizhi, 7’-1” became the first Asian ever to join the NBA.
Perhaps that kind of convergence will happen with IQ scores someday. But the evidence that it is happening now isn't terribly strong. The odd thing about the Lynn-Flynn Effect is that it doesn't seem to have had much impact on comparative rankings of IQ over time. The smart seem to keep on getting smarter.
For instance, one of the best-documented examples of a country with rising raw IQ scores is the Netherlands (current IQ: 102). But even as far back as the 17th Century, the general opinion of mankind was that the Dutch had a lot on the ball.
One potential explanation for why IQ gaps don't seem to be narrowing (for example, the white-black IQ gap in America has been about 15 points for 80 years or so) was offered by Flynn recently. He argued that smart people, because they find cognitive challenges pleasurable, seek out more mentally stimulating environments, which in turn exercise their brains more, making them even smarter. This suggests, for example, that the Dutch will tend to become, say, Internet addicts demanding constant fixes of new information and argument, and thus continue to grow in mental firepower.
While unproven, Flynn’s suggestion seems possible. In absolute terms, it's a virtuous circle. But it seems unlikely to lead to the closing of the relative gap.
Ultimately, though, it is hard to avoid concluding that intellectual and income differences between nations stem to some extent from genetic differences. The results simply cluster too much by race. All the countries populated by Northeast Asians score between 100 and 107. The European-populated lands score between 90 and 102. Southeast Asian nations cluster in the low 90s. The Caucasian countries in North Africa and western Asia score mostly in the 80s. And so forth.
The correlation between national IQ and national income is very high. For the 81 countries, the r is .73 for GDP measured in purchasing power parity terms (which makes poor nations with lots of subsistence farmers look better off than they do in standard measures of just the cash economy). In the social sciences, correlations of 0.2 are said to be "low," 0.4 are "moderate," and 0.6 are "high." So 0.73 is most impressive.
This doesn't mean that a high IQ alone is the cause of a high income. Causation probably runs in both directions, in another virtuous circle. Rich countries tend to produce enough food to stave off malnutrition, for instance, which probably leads to higher IQs, which leads to even higher food production due to more sophisticated farming techniques.
Interestingly, per capita income correlates almost as strongly with a nation's level of economic freedom as it does with its level of intelligence. But that's in large part because economic freedom and IQ correlate with each other - at the high level of 0.63.
Freedom and brains probably contribute to each other. Although there are obvious exceptions, countries with smart workers (and smart leaders) tended to find that the capitalist system generated wealth. So there was less impetus to experiment with command economies than in places where free enterprise wasn't getting the job done.
But it could also be that freedom exercises the brain - West Germans averaged 103 while East Germans scored only 95. My pet theory is that having to make all the choices between products available in a successful capitalist economy stimulates mental development. (I believe this because, as I get older and stupider, I increasingly find shopping to be intellectually exhausting.) But evidence for this is not abundant.
Culture can play a role as well - at the extreme, contrast two countries with almost identical per capita GDPs: Barbados and Argentina (at least before Argentina's recent economic collapse). Don't cry for Argentina, because it is blessed with ample IQ (96). But it's dragged down by a notorious lack of economic and political self-discipline. In contrast, Barbados, despite an average IQ of 78, is one of the most pleasant countries in the 3rd World due to its commitment to maintaining a veddy, veddy English culture.
Still, these two countries are close to being the exceptions that prove the rule. The explanatory power of the "cultural realist" models like Thomas Sowell’s are necessarily more limited than those of "biocultural realist" like Richard Lynn. In general, cultures that emphasize, say, foresight are generally found in countries where people have enough IQ to be foresighted. Maybe people in northern countries tend to have higher IQs because people too unintelligent to effectively prepare for winter tended to get removed from the gene pool.
The IQ-income correlation is not perfect either. But even where it breaks down - most notably with China - IQ helps explain otherwise puzzling developments like the recent headline in the New York Times announcing "Globalization Proves Disappointing."
Globalization, or the fast-paced growth of trade and cross-border investment, has done far less to raise the incomes of the world's poorest people than the leaders had hoped, many officials here say. The vast majority of people living in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East are no better off today than they were in 1989..."
On the other hand, hundreds of billions in private investment have poured into China, which, despite its parasitical ruling caste, has enjoyed strong economic growth.
So what's the story behind this story? Apparently, capital flows to where wages are low but IQs are high - pre-eminently China, where the average IQ is two points higher than the U.S. already and likely to go higher as economic development continues.
In contrast, these other regions (with the exception of Argentina) average IQs of 90 or less, sometimes considerably less.
This is not to disparage free markets - there's no alternative. The point is simply that humans differ greatly in productive capacity, so not everyone benefits from economic competition to the same extent.
The implications for immigration policy are clear.
First, any conceivable level of immigration to America is insufficient to make any difference in the welfare of the billions of foreigners living in poverty.
Second, in a world where the average IQ is 90, America's nepotism-driven immigration system (legal and illegal) will continue to import primarily foreigners with two-digit IQs. These immigrants' skills are typically insufficient to compete with our native IQ elite, but are ample for driving down the wages of our fellow American citizens who were not blessed in the IQ lottery.
The morality of such a system I leave to the reader to decide.
Holy smokes. Did you even read that entire article?
It supports MY position. Do you even have a clue who Steve Sailer is and what his position on race and IQ is? LOL, you're in for a surprise.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:According to Rasol:
1) ALL people are of EQUAL intelligence
Not my position, for example, I certainly do not regard you as the intellectual equal of anyone on this forum, as you are not merely saddled with and unintelligible thesis, but also have no idea of how to present it.
To me this suggests you possess and inferior intelligence. I guess that should make you happy (?) since it acknowledges one facet of your thesis?
Your inability to correctly grasp my position and subsequent need to resort to strawman argument is itself proof of your personal intellectual shortcomings...which again, is the principal irony of this thread.
quote:2) ALL races are of EQUAL intelligence.
Not my position either, and so another remark demonstrating your lack of intelligence.
quote:3) Environment has NO ROLE in the development of civilization
Also not my position and not anything I would ever say. Once again you demonstrate a lack of intelligence.
quote: but plays 100% ROLE in the development of individual intelligence.
See above.
Not my position, not something I ever said.
quote:4) Genes play NO ROLE in intelligence and intelligence is NOT heritable.
Not my position, not something I ever said.
quote: 6) IQ is meaningless.
Not my position either, and so another strawman argument and personal demonstration of a lack of intelligence on your part.
quote:7) Race doesn't exist.
Race exists as social rhetoric and unintelligent demogaguery as you demonstrate so well.
For example: Racists, attempt to hide their personal feelings of inferiority behind the imagined notion of belong to a surperior 'race'.
As if that compensates for their own stupidity.
There are have been many studies showing the relationship between such racism and low self esteem.
That race has little meaning in terms of biology and genetics...is the position of most biologists, and with whom I concur.
Strawman arguments don't prove the existence of race, they merely prove the intellectual bankruptcy of those proferring them, namely yourself Shaun.
Anything else?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:According to Rasol:
1) ALL people are of EQUAL intelligence
Not my position, for example, I certainly do not regard you as the intellectual equal of anyone on this forum.
Your inability to correctly grasp my position is itself proof of your personal intellectual shortcomings...which again, is the principal irony of this thread.
quote:2) ALL races are of EQUAL intelligence.
Not my position either, and so another remark demonstrating your lack of intelligence.
quote:3) Environment has NO ROLE in the development of civilization
Also not my position and not anything I would ever say. Once again you demonstrate a lack of intelligence.
quote: but plays 100% ROLE in the development of individual intelligence.
See above.
Not my position, not something I ever said.
quote:4) Genes play NO ROLE in intelligence and intelligence is NOT heritable.
Not my position, not something I ever said.
quote: 6) IQ is meaningless.
Not my position either, and so another strawman argument and personal demonstration of a lack of intelligence on your part.
quote:7) Race doesn't exist.
Race exists as social rhetoric and unintelligent demogaguery as you demonstrate so well.
That race has little meaning in terms of biology and genetics...is the position of most biologists.
Strawman arguments don't prove the existence of race, they merely prove the intellectual bankruptcy of those proferring them, namely yourself Shaun.
Anything else?
lol Rasol, you're a lightweight. This isn't your sphere of expertise.
Btw you missed one point:
8) Evolution can lead to new species being created, various breeds, all with different morphologies, temperament, dispositions, intelligences, but the same laws of evolution do NOT hold true for humans. It's just inapplicable, because, well, he says so.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Shaun: More diffusion, deception, and attacks.
More ad hominem whining, and no answers, as always.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Rasol, you're a lightweight.
^ That's a pitiful attempt at insult, which you are no good at, as cleverness is required.
This is and intellectual property you lack, for reasons which I am sure you have some excuse for.
quote:Rasok, you missed on - Evolution can lead to new species being created, various breeds, all with different morphologies, temperament, dispositions, intelligences, but the same laws of evolution do NOT hold true for humans.
^ Not my position, and so another unintelligent strawman argument.
Ok, i've covered it now.... feel better?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Sundiata, do a search on VDARE.com for all of Steve Sailer's articles. To begin with VDARE is an anti-immigration site. Sailer tackles all kinds of issues, race and IQ among them. His position is explicit, nearly as explicit as Hart.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Holy smokes. Did you even read that entire article?
It supports MY position. Do you even have a clue who Steve Sailer is and what his position on race and IQ is? LOL, you're in for a surprise.
It's simply hilarious how you refuse to read critical points that refute your claims, and instead choose to categorize people by polarization, in your attempt to summarize Sailer's views. Because he is a conservative, in no way suggests that he supports your extremist claims and agenda, especially considering the above, and particularly what was printed in bold.
This assessment totally contradicts you. I probably disagree with only one statement here, and in general, he definitely correlates IQ with wealth and environment, as was exemplified by the huge disparity between African Americans and Black Africans, and the much smaller, but decreasing disparity between African and white Americans. I've come to the conclusion that you don't read because you're scared of what you may learn. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
rasol, you're incapable of coherent substantive rebuttals. I have very little else to say to you except, be well. We're on different wavelengths and exposed to vary different sources (mine up-to-date and relevant, yours not so much). I'll carry on this discussion with others in this thread. At least they attempt to add meaningful replies.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol, you're incapable of coherent substantive rebuttals.
Strawman arguments are themselves incoherent and self-refuting.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Holy smokes. Did you even read that entire article?
It supports MY position. Do you even have a clue who Steve Sailer is and what his position on race and IQ is? LOL, you're in for a surprise.
It's simply hilarious how you refuse to read critical points that refute your claims, and instead choose to categorize people by polarization, in your attempt to summarize Sailer's views. Because he is a conservative, in no way suggests that he supports your extremist claims and agenda, especially considering the above, and particularly what was printed in bold.
This assessment totally contradicts you. I probably disagree with only one statement here, and in general, he definitely correlates IQ with wealth and environment, as was exemplified by the huge disparity between African Americans and Black Africans, and the much smaller, but decreasing disparity between African and white Americans. I've come to the conclusion that you don't read because you're scared of what you may learn.
Oh dear. All "critical points" aside, the correlation holds. Ain't nuthin' in life 100% predictive.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Shaun writes: I have very little else to say.
You've had very little of any intelligence to say all along.
Perhaps that's why you need to take refuge in the chimera of 'group intelligence', as you seem incapable of personally demonstrating this trait?
Have a nice day. Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Oh dear. All "critical points" aside, the correlation holds. Ain't nuthin' in life 100% predictive.
The point is that no where in the article presented, does he support your distortions, you simply didn't read the article. I collected the footnote from here , Click, as the bare quote caught my attention, which compelled me to read the article. I wasn't concerned with any particular political format the author in question followed, only the information.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Anybody else? Rasol is still pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity. Maybe he'll ante up some day. He should teach a class on the art of obfuscation and the craft of pointless remarks.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody else? Rasol is still pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Oh dear. All "critical points" aside, the correlation holds. Ain't nuthin' in life 100% predictive.
The point is that no where in the article presented, does he support your distortions, you simply didn't read the article. I collected the footnote from here , Click, as the bare quote caught my attention, which compelled me to read the article. I wasn't concerned with any particular political format the author in question followed, only the information.
I'm going to take Richard Lynn's word for it. The data he compiled speaks for itself. He's yet another celebrated scientist in his field. You don't even own the book. Buy a copy and have a look through it. Whether IQ predicts GDP to a high degree is really secondary to this entire discussion anyway. Let's not get off track.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody else? Rasol is still pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
Damn, all those rich white racists out there with low IQs running the country. I can't begin to list all of the notable men pre-1950's that shaped our world and politics who were explicitly racist.
When you mean racists have low IQs, you're talking about overt racist, not the smart kind. The smart kind wouldn't admit to it to begin with.
Do you see the irony in your post? Blacks are not less intelligent just because they have lower IQs than whites, but Whites who have low IQs are dumb. Hmmm....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Why is this topic still being debated??! The debate should have ended on page 1 of the thread!
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Have any of you read Michael H. Hart's latest book? He's a Jewish astrophysicist who holds degrees in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science.
But no degrees in history or anthropology which are what subjects his book adresses?!
quote:His book is apparently the anti-thesis of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel which posits that geography was the most important feature in the development of human history.
In other words, he posits a racial reason why some societies are more "advanced" than others of course he goes strictly by the technological calibration view of advancement.
Open and print it if you don't want to buy the book.
If you've read it, how about actually giving us reasons as to why his thesis is somehow valid. Since I doubt it is if he uses scientifically defunct views of 'race'.
quote:Have a look at the Chapters on Egypt and Sub-saharran Africa. I've noted some problems with his analysis but also am looking for your input/assessments. I'm 2/3 of the way through the book and his thesis (average population intelligences explains world history) does have a lot of explanatory power. It doesn't mean it's correct, but it's another theory alongside all the others written to explain why world history developed the way it did.
But is not intelligence based on individual persons instead of whole populations?? We have gone over these issues countless times that it is very tiresome.
The 'Bell Curve' and all those other Eurocentric/white racist analysis of IQ based on whole sale populations have been proven to flawed based on the fact that there are many factors that influence IQ including learning environment, as well as the fact that whatever genetic factors involved cannot be generalized about an entire population let alone the various populations of Africa which have been proven to be the most genetically diverse of all!
quote:For Sub-saharran Africa: he basically says nearly all of it was backwards and contributed nothing to civilization. Anything produced there was introduced from the outside with few exceptions.
In other words, he just repeats what white racists have been saying for the past several centuries despite all the evidence that says otherwise!
The map below shows many but not all of the indigenous civilizations created by Africa.
Even European explorers who came to Africa "discovered" cities in the heart of Congo. Yet you never hear about such facts, instead you hear the repeated imperialist and racist lie of Africans being "primitive" and "backwards".
quote:For Egypt: he says it was a SouthEast Asian caucasoid people who founded it. He gives reasons why we are still intrigued by Egypt but argues that it's place in history is overrated.
I take it you made a typo and meant Southwest Asian caucasoid?? First of all, I thought it was explained to you before that that racial classification terms like "caucasoid" are scientifically debunked. Many peoples from Africa through Asia and even the Pacific have been called "caucaoid" just because of certain features which have nothing to do with peoples of the Caucasus mountains or Europe! And second, I thought it was made clear to you also that the peoples of Southwest Asia have diverse ancestries-- some of which is African! This is true for Levantine people as well as Arabs of southern Arabia. But apparently the author is unaware of this fact. Third, what evidence does the author provide to suggest the ancient Egyptians were Southwest Asians? Practically all archaeological evidence shows the Egyptians to be native to their own land which is in Africa.
Also, apparently the author despite him being Jewish ignores that the ancient Hebrew scriptures of his faith which described the Egyptians as one of the peoples of Ham or as blacks!
The author is obviously just going by eurocentric doctrine #6: IF IT WAS GREAT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHITE. But then he simultaneously goes by eurocentric doctrine #7: IF IT WAS NOT WHITE, AND ITS GREATNESS IS UNDENIABLE, THEN IT MUST BE DEPRECATED IN SOME WAY. Which means he considers the Egyptians to be 'white' as in "caucasoid" but not white enough apparently.
quote:a) the language is extinct and nothing derives from it
The modern Coptic language is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian.
quote:b) Egyptians made no significant contribution to literature
Egyptian hieroglyphic script is the direct ancestor of many scripts used in Southwest Asia which in turn gave birth to the alphabet.
quote:c) Egyptian paintings don't appear to have influenced Western art, nor has any Egyptian music survived.
So? But Egyptian paintings and other artwork makes it perfectly clear that the Egyptians were black.
quote:d) The Egyptian political structure (monarch) was not original and did not influence modern thinkers
The oldest evidence of monarchy comes from the Nile Valley not in Egypt but to the south in Nubia. Also, the Egyptian ruler was not viewed as a mere monarch but a living god by the Egyptian people. Such a political and religious custom is also practiced in many other parts of Africa to this day!
quote:e) Ancient Egyptian religion was abandoned centuries ago with no successors
Not entirely true. Modern day Coptic Christians as well as some rural Egyptian Muslims still preserve ancient practices stemming from ancient Egyptian beliefs.
quote:f) No major modern philosophical theme derives from Egyptian sources.
Maybe so, but the fact that Egyptians practiced philsophy long before the Greeks still counts as a major historical achievement.
quote:He goes on to provide succinct reasons why Egyptian contributions have been overestimated (ex. the pyramids are impressive and are structures that still stand unlike other smaller structures erected in acienct societies; overestimate importance of architecture over science, math, law, literature, philosophy, etc that make up culture).
But all those other aspects of culture you just described were also part of Egyptian culture. But according to your author they don't count simply because we don't use it today.
It seems the author only counts cultures as being historically valid only if it is used today, mainly by the West! Now how biased does that sound?
quote:Agree or disagree I've found the book fascinating. I've never read a book that directly implicates human intelligence as the prime mover in history yet everything written about history is usually a proxy for it. When we talk about military power, victories, agriculture, art, music, architecture, literature, philosophy, economy, political systems etc; where and why these things developed and when, and by whom.
Of course there's intelligence involved in such developments, but what evidence suggests that some populations are more intelligent thant others?? Better yet, why does the author repeat debunked lies such as African not developing any advanced cultures of their own when they obviously have?? You fail to also realize that the development of advanced culture not only takes intelligence but is also made possible by the right conditions of environment. Thus, why is it more civilizations and the earliest civilizations all developed in the south in tropical to subtropical regions than in colder northern areas like Europe? Perhaps Europeans and other northern peoples are less intelligent!?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I'm going to take Richard Lynn's word for it. The data he compiled speaks for itself. He's yet another celebrated scientist in his field. You don't even own the book. Buy a copy and have a look through it. Whether IQ predicts GDP to a high degree is really secondary to this entire discussion anyway. Let's not get off track.
We are on track and it seems convenient that you shun any assessment that doesn't fully support you, as non-important. But in any event, I'm simply hard-pressed to find any such evidence reinforcing your views with out a very sound rebuttal to counter it. Such data always seems to be misappropriated, falsified, or outdated. On every front you've been dismissed, the significance of environment on IQ, Wealth's (nutrition and resources) influence on IQ, adoptive studies reinforcing environmental explanations, increase in IQ by at least 6 points (relative to other groups) among American Blacks reinforcing environmental effects, the lack of genetic evidence isolating genes responsible for intelligence, the subjectivity of "race" its self, I mean, you really have no argument and have been stripped down to nothing more than wacky diatribes and progressive whining.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Why is this topic still being debated??! The debate should have ended on page 1 of the thread!
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Have any of you read Michael H. Hart's latest book? He's a Jewish astrophysicist who holds degrees in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science.
But no degrees in history or anthropology which are what subjects his book adresses?!
quote:His book is apparently the anti-thesis of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel which posits that geography was the most important feature in the development of human history.
In other words, he posits a racial reason why some societies are more "advanced" than others of course he goes strictly by the technological calibration view of advancement.
Open and print it if you don't want to buy the book.
If you've read it, how about actually giving us reasons as to why his thesis is somehow valid. Since I doubt it is if he uses scientifically defunct views of 'race'.
quote:Have a look at the Chapters on Egypt and Sub-saharran Africa. I've noted some problems with his analysis but also am looking for your input/assessments. I'm 2/3 of the way through the book and his thesis (average population intelligences explains world history) does have a lot of explanatory power. It doesn't mean it's correct, but it's another theory alongside all the others written to explain why world history developed the way it did.
But is not intelligence based on individual persons instead of whole populations?? We have gone over these issues countless times that it is very tiresome.
The 'Bell Curve' and all those other Eurocentric/white racist analysis of IQ based on whole sale populations have been proven to flawed based on the fact that there are many factors that influence IQ including learning environment, as well as the fact that whatever genetic factors involved cannot be generalized about an entire population let alone the various populations of Africa which have been proven to be the most genetically diverse of all!
quote:For Sub-saharran Africa: he basically says nearly all of it was backwards and contributed nothing to civilization. Anything produced there was introduced from the outside with few exceptions.
In other words, he just repeats what white racists have been saying for the past several centuries despite all the evidence that says otherwise!
The map below shows many but not all of the indigenous civilizations created by Africa.
Even European explorers who came to Africa "discovered" cities in the heart of Congo. Yet you never hear about such facts, instead you hear the repeated imperialist and racist lie of Africans being "primitive" and "backwards".
quote:For Egypt: he says it was a SouthEast Asian caucasoid people who founded it. He gives reasons why we are still intrigued by Egypt but argues that it's place in history is overrated.
I take it you made a typo and meant Southwest Asian caucasoid?? First of all, I thought it was explained to you before that that racial classification terms like "caucasoid" are scientifically debunked. Many peoples from Africa through Asia and even the Pacific have been called "caucaoid" just because of certain features which have nothing to do with peoples of the Caucasus mountains or Europe! And second, I thought it was made clear to you also that the peoples of Southwest Asia have diverse ancestries-- some of which is African! This is true for Levantine people as well as Arabs of southern Arabia. But apparently the author is unaware of this fact. Third, what evidence does the author provide to suggest the ancient Egyptians were Southwest Asians? Practically all archaeological evidence shows the Egyptians to be native to their own land which is in Africa.
Also, apparently the author despite him being Jewish ignores that the ancient Hebrew scriptures of his faith which described the Egyptians as one of the peoples of Ham or as blacks!
The author is obviously just going by eurocentric doctrine #6: IF IT WAS GREAT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHITE. But then he simultaneously goes by eurocentric doctrine #7: IF IT WAS NOT WHITE, AND ITS GREATNESS IS UNDENIABLE, THEN IT MUST BE DEPRECATED IN SOME WAY. Which means he considers the Egyptians to be 'white' as in "caucasoid" but not white enough apparently.
quote:a) the language is extinct and nothing derives from it
The modern Coptic language is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian.
quote:b) Egyptians made no significant contribution to literature
Egyptian hieroglyphic script is the direct ancestor of many scripts used in Southwest Asia which in turn gave birth to the alphabet.
quote:c) Egyptian paintings don't appear to have influenced Western art, nor has any Egyptian music survived.
So? But Egyptian paintings and other artwork makes it perfectly clear that the Egyptians were black.
quote:d) The Egyptian political structure (monarch) was not original and did not influence modern thinkers
The oldest evidence of monarchy comes from the Nile Valley not in Egypt but to the south in [url=[url=]Nubia. Also, the Egyptian ruler was not viewed as a mere monarch but a living god by the Egyptian people. Such a political and religious custom is also practiced in many other parts of Africa to this day!
quote:e) Ancient Egyptian religion was abandoned centuries ago with no successors
Not entirely true. Modern day Coptic Christians as well as some rural Egyptian Muslims still preserve ancient practices stemming from ancient Egyptian beliefs.
quote:f) No major modern philosophical theme derives from Egyptian sources.
Maybe so, but the fact that Egyptians practiced philsophy long before the Greeks still counts as a major historical achievement.
quote:He goes on to provide succinct reasons why Egyptian contributions have been overestimated (ex. the pyramids are impressive and are structures that still stand unlike other smaller structures erected in acienct societies; overestimate importance of architecture over science, math, law, literature, philosophy, etc that make up culture).
But all those other aspects of culture you just described were also part of Egyptian culture. But according to your author they don't count simply because we don't use it today.
It seems the author only counts cultures as being historically valid only if it is used today, mainly by the West! Now how biased does that sound?
quote:Agree or disagree I've found the book fascinating. I've never read a book that directly implicates human intelligence as the prime mover in history yet everything written about history is usually a proxy for it. When we talk about military power, victories, agriculture, art, music, architecture, literature, philosophy, economy, political systems etc; where and why these things developed and when, and by whom.
Of course there's intelligence involved in such developments, but what evidence suggests that some populations are more intelligent thant others?? Better yet, why does the author repeat debunked lies such as African not developing any advanced cultures of their own when they obviously have?? You fail to also realize that the development of advanced culture not only takes intelligence but is also made possible by the right conditions of environment. Thus, why is it more civilizations and the earliest civilizations all developed in the south in tropical to subtropical regions than in colder northern areas like Europe? Perhaps Europeans and other northern peoples are less intelligent!?
Great post. Somet things to investigate further and you offer things that I myself thought about while reading Hart's book.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Anybody else?
translation: tired of taking a beating.
quote:still pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.
translation: describes you and your need to start this thread.
But judging by your increasingly bitter tone, it didn't work very well, did it. Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: You posted politics, not science. This is about science, not condeming people because biological truth may hurt peoples' feelings.
Refer to the table yet again, please. Digest it for awhile.
Heck, Imus was condemned by his colleagues for being a racist. Is Imus racist? No. But what he said was not PC, so "everybody" condemned him. In the end, he won millions in his lawsuit, because he was right and "all of them" were wrong.
In science, reaction is that much worse. When studies show an ugly truth and that truth is reported it's backlash city.
All of your attempts at obfuscation fall flat. I used to use the very same arguments you all have, but I realized I was being disingenuine in the face of reality.
No, what I posted was an assessment put fourth by a renowned geneticist in direct critique of a supposed discipline imposing its self onto their field as an authoritative reference for human biodiversity. Data was cited therein, yet you have miserably failed to comment. This is not surprising since you've been exposed previously as feigning an interest in the literature in question, the same literature which you've yet to read, yet choose to criticize politically. Your table is spin garbage, not data.
Hopefully you remember when I addressed the IQ and Wealth of Nations? Well here's a relevant paper with the accompanying data table, which basically again, refutes your bogus position, as has been done ad nauseum by so many. .................................................................
A Few Thoughts on IQ and the Wealth of Nations
By Steve Sailer
I want to contribute some observations about the landmark book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn of the U. of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the U. of Helsinki. It was the subject of an extremely informative Feb. 27th VDARE.COM review by J. Philippe Rushton, which this is intended to complement.
The book's content is irresistible - at its heart is a table of the average IQ scores of 81 different countries, most drawn from studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The national average IQs range from 107 for Hong Kong to 59 for Equatorial Guinea.
Lynn and Vanhanen benchmarked their IQ results so that Britain is 100. America scores 98 on this scale, and the world average is 90. IQ's are assumed to form a normal probability distribution ("bell curve") with the standard deviation set at 15. Here are a few examples:
Admit it, you want to know what the rest of the table says! Beyond satisfying sheer curiosity, though, the strong correlation between IQ and the wealth of nations is of world-historical importance. From now on, no public intellectual can seriously claim to be attempting to understand how the world works unless he takes IQ into account.
How much can we trust these IQ results?
As soon as I received the book, I turned to Appendix 1, where Lynn and Vanhanen describe all 168 national IQ studies they've found - an average of just over two per country.
Are the results internally consistent? In other words, when there are multiple studies for a single country, do they tend to give roughly the same answer?
I expected a sizable amount of internal divergence. I spent 18 years in the marketing research industry, so I know how expensive it is to come up with a nationally representative sample. Further, Lynn and Vanhanen use results from quite different IQ tests. They rely most on the non-verbal Raven's Progressive Matrices, which were designed to be used across cultures, even by illiterates. Yet, they also have a lot of results from the Wechsler exams, which are more culture dependent - the Wechsler include a vocabulary subtest, for example. And they report results from other IQ tests, including a few from the oddball Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Man test. Also, sample sizes vary dramatically, from a few dozen in some obscure countries to 64,000 for one American study. Finally, some studies were of children, others of adults.
This doesn't sound promising. Nevertheless, the results show a high degree of internal consistency. Here are the first eight countries for which they have multiple scores:
Argentina: 93 and 98 Australia: 97, 98, and 99 Austria: 101, 103 Belgium: 99, 103, 98 Brazil: 88, 84, 90, and 85 Bulgaria: 94, 91 China: 100, 92.5, 103.4 Democratic Republic of Congo: 73, 72
That's not bad at all. In fact, leaving aside China, the results are remarkably consistent. There are, of course, a few countries for which different studies came up with quite divergent results, especially Poland, where the two scores Lynn and Vanhanen found were 92 and 106. Still, the correlation among results when there are two or more studies for a country is a striking 0.94.
You shouldn't take every score on faith. The reported IQ for Israel (only 94????!!!) has elicited much criticism. Lynn has replied that he wanted to publish the data as he found it, even if some of it looked implausible. His hope is to encourage further research to resolve seeming anomalies.
The IQ structures of the two giga-countries, China and India, demand more intense study, in part because the future history of the world will hinge in no small part on their endowments of human capital. The demography of India is especially complex due to its caste system, which resembles Jim Crow on steroids and acid. By discouraging intermarriage, caste has subdivided the Indian people into an incredible number of micro-races. In India, according to the dean of population genetics, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, "The total number of endogamous communities today is around 43,000…" We know that some of those communities - such as the Zoroastrian Parsees of Bombay - are exceptionally intelligent.
But we can't say with any confidence what is the long run IQ potential of Indians overall. Their current IQ score (81) is low, especially compared to China (100), the other country with hundreds of millions of poor peasants. Yet, keep in mind just how narrow life in rural India was for so long. In 1952, on the fifth anniversary of independence, the Indian government commissioned a survey to find out if the average Indian villager had heard yet that the British had gone. The study was quietly cancelled when early results showed that the average villager had never heard that the British had ever arrived!
It appears likely that some combination of malnutrition, disease, inbreeding, lack of education, lack of mental stimulation, lack of familiarity with abstract reasoning and so forth can keep people from reaching their genetic potential for IQ. Lynn himself did early studies demonstrating that malnutrition drives down IQ. The co-authors conclude their book by recommending that
"The rich countries' economic aid programs for the poor countries should be continued and some of these should be directed at attempting to increase the intelligence levels of the populations of the poorer countries by improvements in nutrition and the like."
A clear example of how a bad environment can hurt IQ can be seen in the IQ scores for sub-Saharan African countries. They average only around 70. In contrast, African-Americans average about 85. It appears unlikely that African-Americans’ white admixture can account for most of this 15-point gap because they are only around 17%-18% white on average, according to the latest genetic research. (Thus African-Americans white genes probably couldn't account for more than 3 points of the gap between African-Americans and African-Africans.) This suggests that the harshness of life in Africa might be cutting ten points or more off African IQ scores.
Similarly, West Africans are significantly shorter in height than their distant cousins in America, most likely due to malnutrition and infections. The two African-born NBA superstars, Hakeem Olajuwon and Dikembe Mutombo, are both from the wa-benzi [people of the (Mercedes ) Benz]upper class. Only the elite in Africa gets enough food and health care to grow up to be NBA centers.
This also implies that African-Americans might be able to achieve higher IQs too, although the environmental gap between white Americans and black Americans appears to be much smaller than between black Americans and black Africans. As I pointed out in VDARE in 2000, the most promising avenue for improving African-Americans' IQs is by promoting breastfeeding among blacks mothers, who nurse their babies at much lower rates than whites.
In fact, we know that IQ is not completely fixed over time because raw test scores have been rising for decades, about 2 to 3 points per decade. To counteract this, the IQ test-making firms periodically make it harder - in absolute terms - to achieve a score of 100. Lynn was possibly the first scientist to make this phenomenon widely known, although New Zealand political scientist James Flynn has gotten more credit for this recently. And, indeed, Lynn and Vanhanen scrupulously adjust the test results in their book to account for when each test was taken.
While the causes of the Lynn-Flynn Effect remain rather mysterious, it does resemble several other ongoing phenomena. For example, human beings are getting taller, living longer, and having fewer of their babies die during infancy.
One might expect IQ scores to converge as the richest nations experience diminishing marginal returns on improvements in nutrition, health, and education. By way of analogy, consider how, after 1950, average height has not grown as fast in already well-fed America as it has in rapidly developing East Asia.
It's unlikely the Japanese will ever be as tall on average as, say, Lithuanians or Croatians or African-Americans. But the gap has closed. This partial convergence in height is why you now see 6'-2" East Asian baseball pitchers like Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park starring in the American big leagues. Last year Wang Zhizhi, 7’-1” became the first Asian ever to join the NBA.
Perhaps that kind of convergence will happen with IQ scores someday. But the evidence that it is happening now isn't terribly strong. The odd thing about the Lynn-Flynn Effect is that it doesn't seem to have had much impact on comparative rankings of IQ over time. The smart seem to keep on getting smarter.
For instance, one of the best-documented examples of a country with rising raw IQ scores is the Netherlands (current IQ: 102). But even as far back as the 17th Century, the general opinion of mankind was that the Dutch had a lot on the ball.
One potential explanation for why IQ gaps don't seem to be narrowing (for example, the white-black IQ gap in America has been about 15 points for 80 years or so) was offered by Flynn recently. He argued that smart people, because they find cognitive challenges pleasurable, seek out more mentally stimulating environments, which in turn exercise their brains more, making them even smarter. This suggests, for example, that the Dutch will tend to become, say, Internet addicts demanding constant fixes of new information and argument, and thus continue to grow in mental firepower.
While unproven, Flynn’s suggestion seems possible. In absolute terms, it's a virtuous circle. But it seems unlikely to lead to the closing of the relative gap.
Ultimately, though, it is hard to avoid concluding that intellectual and income differences between nations stem to some extent from genetic differences. The results simply cluster too much by race. All the countries populated by Northeast Asians score between 100 and 107. The European-populated lands score between 90 and 102. Southeast Asian nations cluster in the low 90s. The Caucasian countries in North Africa and western Asia score mostly in the 80s. And so forth.
The correlation between national IQ and national income is very high. For the 81 countries, the r is .73 for GDP measured in purchasing power parity terms (which makes poor nations with lots of subsistence farmers look better off than they do in standard measures of just the cash economy). In the social sciences, correlations of 0.2 are said to be "low," 0.4 are "moderate," and 0.6 are "high." So 0.73 is most impressive.
This doesn't mean that a high IQ alone is the cause of a high income. Causation probably runs in both directions, in another virtuous circle. Rich countries tend to produce enough food to stave off malnutrition, for instance, which probably leads to higher IQs, which leads to even higher food production due to more sophisticated farming techniques.
Interestingly, per capita income correlates almost as strongly with a nation's level of economic freedom as it does with its level of intelligence. But that's in large part because economic freedom and IQ correlate with each other - at the high level of 0.63.
Freedom and brains probably contribute to each other. Although there are obvious exceptions, countries with smart workers (and smart leaders) tended to find that the capitalist system generated wealth. So there was less impetus to experiment with command economies than in places where free enterprise wasn't getting the job done.
But it could also be that freedom exercises the brain - West Germans averaged 103 while East Germans scored only 95. My pet theory is that having to make all the choices between products available in a successful capitalist economy stimulates mental development. (I believe this because, as I get older and stupider, I increasingly find shopping to be intellectually exhausting.) But evidence for this is not abundant.
Culture can play a role as well - at the extreme, contrast two countries with almost identical per capita GDPs: Barbados and Argentina (at least before Argentina's recent economic collapse). Don't cry for Argentina, because it is blessed with ample IQ (96). But it's dragged down by a notorious lack of economic and political self-discipline. In contrast, Barbados, despite an average IQ of 78, is one of the most pleasant countries in the 3rd World due to its commitment to maintaining a veddy, veddy English culture.
Still, these two countries are close to being the exceptions that prove the rule. The explanatory power of the "cultural realist" models like Thomas Sowell’s are necessarily more limited than those of "biocultural realist" like Richard Lynn. In general, cultures that emphasize, say, foresight are generally found in countries where people have enough IQ to be foresighted. Maybe people in northern countries tend to have higher IQs because people too unintelligent to effectively prepare for winter tended to get removed from the gene pool.
The IQ-income correlation is not perfect either. But even where it breaks down - most notably with China - IQ helps explain otherwise puzzling developments like the recent headline in the New York Times announcing "Globalization Proves Disappointing."
Globalization, or the fast-paced growth of trade and cross-border investment, has done far less to raise the incomes of the world's poorest people than the leaders had hoped, many officials here say. The vast majority of people living in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East are no better off today than they were in 1989..."
On the other hand, hundreds of billions in private investment have poured into China, which, despite its parasitical ruling caste, has enjoyed strong economic growth.
So what's the story behind this story? Apparently, capital flows to where wages are low but IQs are high - pre-eminently China, where the average IQ is two points higher than the U.S. already and likely to go higher as economic development continues.
In contrast, these other regions (with the exception of Argentina) average IQs of 90 or less, sometimes considerably less.
This is not to disparage free markets - there's no alternative. The point is simply that humans differ greatly in productive capacity, so not everyone benefits from economic competition to the same extent.
The implications for immigration policy are clear.
First, any conceivable level of immigration to America is insufficient to make any difference in the welfare of the billions of foreigners living in poverty.
Second, in a world where the average IQ is 90, America's nepotism-driven immigration system (legal and illegal) will continue to import primarily foreigners with two-digit IQs. These immigrants' skills are typically insufficient to compete with our native IQ elite, but are ample for driving down the wages of our fellow American citizens who were not blessed in the IQ lottery.
The morality of such a system I leave to the reader to decide.
Holy smokes. Did you even read that entire article?
It supports MY position. Do you even have a clue who Steve Sailer is and what his position on race and IQ is? LOL, you're in for a surprise.
i hope you know that the gnp ppp is outdated for all those nations.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Damn, all those rich white racists out there with low IQs running the country. I can't begin to list all of the notable men pre-1950's that shaped our world and politics who were explicitly racist.
Why not address the citation, instead of babbling on subjectively?
quote:When you mean racists have low IQs, you're talking about overt racist, not the smart kind.
According to the paper, a "smart" racist is pretty rare , though really they are all the same.
quote: The smart kind wouldn't admit to it to begin with.
Such beliefs in the first place are rooted in stupidity, so this doesn't apply.
quote:Do you see the irony in your post? Blacks are not less intelligent just because they have lower IQs than whites, but Whites who have low IQs are dumb. Hmmm....
There is no irony. Racists are individuals, black African people are among the most genetically diverse of them all, so there is much variability on the individual level as well, concerning probably anything. Your logic as usual, is absurd.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Originally posted by sshaun002: Pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.][/QUOTE]
quote:Sundiata: This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
And a necessity of Shaun's desparate delusion requires him to hope he can somehow hide this from others. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: On every front you've been dismissed, the significance of environment on IQ, Wealth's (nutrition and resources) influence on IQ, adoptive studies reinforcing environmental explanations, increase in IQ by at least 6 points (relative to other groups) among American Blacks reinforcing environmental effects, the lack of genetic evidence isolating genes responsible for intelligence, the subjectivity of "race" its self, I mean, you really have no argument and have been stripped down to nothing more than wacky diatribes and progressive whining. [/QB]
This has all been dealt with. Nutritional deficits aside, nutrition has very little role in IQ (note that it hasn't effected Black athletic ability). IQ is stable throughout life. Blacks from BETTER environments perform worse than White from worse environments. So much for environment. The Flynn effect is raw test scores, not actual gains in g. And those gains are disputed as well. Lack of genes for intelligence - again, so what? If you can measure it by proxy you don't need the locate the actual genes. NOBODY disputes the black-white gap and that gap has not closed - the Flynn Effect works for Whites too. Race is a fuzzy concept therefore it's meaningless Just because ther are intermediate colors of a rainbow doesn't mean red, green, violet, don't exist.
You keep repeating things that have been cast aside in IQ research for years. This is OLD.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Quite right Sundiata.
And a necessity of Shaun's desparate delusion requires him to hope he can somehow hide this from others.
The irony of course being that he categorizes himself as a "smart" racist, yet seems opposed to the idea of "smart" blacks. What a clown.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Originally posted by sshaun002: Pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
quote:Sundiata: This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
And a necessity of Shaun's desparate delusion requires him to hope he can somehow hide this from others. [/QUOTE]
So IQ DOES MATTER!!!! WOOOHOOO! SCORE!!!
A white racist with a LOW IQ of 85 is DUMB, right? But that is the averae IQ for blacks. Uh-oh, time to back track.
Grand environment, intense schooling, extra high nutrition, none of these things will increase that IQ. But inbreeding will. What could this all mean...
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
hahaha you have no knowledge of statistics. Random sampling of 1000 people will account for all the variation in a group which is why a distribution curve can be made in the first place. Talk about a need to be educated. Stats 101 at the university level baby.
The "blacks have the most variation" tripe is useless in this regard. Show me a single study which shows blacks of any population, in any region, at any time, that consistently score well above Whites or Asians. None are to be found - and believe me, researchers of the "race doesn't exist" persuasion have tried but got the results they didn't like. More evidence negating your fantasies.
I've seen the evidence from both sides, and I can't help but conclude what I have. I didn't want to, but it's all there. What kind of idiot could deny it.
Maybe we'll one day find an environmental factor that accounts for the breadth of the disparity between white-asian-black IQ. All efforts thus far have been exhausted. But it could still exist. Until that day, we have to deal with the here and now and what we know with current data. It speaks for itself.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody else? Rasol is still pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
Damn, all those rich white racists out there with low IQs running the country. I can't begin to list all of the notable men pre-1950's that shaped our world and politics who were explicitly racist.
When you mean racists have low IQs, you're talking about overt racist, not the smart kind. The smart kind wouldn't admit to it to begin with.
Do you see the irony in your post? Blacks are not less intelligent just because they have lower IQs than whites, but Whites who have low IQs are dumb. Hmmm....
The point you are missing is that these WHITE RACISTS got where they are BECAUSE OF RACISM not because of IQ. "The West" is a product of racist imperialism around the world for the last 500 years. There is no denying it. IQ has NOTHING to do with it. By accumulating SO MUCH WEALTH and developing SO MUCH INFRASTRUCTURE for the benefit of WHITE EUROPEANS most of it TAKEN from places like Africa, Europe increased the standard of living overall for its people greatly in the last 500 years, greatly reversing the situation that only existed 1000 years ago, where Europe was AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HEAP and Africa had greater civilizations and more learned people at the time. Therefore, this NON SENSE about IQ is irrelevant. The rise of America is DIRECTLY DUE to racism and genocide at the hands of European whites directed against Native Americans. If native Americans, Africans and everyone else were given FREE AND FAIR access to LAND, LIBERTY and EDUCATION along with the Europeans, there WOULD BE NO DISPARITY between these groups, at least not in the way it is now. Using IQ as an EXCUSE for this difference and NOT the overt OPPRESSION and RACIST IMPERIALISM of the Western World is an exercise in delusional fantasy and historical revisionism.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Great post.
Thankyou
quote:Somet things to investigate further and you offer things that I myself thought about while reading Hart's book.
Yeah right. But I do hope you start by investigating those links I gave you. Really, Rasol is right that you're making a fool of yourself with this IQ, 'race', and civilization bit in which you obviously have very little clue as to what you're talking about. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Great post. Somet things to investigate further and you offer things that I myself thought about while reading Hart's book.
Thankyou, but I do hope you start by investigating those links I gave you. Really, Rasol is right that you're making a fool of yourself with this IQ, 'race', and civilization bit in which you obviously have very little clue as to what you're talking about.
Incorrect. It's clear none of you have been schooled in current IQ research.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Originally posted by sshaun002: Pouting and wallowing in feelings of inferiofity.]
quote:Sundiata: This is only apparent with you in your desperate attempt to falsify data while reinforcing your own self-delusions of grander. Those who consciously look to exalt themselves above others are obviously the ones with a complex and it is very likely that they are indeed, inferior human beings.
And a necessity of Shaun's desparate delusion requires him to hope he can somehow hide this from others.
So IQ DOES MATTER!!!! WOOOHOOO! SCORE!!!
A white racist with a LOW IQ of 85 is DUMB, right? But that is the averae IQ for blacks. Uh-oh, time to back track.
Grand environment, intense schooling, extra high nutrition, none of these things will increase that IQ. But inbreeding will. What could this all mean... [/QUOTE]
The average black IQ is actually lower if you use the MEAN instead of the average. Still, the average is likely lower than 85 since the majority of studies are done on students. Blacks are over-represented in highschool dropouts - and dropouts is correlated with low IQ. Thus these low IQ dropouts are usually not accounted for in IQ studies.
Still with the distribution there are many talented black in America. About 1 millions blacks in America have IQs above the White average.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And what current IQ research shows anything about group IQ or that a person's IQ can be determined by the populations that person comes from??
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: This has all been dealt with. Nutritional deficits aside, nutrition has very little role in IQ (note that it hasn't effected Black athletic ability). IQ is stable throughout life.
Malnutrition and accompanying environmental effects begin at infancy and once again, your claims that it has no bearing on IQ are directly contradicted by the APA and even your supposed conservative comrade.
quote:Blacks from BETTER environments perform worse than White from worse environments. So much for environment.
So much for objectivity and honesty, you would never be able to produce such a citation attesting to this since it's just another usual distortion. Please produce figures demonstrating white nations who per capita (and socially), fare off worse than those in the African American community. In addition, it would be helpful to post the correlating IQ reports, including the updated version by Flynn which cites Blacks now at 91 (6 points higher than yesteryear).
quote:The Flynn effect is raw test scores, not actual gains in g. And those gains are disputed as well. Lack of genes for intelligence - again, so what? If you can measure it by proxy you don't need the locate the actual genes. NOBODY disputes the black-white gap and that gap has not closed - the Flynn Effect works for Whites too.
You don't pay much attention, which is why you make such blind assertions. The increase was in g, and the increase was 6 points relative to non-hispanic whites, it was a relative gain. The white IQ apparently didn't increase at all. You strike me as a man who has no idea what he's talking about, and here's a reference.
By proxy, there is no such evidence as has been reported. By no stretch of the imagination has any genetic explanation seen promise. They've all been refuted and discarded.
quote:Race is a fuzzy concept therefore it's meaningless Just because ther are intermediate colors of a rainbow doesn't mean red, green, violet, don't exist.
Red, green, and violet does exist, yet to refer to these color gradients as seen in a rainbow, as "races" is both arbitrary and silly. The distinctions are superficial and external.
quote:You keep repeating things that have been cast aside in IQ research for years. This is OLD.
Isn't that what you're doing by resurrecting dated pseudoscience and long exposed false assumptions about human variation, prior to the onset of genetic research? Surely none of these data put before you have been ousted and rendered non-applicable, so what's your point? I can't say the same for your ideas, however.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And what current IQ research shows anything about group IQ or that a person's IQ can be determined by the populations that person comes from??
You can't know a person's IQ by his/her membership to a group - although you could calculate a probability.
However, if you know a person's IQ, you know what they CANNOT do. Somebody with an IQ is not going to be able to be a successful academic.
If you have enough members of said group together and they're randomly sampled, you can predict with near certainty the average IQ of that group.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [qb] [QUOTE]Too few of them left and they live in a cold desolate areas of the world. Those involved in the warrior raids in history are now European and Asian hybrids assimilited for centuries living in Europe and Northern China.
And (as to has been expected) more excuses and non-answers. In other words: babbling. Indeed 'too few" people in Iceland live in a 'cold and desolate' place, but they still manage to consistently rank among the highest in both GDP and HDI.
quote:Ireland is a lot like Barbados, an important center for international financial transactions. I'm not sure what your point is. Average IQ of a nation is average intelligence, nothing more nothing less. The nation with the highest IQ average doesn't mean they'll get to Mars first, but all things being equal, they're the most likely to.
1) You are right about Barbados it (31), indeed, being only 9 places from Germany (22) in HDI but has a fraction of its GDP. Interesting world we live in SShaun. Unfortunately your world view fails for lack of a real explanation of these interesting events yet again.
2) You (predictably) proffered yet another excuse for Ireland, and really have'nt explained the *huge* discrepancy between ireland and germany, only some mumbling about being an international finance center(as if Germany is not) which you did'nt back up anyway.
3) You *still* haven't answered my question as to whether Germany is another "outlier" with its High IQ relative to europe but mediocre relative HDI and GDP.
quote:The nation with the highest IQ average doesn't mean they'll get to Mars first, but all things being equal, they're the most likely to.
So in your view Israel (94) would be most likely to get to mars first?
enough already
quote: Your attempts to downplay predictive value of IQ are weak. Nothing in life, especially history or the future is 100% predictive as other factors are always involved. This doesn't change the importance or role of intelligence one iota.
I'm weak? All you have provided so far are non-answers and excuses while I've provided hard data which contradicts your (non-scientific opinion/agenda) and I'm weak? Wow...
quote:These are gains in raw test scores, not in g.
Explain "g" please, with sources, and how it somehow invalidates Flynns IQ scores. Maybe I'm the wrong one here, who knows.
quote: And for that matter, don't compare IQ of Black Americans with Black Africans. The former are hybrids, the latter are overwhelmingly not.
And so the sudden gains in the IQ of African americans between 1972 and 2002 is due to their "hybrid" status (which is neglible anyway)? Could this debate get anymore absurd?
I'm afraid theres probably more where that came from.
What does a link from a renowned eugenicist blog mean to me? I actually almost expected you to do that.
SShaun, prove how humanity is:
1) divided into arbitrary "racial" super-groups (and not regional variation) that correlate demonstrably and consistently with
2) IQ discrepancies between said groups (throughout history)and
3) how they evolved a higher form of intelligence by means of selective processes that did not occur in Africa (as they did with Home sapiens sapiens 150,000 years ago which brought us here) and why
4) Mongolia is still no more advanced than most of black Africa today. Without vague excuses please.
5) Why Germany is low in HDI and GDP, and Ireland relatively high give or take IQ scores.
6) Why Ireland is equal to African american intelligence at *91*, with the former being only "hybrids" and the latter being more or less pure white European.
I gotta admit. Demonstrate those all 6 points in favor of your argument I will will have conceded defeat. At least for the time being. Of course you (predictably) won't, and (predictably) *might* proffer even more excuses.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:nutrition has very little role in IQ (note that it hasn't effected Black athletic ability).
Show me where maldnuturist Africans do well in sports
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
Explain "g" please, with sources, and how it somehow invalidates Flynns IQ scores. Maybe I'm the wrong one here, who knows.
Mmmkay, he is desperate, and now it seems that he is calling people's bluffs while trying to cover his bases. He's not very clever to say the least and you were wrong about nothing, but he is. See below.
^I'm telling you, the guy is a fraud and hasn't read one lick of literature pertaining to the topic that he promotes so passionately.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Malnutrition and accompanying environmental effects begin at infancy and once again, your claims that it has no bearing on IQ are directly contradicted by the APA and even your supposed conservative comrade.
Yeah, so why do the poor manlourished Whites kids outscore the black kids.
quote:So much for objectivity and honesty, you would never be able to produce such a citation attesting to this since it's just another usual distortion. .
"California’s state superintendent of public instruction broke a longstanding taboo this August by pointing out that middle-class black students in the state score worse on math and English than poor white and Asian students—a disparity that applies across the country. The usual poverty excuse for black underachievement does not hold up. "
"Interestingly, no one ever talks about how Asian-American students are able to lead the nation in test scores — in community after community, state after state — despite a Eurocentric curriculum and overarching white privilege that supposedly holds back other non-white students.
In California, the state superintendent of schools was reportedly “shocked” to find that Latino and black students from middle-class families continue to do worse on standardized testing than poor whites, even after years of efforts and many millions of dollars of investment.
His answer? Well, it must be white privilege that is keeping these kids from learning. So he brought together a bunch of “experts” this week to talk about how bad and insensitive California teachers are.
Of course, he failed to mention — as did all the experts — that Asian-American students in California score better than everyone, regardless of income.
In fact, while 77 percent of non-disadvantaged Asian-Americans scored at grade level or above on the English section of the California Achievement Test last year, only 40 percent of non-disadvantaged black students did. That’s a 37-point difference among kids who don’t live in poverty.
The gap in the number of Asian-Americans scoring at grade level or above and the number of white students who did was 10 points. So Asian-Americans in California do even better than white students in an educational environment that is supposedly geared to white success.
Seems to me that the “experts” simply need to figure out how Asian-Americans manage to succeed despite being forced to learn about George Washington and read Shakespeare."
quote: You don't pay much attention, which why you make such blind assertions. The increase was in g, and the increase was 6 points relative to non-hispanic whites, it was a relative gain. The white IQ apparently didn't increase at all. You strike me as a man who has no idea what he's talking about, and here's a reference.
No, you don't pay attention. it's not g loaded. The gap in g is as big as ever.
quote: Red, green, and violate does exist, yet to refer to these color gradients as seen in rainbow, as "races" is both arbitrary and silly. The distinctions are superficial and external.
Bah what nonsense.
quote:Isn't that what you're doing by resurrecting dated pseudoscience and long exposed false assumptions about human variation, prior to the onset of genetic research? Surely none of these data put before you have been ousted and rendered non-applicable, so what's your point? I can't say the same for your ideas, however.
Nothing I've said has been rendered outdated. In fact, the focus has only increased with studies into intelligence and diseases.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:nutrition has very little role in IQ (note that it hasn't effected Black athletic ability).
Show me where maldnuturist Africans do well in sports
Black Americans, it is said are disproporionately malnourished and this is why they score poorly on IQ tests.
One would think that Blacks would also be represented disporportionately low in athletics for the same reason. But the opposite is true.
Thus it's not nourishment that's the real underlying issue. It's innate limitations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Sshaun THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE. There is only ONE human race. Western Europe has ONLY risen to the top of the WORLD community in the LAST 500 years. Humans have had civilization for over 6000... If Western Europe is a geographic race, then Western Europe is the LAST RACE to develop civilization, according to YOUR definition of geographically defined RACES.
Your rope is not LONG enough as a measure FOR ANYTHING in history. As YOU YOURSELF said, Europe did not INVENT civilization, so what does that say about IQ in Europe? Are you suggesting that SOMEHOW their IQ changed AFTER THE MOORS? Or are you saying that the introduction of NorthWestern Europeans to techniques associated with CIVILIZATION helped them to rise to the TOP, along with a favorable environment and natural resources? Seems to me you are just stubbornly missing the point. The ebb and flow has LESS to do with IQ and MORE to do with the winds of fate. "Barbarians" destroyed Rome and most of these BARBARIANS were Germanic tribes from the North, forced to migrate by the Huns and other groups from the Steppes. What does that SAY about IQ? It is the DESCENDENTS of these "barbarians" that are at the top of the world today, partly claiming to have an affiliation with Rome. How ironic when THEIR ANCESTORS helped to SACK ROME. Sure sounds like delusional fantasy fairy tales to me. And, these Germanic tribes were themselves influenced by the TRUE ARYANS from the east, in the Asian Steppes, like the Sarmatians, The Sassanians (Sassanids) and the Scythians. But unlike the Indo Aryans, they HAD NO HIGH CIVILIZATION to speak of.
So what does ANY OF THAT have to do with IQ? NOTHING.... Because by ANY MEASURE the Romans were SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ADVANCED than the Germanic hordes, so WHY did they loose and WHY did their fabulous civilization FALL APART? And why did this bring about a DARK AGE in Europe? Everywhere else wasn't in a dark age. Assuming that the Romans HAD a high IQ, why did their civilization fail? And why did the CONQUERORS of Rome NOT HAVE a MORE FABULOUS civilization to REPLACE THAT of ancient Rome, seeing as they had DIRECT ACCESS to all the knowledge of Rome when they SACKED IT. Why did it take 800 years for them to recover? And why did that RECOVERY only occur when OLDER CULTURES invaded SPAIN and RE-INTRODUCED civilization? What does THAT say about IQ?
Please stop spewing your intellectual nonsense, because it GOES AGAINST THE FACTS.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Yeah, so why do the poor manlourished Whites kids outscore the black kids.
You have not one shred of evidence for this, nor have you read this anywhere but merely like to pull conveniently brain dead claims out of thin air. Of course your word means little given these desperate antics to explain away your intellectual mishaps.
You also veer away from the fact that you're wrong and once exposed on your persistent lies, you merely resort to another one. You are so amusing.
quote:"California’s state superintendent of public instruction broke a longstanding taboo this August by pointing out that middle-class black students in the state score worse on math and English than poor white and Asian students—a disparity that applies across the country. The usual poverty excuse for black underachievement does not hold up. "
"Interestingly, no one ever talks about how Asian-American students are able to lead the nation in test scores — in community after community, state after state — despite a Eurocentric curriculum and overarching white privilege that supposedly holds back other non-white students.
In California, the state superintendent of schools was reportedly “shocked” to find that Latino and black students from middle-class families continue to do worse on standardized testing than poor whites, even after years of efforts and many millions of dollars of investment.
His answer? Well, it must be white privilege that is keeping these kids from learning. So he brought together a bunch of “experts” this week to talk about how bad and insensitive California teachers are.
Of course, he failed to mention — as did all the experts — that Asian-American students in California score better than everyone, regardless of income.
In fact, while 77 percent of non-disadvantaged Asian-Americans scored at grade level or above on the English section of the California Achievement Test last year, only 40 percent of non-disadvantaged black students did. That’s a 37-point difference among kids who don’t live in poverty.
The gap in the number of Asian-Americans scoring at grade level or above and the number of white students who did was 10 points. So Asian-Americans in California do even better than white students in an educational environment that is supposedly geared to white success.
Seems to me that the “experts” simply need to figure out how Asian-Americans manage to succeed despite being forced to learn about George Washington and read Shakespeare."
Umm, ok, not exactly sure what this has to do with IQ or innate intelligence, but surely this report is simplistic. Income alone has never been said to have any effects on IQ, but rather nutritional, environmental, and social factors. Social factors such as "Perceived Racism", for one, has been demonstrated as affecting general functionality in African American youth. This of course, is irrelevant and but another deviation in your argument, demonstrating how desperate you are.
quote:No, you don't pay attention. it's not g loaded. The gap in g is as big as ever.
g = general intelligence. You are emphasizing IQ test scores relative to whites and whether or not blacks made any gains on whites. The answer is yes, so therefore you DO NOT pay attention.
quote:Bah what nonsense.
Bah, you're the only one distracting us by giving weak analogies about rainbows.
quote:Nothing I've said has been rendered outdated.
All of it has, according to the vast majority of those interested and whom I've cited. The ideas are very ancient indeed.
quote: In fact, the focus has only increased with studies into intelligence and diseases.
Redundant, this has nothing to do with the ideas alluded to. Try again and limit the distractions.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Black Americans, it is said are disproporionately malnourished and this is why they score poorly on IQ tests.
One would think that Blacks would also be represented disporportionately low in athletics for the same reason. But the opposite is true.
Thus it's not nourishment that's the real underlying issue. It's innate limitations.
You're the only one with the innate limitations though you're still yet to answer his question. What professional black athletes can you cite, that grew up malnourished and the APA indeed cites malnutrition as having notable effects, so is this to say that your elementary logic and loose correlations are enough to contradict their long standing research?
According to the guy that you claimed agrees with everything you say :
" Similarly, West Africans are significantly shorter in height than their distant cousins in America, most likely due to malnutrition and infections. The two African-born NBA superstars, Hakeem Olajuwon and Dikembe Mutombo, are both from the wa-benzi [people of the (Mercedes ) Benz]upper class. Only the elite in Africa gets enough food and health care to grow up to be NBA centers.
This also implies that African-Americans might be able to achieve higher IQs too, although the environmental gap between white Americans and black Americans appears to be much smaller than between black Americans and black Africans. As I pointed out in VDARE in 2000, the most promising avenue for improving African-Americans' IQs is by promoting breastfeeding among blacks mothers, who nurse their babies at much lower rates than whites." - Sailer
Once again, you present yourself as a clueless reject of society who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. But by all means, continue to make a fool of yourself.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Malnutrition and accompanying environmental effects begin at infancy and once again, your claims that it has no bearing on IQ are directly contradicted by the APA and even your supposed conservative comrade.
Yeah, so why do the poor manlourished Whites kids outscore the black kids.
quote:So much for objectivity and honesty, you would never be able to produce such a citation attesting to this since it's just another usual distortion. .
"California’s state superintendent of public instruction broke a longstanding taboo this August by pointing out that middle-class black students in the state score worse on math and English than poor white and Asian students—a disparity that applies across the country. The usual poverty excuse for black underachievement does not hold up. "
"Interestingly, no one ever talks about how Asian-American students are able to lead the nation in test scores — in community after community, state after state — despite a Eurocentric curriculum and overarching white privilege that supposedly holds back other non-white students.
In California, the state superintendent of schools was reportedly “shocked” to find that Latino and black students from middle-class families continue to do worse on standardized testing than poor whites, even after years of efforts and many millions of dollars of investment.
His answer? Well, it must be white privilege that is keeping these kids from learning. So he brought together a bunch of “experts” this week to talk about how bad and insensitive California teachers are.
Of course, he failed to mention — as did all the experts — that Asian-American students in California score better than everyone, regardless of income.
In fact, while 77 percent of non-disadvantaged Asian-Americans scored at grade level or above on the English section of the California Achievement Test last year, only 40 percent of non-disadvantaged black students did. That’s a 37-point difference among kids who don’t live in poverty.
The gap in the number of Asian-Americans scoring at grade level or above and the number of white students who did was 10 points. So Asian-Americans in California do even better than white students in an educational environment that is supposedly geared to white success.
Seems to me that the “experts” simply need to figure out how Asian-Americans manage to succeed despite being forced to learn about George Washington and read Shakespeare."
quote: You don't pay much attention, which why you make such blind assertions. The increase was in g, and the increase was 6 points relative to non-hispanic whites, it was a relative gain. The white IQ apparently didn't increase at all. You strike me as a man who has no idea what he's talking about, and here's a reference.
No, you don't pay attention. it's not g loaded. The gap in g is as big as ever.
quote: Red, green, and violate does exist, yet to refer to these color gradients as seen in rainbow, as "races" is both arbitrary and silly. The distinctions are superficial and external.
Bah what nonsense.
quote:Isn't that what you're doing by resurrecting dated pseudoscience and long exposed false assumptions about human variation, prior to the onset of genetic research? Surely none of these data put before you have been ousted and rendered non-applicable, so what's your point? I can't say the same for your ideas, however.
Nothing I've said has been rendered outdated. In fact, the focus has only increased with studies into intelligence and diseases.
Sshaun, as I said earlier and what you keep ignoring is the FACT that the secondary educational system in America is SEGREGATED. Inner city schools where MOST BLACKS attend are NOWHERE near as good as schools that are attended by whites. OF COURSE there is going to be an EDUCATIONAL GAP. If ALL SCHOOLS were equal, then THAT would not be a factor in the results. But, as it stands, THE DIFFERENCES ARE A FACTOR. Likewise, the socio-economic situation for black children is FAR DIFFERENT than the average white child. So, all of THAT also is a factor in standardized test results.
The point being that FUNDAMENTALLY, the INNER CITY SCHOOLS need the SAME FUNDING, RESOURCES and EXCELLENCE in education as WHITE SCHOOLS, but HISTORICALLY, blacks have NEVER gotten the SAME LEVEL of education in segregated schools AS WHITES. This whole issue of secondary education is ALL ABOUT MONEY AND RESOURCES. But MANY KNEE JERK WHITES would like to say that spending more money on BLACKS is a WASTE OF TIME because THEY CANT LEARN. So you get all sorts of STATISTICAL ANALYSIS like this which they TRY to use to support their claims of blacks just being TOO DUMB to learn. This is the SAME SH*T that they have been talking since Europeans first arrived in America and instituted slavery.
This entire thread is nothing but a regurgitation of BULLSH*T analysis by Europeans who WANT to believe that all of this is PURELY based on genetics and IQ and NOT their OWN history of OPPRESSION against blacks and other people.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
Where in any of his writings did he "imply" any such thing? Or are you just babbling as usual?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^I'm telling you, the guy is a fraud and hasn't read one lick of literature pertaining to the topic that he promotes so passionately.
^ Yes, this is clear. Shaun debunks his own agenda via lack of education/intelligence.
Not much of a fraud though, since no-one takes him seriously to begin with.
So, we just toy with him....
quote:Shaun writes: Damn, all those rich white racists out there with low IQs running the country
-> And the poor dumb ones without money, power or self respect, who turn to racial pseudo-science in a futile effort to boost their self esteeem, only to end up more frustrated than ever. Yes, Shaun, point taken. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
You have not one shred of evidence for this, nor have you read this anywhere but merely like to pull conveniently brain dead claims out of thin air. Of course your word means little given these desperate antics to explain away your intellectual mishaps.
You also veer away from the fact that you're wrong and once exposed on your persistent lies, you merely resort to another one. You are so amusing
No shred of evidence. I posted it for you. Go ask the California Superintendent. lol
quote:Umm, ok, not exactly sure what this has to do with IQ or innate intelligence, but surely this report is simplistic. Income alone has never been said to have any effects on IQ, but rather nutritional, environmental, and social factors. Social factors such as "Perceived Racism", for one, has been demonstrated as affecting general functionality in African American youth. This of course, is irrelevant and but another deviation in your argument, demonstrating how desperate you are.
See: Perceived Racism and Career Self-Efficacy in African American Adolescents
What kind of barbituates are you on?
Perceived racism now causes the Black-White gap since income doesn't? See how you have to constantly back-peddle as more evidence is brought forward.
Strange that perceived and TRUE racism against Jews didn't work the same way. Anybody guess why? Higher average intelligence.
quote:g = general intelligence. You are emphasizing IQ test scores relative to whites and whether or not blacks made any gains on whites. The answer is yes, so therefore you DO NOT pay attention.
Some portions of IQ are more g-loaded than others, and some IQ tests are more g loaded than other IQ tests. Raw scores have risen for all groups. g however has remained as far apart as always.
quote:All of it has, according to the vast majority of those interested and whom I've cited. The ideas are very ancient indeed.
Lieberman and Gould? lol
quote:Redundant, this has nothing to do with the ideas alluded to. Try again and limit the distractions.
It has everything to do with it. Race is real. Nice try though.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
You're the only one with the innate limitations though you're still yet to answer his question. What professional black athletes can you cite, that grew up malnourished and the APA indeed cites malnutrition as having notable effects, so is this to say that your elementary logic and loose correlations are enough to contradict their long standing research?
Nobody said malnutrition doesn't have effects. Of course it does, you dingbat.
Do you know how to read?
APA: "They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition."
quote:the most promising avenue for improving African-Americans' IQs is by promoting breastfeeding among blacks mothers, who nurse their babies at much lower rates than whites.
You idiot. This just goes to show how outdated your sources are. Breastfeeding has very little to do with increased IQ.
It's HIGH IQ people that are more likely to breastfeed their kids. Somebody with an IQ of 85 breastfeeding their 85 IQ kid isn't going to raise his IQ to the 100 White average.
Jesus, should I cite the recent study on this for you?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
Where in any of his writings did he "imply" any such thing? Or are you just babbling as usual?
Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence. It goes without saying.
I'll try to find the interview online where Spencer discusses race haha. If I recall correctly he says something like "most of the mental changes took place before Africans left Africa". Sure, most of it took place, but other changes took place thereafter in the groups that left.
How you people try to twist reality to suit your beliefs is striking and humorous.
Your post reminds me of rasols. Emptiness.
babble on!
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Yes, this is clear. Shaun debunks his own agenda via lack of education/intelligence.
Not much of a fraud though, since no-one takes him seriously to begin with.
So, we just toy with him....
Rasol's usual logical fallacies. Nobody on our board openly agrees with Shaun (they agree inside, but can't admit it) therefore he is wrong and we are right. We're the majority after all. Don't take him seriously. Shut him up. Nobody needs to hear such truths. It's dangerous.
quote:And the poor dumb ones without money, power or self respect, who turn to racial pseudo-science in a futile effort to boost their self esteeem, only to end up more frustrated than ever. Yes, Shaun, point taken
Now rasol makes predictions about my income. Something that IQ can't do 100% accurately but he can. He believes that somebody who is poor and has low IQ is dumb, yet when you tell him blacks are disproportionately represented in both categories, he ignores it. haha. He says it's due to my genetic limitations but when it comes to blacks it's everything but genes. lol Truth hurts. Irony baby.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence.
LOL!!
His bluff was called and this is the best he had to offer. My goodness, why is this guy not being completely ignored? He clearly has an extremely limited understanding of evolutionary biology as well as human population history, which is the only reason why he'd draw such a completely absurd conclusion. My god! Talk about IQ and education. Posted by Novel (Member # 14348) on :
quote: “All of your attempts at obfuscation fall flat. I used to use the very same arguments you all have, but I realized I was being disingenuine in the face of reality."
“I've seen the evidence from both sides, and I can't help but conclude what I have. I didn't want to, but it's all there. What kind of idiot could deny it.”
Likely, you have scored high in IQ tests. (Alright, or you would.)
For the naturally intelligent, having their brilliance confirmed is a seductive lure. We all crave recognition for our peculiar brilliance.
It is clear from your passion that these thoughts are part of your personal beliefs.
Globally, you are not alone in thinking such hierarchy exists.
A lesson learned for others who would remain ostriches embracing the fellowship of humanity and goodwill among nations.
You have presented and defended your viewpoints like a true race warrior.
SS Haun does your forum name reveal past interests and ancestry. Not an accusation.
quote:“Reality is stubborn. Biological reality will NOT change because you want it to. It will NOT change because of the political winds of our time. It will NOT change because it is "wrong". It will NOT change because of faith. It will NOT change despite all the ad hominems one wants to use to condemn it or the messenger. It will NOT change except by evolutionary processes.”
Or Genecide. Genocide is so last millennium.
quote: "You can't and shouldn't supress knowledge. Have you learned anything from the story of Galileo?"
I like the story of Pandora.
Going in direction of placing large groups of human beings into pigeonholes, may unfold in manner that Michael Hart and supporters did not intend it, in near future.
The definition of intelligence and the goal post for superiority may be set along different criteria, not within their favor.
Harts recent work alone could not have converted you from previous egalitarian stances. What have you been reading? You know for the book burning festivities. Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
Evolution has nothing to do with people's mental capacity, just physical appearances. The out-of-Africa theory has nothing to do with I.Q. either. As I said before, the Egyptians, who were a pure black people, could not have created the civilization they created if they had a low I.Q.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
You have not one shred of evidence for this, nor have you read this anywhere but merely like to pull conveniently brain dead claims out of thin air. Of course your word means little given these desperate antics to explain away your intellectual mishaps.
You also veer away from the fact that you're wrong and once exposed on your persistent lies, you merely resort to another one. You are so amusing
No shred of evidence. I posted it for you. Go ask the California Superintendent. lol
quote:Umm, ok, not exactly sure what this has to do with IQ or innate intelligence, but surely this report is simplistic. Income alone has never been said to have any effects on IQ, but rather nutritional, environmental, and social factors. Social factors such as "Perceived Racism", for one, has been demonstrated as affecting general functionality in African American youth. This of course, is irrelevant and but another deviation in your argument, demonstrating how desperate you are.
See: Perceived Racism and Career Self-Efficacy in African American Adolescents
What kind of barbituates are you on?
Perceived racism now causes the Black-White gap since income doesn't? See how you have to constantly back-peddle as more evidence is brought forward.
Strange that perceived and TRUE racism against Jews didn't work the same way. Anybody guess why? Higher average intelligence.
quote:g = general intelligence. You are emphasizing IQ test scores relative to whites and whether or not blacks made any gains on whites. The answer is yes, so therefore you DO NOT pay attention.
Some portions of IQ are more g-loaded than others, and some IQ tests are more g loaded than other IQ tests. Raw scores have risen for all groups. g however has remained as far apart as always.
quote:All of it has, according to the vast majority of those interested and whom I've cited. The ideas are very ancient indeed.
Lieberman and Gould? lol
quote:Redundant, this has nothing to do with the ideas alluded to. Try again and limit the distractions.
It has everything to do with it. Race is real. Nice try though.
Hahaha! Finally, you've been absolutely reduced to complete rubbish. Nice try my butt, you have absolutely no idea what the g factor consisted of, you only feign knowledge. There is no way to undermine Flynn's study and surely you make no sense in your hopeless efforts. That the raw scores have increased for all is a high probability, but what Flynn reports clearly is that the increase was relative to whites. If white Americans overall gained 1 point, African Americans gained 7! Hence, the gap was closed by 6 points, which is what was reported. This is a shot in the face to your absurd claims, yet your feeble mind has yet to grasp it so you resort totally to verbal gymnastics. Your attention span is also a disgrace as I haven't even referenced Gould, but rather Lieberman, Brace, Jackson, the APA, Nisbett and others, including mostly all who responded to the Lieberman study that you failed to read. Racism against Jews notwithstanding, they aren't the object of the study that I presented nor has perceived racism in America been noted as being an issue with them by psychologists. Ha! Your replies are easily refuted by anybody who is literate and has access to the same information in which you try so hard to distort.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence.
LOL!!
His bluff was called and this is the best he had to offer. My goodness, why is this guy not being completely ignored? He clearly has an extremely limited understanding of evolutionary biology as well as human population history, which is the only reason why he'd draw such a completely absurd conclusion. My god! Talk about IQ and education.
Indeed, as he still has yet to truly answer *any* of my challenges forgoing excuses and basic scientific illiteracy.
quote:Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence.
One word. WOW.
quote: Babble on
Right. And by all means continue to amuse us with your incoherency bordering on circus clown antics. Honestly I've had more than a few good laughs since this thread started, with surely more to come. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
ThePeople Versus rasol
ThePeople: Genes and environment effect IQ
rasol: Yes but environment has greater influence
ThePeople: But environment can only take a person as far as they're genes allow
rasol: Yes, but "blacks" and "whites" are of equal intelligence. This is a given. It must be accepted outright as true. Besides, race isn't real.
ThePeople: Humans cluster according to geographic region and those fuzzy boundaries can be called race. It's no different than calling different breeds of dogs breeds or races even though there are fuzzy boundaries between dogs.
raso: you can't compare humans to dogs. You just can't. It's inhumane.
ThePeople: For argument's sake, let's say there is a black and white race. The blacks historically are those residing in subsaharran Africa and whites historically in Europe. With my own eyes, and with their own admission, they can be categorized using phenotype because alleles are more frequent in one group over the other, so this seems to be fair.
rasol: ok, but just remember there is more variation within Africa than outside of Africa because Africa is the cradle of humanity
ThePeople: um, yeah. Anyway, if we seperate these groups they have average disparities in IQ of 1 standard deviation or MORE.
rasol: this is due to malnutrition, racism (real and perceived), educational background, income level and poverty, broken schools, breastfeeding or lack thereof, test bias, and culture.
ThePeople: ok, but even if we eliminate malnutrition from within both groups that we're studying, the gap still exists.
There are more opportunities today than ever before, yet the gap remains exactly as it did 50 years ago. There are more role models than ever. Racism was felt by others such as Jews, but it didn't lead to a gap in IQ scores for them. In fact, no matter the conditions, their IQ has always been higher than Native Whites.
Education has effects on IQ. So let us remove kids who have had no education from the study. If we focus on those who have been provided with education (both in black homes and white adopted homes), we still see the IQ gap. Likewise we see the gap between middleclass advantaged blacks and Whites come from poverty. The Whites still outscore the blacks. It seems to me these aren't sufficient explanations.
Blacks aren't breastfed as frequently. This is true, but any small gains in breastfeeding (which is minimal if it exists at all) has no real effect on the large gap.
IQ tests were largely biased in the early days. Measures have been taken to reduce the bias. The APA says there is no apparent test bias and it is understood that IQ tests are not biased to native born english speakers. Likewise cross-cultural IQ tests use non-language IQ tests. We find the black-white gap, still, in light of no widespread test bias. If test bias existed, it's strange that it effects all blacks in all black cultures across the globe virtually the same, and for Whites and Asians for that matter.
Culture does play a role but blacks don't belong to one monolithic culture. They belong to many cultures whether it be Canadian, American, British, African, and so many in between. Yet blacks consistently score at least 1 SD lower than Whites regardless of the culture they're submerged in. It's troubling.
rasol: the legacy of racism of colonialism in Africa and slavery in America has a lot to do with their low scores
ThePeope: ok, but what about those African countries that didn't have colonialism? What about Black kids born who never experienced slavery or the Civil Rights era? The scores are the same for them as well.
Do you think, maybe there is a genetic difference?
rasol: Absolutely not. I told you from the start that there is none. Therefore there is none. You're a low IQ idiot. You're embarrasing yourself. Race DOESN'T EXIST. You've defeated your own argument. We like to toy with low IQ, poor trash like you who try to take pride in race for your own shortcomings.
ThePeople: But I'm not poor. I'm university educated, grew up and live in middle-class home. I've never actually taken an IQ test but since there is a correlation between IQ and scholastic achievement, I'm certain that I'm at least average if not slightly over the average.
rasol: you're pathetic, a foolish loser trying to pass off your pseudo-science superiority. You're not even acquinted with the great works of Gould and Lieberman. They single-handledly dismantle all 100 years of your research. I don't care about The Bell Curve, the G Factor, Hart's book, or anything else. It's obviously false and the mainstream doesn't agree with it.
ThePeople: Mainstream media or mainstream science? If you're referring to science, the community is in a consensus that environment and genes play a role in intelligence, and that the gap is not completely environmental. They're also in agreement that nobody knows what causes the gap.
rasol: You're repeating yourself. Race doesn't exist. Of course there are individual differences. You're proof. You're ignorant so you obviously have low IQ. You're one of the dumbest people I've ever dealt with. Everybody is laughing at you.
ThePeople: All I will say is that we can derive wild explanations for what we see among the races. Blacks failing in america, england, and everywhere else they go may have various myriad reasons. But we can go on all day about those supposed reasons. However, according to Occam's Razor, if a simpler explanation fits and accounts for all the above, it should probably be applied. The common factor in what we see is lower average intelligence of blacks. Lower intelligence on average, would actually account for the failings of blacks everywhere.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence.
LOL!!
His bluff was called and this is the best he had to offer. My goodness, why is this guy not being completely ignored? He clearly has an extremely limited understanding of evolutionary biology as well as human population history, which is the only reason why he'd draw such a completely absurd conclusion. My god! Talk about IQ and education.
Explain to everybody the understanding of evolutionary biology lacking.
The theory of evolution makes your position look foolish regardless of your claims about variations within races being greater between races or any other lame attempt to peddle YOUR pseudo-science around.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^Hahahaha! Hilarious. You're addressing me as if I believe in creationism, as opposed to you merely being completely ignorant of evolutionary biology and why races within homo sapien sapiens are a social myth that has since been discarded.
Anyways..
quote:Raw scores have risen for all groups. g however has remained as far apart as always.
The troll keeps trying to isolate the general intelligence factor from the intelligence quotient, while making misguided and unsupported claims in direct contrast to Flynn (2006). It is genuinely sad to see anyone reduce themselves to such idiocy simply to keep hold of a politically and scientifically bunk ideology. In response to Flynn, he asserts confidently that regardless of what we report, the overall cognitive ability gap between groups is as wide as ever, thereby seemingly implying that IQ isn't relevant anymore and is distinct from general intelligence, even though this was his main argument going in.
1) You have no idea what you're even talking about and it's very hard to even grasp what you imply since you have your concepts twisted.
2) Even IF you understood the jargon, this is what we call "moving the goal post".
Moving the goalposts is a debate fallacy in which one continually redefines the point of the discussion to avoid your opponent being able to provide a correct answer.
Anyways, it is clear that you simply choose to remain willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. Flynn is here to expose you further:
From the very first paragraph:
quote:It is often asserted that blacks have made no IQ gains on whites, despite relative environmental gains, and that this adds credibility to the case that the black/white IQ gap has genetic origins. Until recently, there have been no adequate data to measure black IQ trends. We analyze data from nine standardization samples for four major tests of cognitive ability. These suggest that blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002. Gains have been fairly uniform across the entire range of black cognitive ability.
^You have been officially decimated. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Evolution has nothing to do with people's mental capacity, just physical appearances. The out-of-Africa theory has nothing to do with I.Q. either. As I said before, the Egyptians, who were a pure black people, could not have created the civilization they created if they had a low I.Q.
It has do with both physical and mental abilities and capacities. It's worked this way throughout hominid history and works this way for creatures throughout the natural world too.
Not all blacks have low IQ. We wouldn't have light, cars, planes, if it was for the EXCEPTIONAL FEW INDIVIDUALS, responsible for the knowledge to create them. Thus, it is possible for to create civilization without everybody having high IQs. It's just less likely.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Horrible answer..
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: Right. And by all means continue to amuse us with your incoherency bordering on circus clown antics. Honestly I've had more than a few good laughs since this thread started, with surely more to come.
Will do. There is a lot of learning going on for people reading this.
And yes, this certainly is a sideshow of sorts. Unbelievable, really (but not surprising that people cling fervently to their ideological doctrines in the face of science; it's not the first time)
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^Hahahaha! Hilarious. You're addressing me as if I believe in creationism, as opposed to you merely being completely ignorant of evolutionary biology and why races within homo sapien sapiens are a social myth that has since been discarded.
Anyways..
quote:Raw scores have risen for all groups. g however has remained as far apart as always.
The troll keeps trying to isolate the general intelligence factor from the intelligence quotient, while making misguided and unsupported claims in direct contrast to Flynn (2006). It is genuinely sad to see anyone reduce themselves to such idiocy simply to keep hold of a politically and scientifically bunk ideology. In response to Flynn, he asserts confidently that regardless of what we report, the overall cognitive ability gap between groups is as wide as ever, thereby seemingly implying that IQ isn't relevant anymore and is distinct from general intelligence, even though this was his main argument going in.
1) You have no idea what you're even talking about and it's very hard to even grasp what you imply since you have your concepts twisted.
2) Even IF you understood the jargon, this is what we call "moving the goal post".
Moving the goalposts is a debate fallacy in which one continually redefines the point of the discussion to avoid your opponent being able to provide a correct answer.
Anyways, it is clear that you simply choose to remain willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. Flynn is here to expose you further:
From the very first paragraph:
quote:It is often asserted that blacks have made no IQ gains on whites, despite relative environmental gains, and that this adds credibility to the case that the black/white IQ gap has genetic origins. Until recently, there have been no adequate data to measure black IQ trends. We analyze data from nine standardization samples for four major tests of cognitive ability. These suggest that blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002. Gains have been fairly uniform across the entire range of black cognitive ability.
^You have been officially decimated.
I think you're misunderstood.
Have you checked out the latest debate? This is 2007, we're going on 2008 soon. Your Flynn book is from 2006. All issues in it are discussed out in the open (from November of THIS year):
Go forth my son, if you dare.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
Appealing to novelty does nothing by way of disputing the facts. Stop being so pathetic. lol @ information from 2006 not being reliable because it is "so old".. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
Where in any of his writings did he "imply" any such thing? Or are you just babbling as usual?
Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence. It goes without saying.
I'll try to find the interview online where Spencer discusses race haha. If I recall correctly he says something like "most of the mental changes took place before Africans left Africa". Sure, most of it took place, but other changes took place thereafter in the groups that left.
How you people try to twist reality to suit your beliefs is striking and humorous.
Your post reminds me of rasols. Emptiness.
babble on!
Aww stop playing with yourself. Western Europe, the so-called EPITOME of modern civilization is descended from BARBARIANS who inhabited Western Europe 1000 years ago. What did THEY add to this BRAIN EVOLUTION? And again, MOST of what they know CAME FROM Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia, so if ANY brain development took place it was NOT IN EUROPE. Therefore, special BRAIN DEVELOPMENT is NOT the reason why Western Europe is where it is today, because I am CERTAIN that such developments COULD NOT have occurred within Europeans over the last 1000 years. The development of modern civilization is NOT directly a result of IQ, it is a result of MANY FACTORS, which you SEEM TO BE IGNORANT OF. And remember, those so-called super Aryans that developed so much faster than everyone else WERE NOT WESTERN EUROPEANS. They were the ancestors of the Persians, the Kurds and other North Central Indo Iranian peoples. It is from these peoples that you get some of the iconagraphy of Norse legends as well as some of the legends of the Arthurian knights. But where are these Indo Iranian people who were so influential in world history and developed important developments in horse warfare and were behind many important civilizations in the east today? Constant wars has a lot to do with their demise, NOT IQ. And most of what they did in their glory days was long before any remnants trickled into Western Europe. Again, civilization has historically NOT been a continuous flow, as many factors can inhibit or support the growth of civilization in ANY AREA. And MUCH of this has to do with the friction within and BETWEEN cultures. And LITTLE of this has to do with IQ, but a lot to do with HUMAN NATURE.
Of course, because of the made up history that has occurred in parts of Europe over the last 800 years, this connection to the east is diminished, in order to glorify Nordic Aryans as opposed to Indo Iranian Aryans, the original Aryans.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
Circus Clown writes:
quote: Blacks failing in america, england, and everywhere else they go may have various myriad reasons.
America
quote: Africans have the highest educational attainment rates of any immigrant group in the United States with higher levels of completion than the stereotyped Asian American model minority.
% with college degrees: 43.8
(2000 US census)
Underachieving college degree holders?
Student Percentage of total blacks at harvard university: 8% Percentage of total african and carribean blacks:5% (2/3 of total)
total US % of recent african immgrants: 621,000 (0.2% of U.S. population)
average SAT scores of harvard undergraduates:1490 (out of 1600)
quote: A new census report reveals that black Africans are now the most highly educated members of British society, with over 26% holding academic qualifications higher than "A" or college levels, in comparison with only 13.4% for white adults in British society. (SLD)
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, n3 p92-93 Spr 1994
So much for that!
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Appealing to novelty does nothing by way of disputing the facts. Stop being so pathetic. lol @ information from 2006 not being reliable because it is "so old"..
" None of our commentators [Flynn et al.] mentions the large, persisting, and socially important black-white differences in phenotypic g, except to suggest that they are rapidly disappearing (something I’ve heard now for over thirty years)."
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Appealing to novelty does nothing by way of disputing the facts. Stop being so pathetic. lol @ information from 2006 not being reliable because it is "so old"..
" None of our commentators [Flynn et al.] mentions the large, persisting, and socially important black-white differences in phenotypic g, except to suggest that they are rapidly disappearing (something I’ve heard now for over thirty years)."
^Politics. When a scientist reports confidently by way of their research that the measure in general intelligence is closing/disappearing, there is nothing to dispute off hand. The skepticism in this bare quote offers nothing by way of a rebuttal, therefore Flynn's findings remain valid and unchallenged (especially by those who matter...credible scientists).
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
Where in any of his writings did he "imply" any such thing? Or are you just babbling as usual?
Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence. It goes without saying.
I'll try to find the interview online where Spencer discusses race haha. If I recall correctly he says something like "most of the mental changes took place before Africans left Africa". Sure, most of it took place, but other changes took place thereafter in the groups that left.
How you people try to twist reality to suit your beliefs is striking and humorous.
Your post reminds me of rasols. Emptiness.
babble on!
Aww stop playing with yourself. Western Europe, the so-called EPITOME of modern civilization is descended from BARBARIANS who inhabited Western Europe 1000 years ago. What did THEY add to this BRAIN EVOLUTION? And again, MOST of what they know CAME FROM Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia, so if ANY brain development took place it was NOT IN EUROPE. Therefore, special BRAIN DEVELOPMENT is NOT the reason why Western Europe is where it is today, because I am CERTAIN that such developments COULD NOT have occurred within Europeans over the last 1000 years. The development of modern civilization is NOT directly a result of IQ, it is a result of MANY FACTORS, which you SEEM TO BE IGNORANT OF. And remember, those so-called super Aryans that developed so much faster than everyone else WERE NOT WESTERN EUROPEANS. They were the ancestors of the Persians, the Kurds and other North Central Indo Iranian peoples. It is from these peoples that you get some of the iconagraphy of Norse legends as well as some of the legends of the Arthurian knights. But where are these Indo Iranian people who were so influential in world history and developed important developments in horse warfare and were behind many important civilizations in the east today? Constant wars has a lot to do with their demise, NOT IQ. And most of what they did in their glory days was long before any remnants trickled into Western Europe. Again, civilization has historically NOT been a continuous flow, as many factors can inhibit or support the growth of civilization in ANY AREA. And MUCH of this has to do with the friction within and BETWEEN cultures. And LITTLE of this has to do with IQ, but a lot to do with HUMAN NATURE.
Of course, because of the made up history that has occurred in parts of Europe over the last 800 years, this connection to the east is diminished, in order to glorify Nordic Aryans as opposed to Indo Iranian Aryans, the original Aryans.
The connection to the East is made in Hart's book. He makes it very clear that Whites were not civilized and are the hairiest and considered by other racists as smelly.
None of this means anything with regard to the modern world and what does or does not have predictive value in it.
High IQ correlates with success, innovation, lawfulness, lasting marriage, higher education, efficiency, problem solving, occupational status.
If it is largely high IQ people that are responsible for the technologies around us, it supports to contentino that high IQ may be necessary for their creation. Moreover, if certain populations are represented more often in the High IQ category than others, it supports the idea that they're more likely to advance.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Appealing to novelty does nothing by way of disputing the facts. Stop being so pathetic. lol @ information from 2006 not being reliable because it is "so old"..
" None of our commentators [Flynn et al.] mentions the large, persisting, and socially important black-white differences in phenotypic g, except to suggest that they are rapidly disappearing (something I’ve heard now for over thirty years)."
^Politics. When a scientist reports confidently by way of their research that the measure in general intelligence is closing/disappearing, there is nothing to dispute off hand. The skepticism in this bare quote offers nothing by way of a rebuttal, therefore Flynn's findings remain valid and unchallenged (especially by those who matter...credible scientists).
Flynn himself oscillated on this question. FIRST, he agreed that there were no gains in g. It is only AFTERWORD, that he began saying that it is g loaded gains.
quote:However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
Where in any of his writings did he "imply" any such thing? Or are you just babbling as usual?
Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence. It goes without saying.
I'll try to find the interview online where Spencer discusses race haha. If I recall correctly he says something like "most of the mental changes took place before Africans left Africa". Sure, most of it took place, but other changes took place thereafter in the groups that left.
How you people try to twist reality to suit your beliefs is striking and humorous.
Your post reminds me of rasols. Emptiness.
babble on!
Aww stop playing with yourself. Western Europe, the so-called EPITOME of modern civilization is descended from BARBARIANS who inhabited Western Europe 1000 years ago. What did THEY add to this BRAIN EVOLUTION? And again, MOST of what they know CAME FROM Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia, so if ANY brain development took place it was NOT IN EUROPE. Therefore, special BRAIN DEVELOPMENT is NOT the reason why Western Europe is where it is today, because I am CERTAIN that such developments COULD NOT have occurred within Europeans over the last 1000 years. The development of modern civilization is NOT directly a result of IQ, it is a result of MANY FACTORS, which you SEEM TO BE IGNORANT OF. And remember, those so-called super Aryans that developed so much faster than everyone else WERE NOT WESTERN EUROPEANS. They were the ancestors of the Persians, the Kurds and other North Central Indo Iranian peoples. It is from these peoples that you get some of the iconagraphy of Norse legends as well as some of the legends of the Arthurian knights. But where are these Indo Iranian people who were so influential in world history and developed important developments in horse warfare and were behind many important civilizations in the east today? Constant wars has a lot to do with their demise, NOT IQ. And most of what they did in their glory days was long before any remnants trickled into Western Europe. Again, civilization has historically NOT been a continuous flow, as many factors can inhibit or support the growth of civilization in ANY AREA. And MUCH of this has to do with the friction within and BETWEEN cultures. And LITTLE of this has to do with IQ, but a lot to do with HUMAN NATURE.
Of course, because of the made up history that has occurred in parts of Europe over the last 800 years, this connection to the east is diminished, in order to glorify Nordic Aryans as opposed to Indo Iranian Aryans, the original Aryans.
The connection to the East is made in Hart's book. He makes it very clear that Whites were not civilized and are the hairiest and considered by other racists as smelly.
None of this means anything with regard to the modern world and what does or does not have predictive value in it.
High IQ correlates with success, innovation, lawfulness, lasting marriage, higher education, efficiency, problem solving, occupational status.
If it is largely high IQ people that are responsible for the technologies around us, it supports to contentino that high IQ may be necessary for their creation. Moreover, if certain populations are represented more often in the High IQ category than others, it supports the idea that they're more likely to advance.
^Most of the said technological advances you speak of stem from a successive exchange of ideas mounted on top of information passed down through generations. If these large brained, high IQ groups that you speak of indeed embody what you attribute to them, then surely this should have always been the case unless they had a dramatic increase over the past several centuries.
Similarly, if you're implying that these technological contributors are by and large, white, then why do most Asian countries (where culturally, good study habits are more emphasized, as well as nutritional habits), even those less technologically advanced, average out as having higher IQs? Of course you make little sense. And why do you insist constantly on using the same Astrophysicist as your primary source?
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Appealing to novelty does nothing by way of disputing the facts. Stop being so pathetic. lol @ information from 2006 not being reliable because it is "so old"..
" None of our commentators [Flynn et al.] mentions the large, persisting, and socially important black-white differences in phenotypic g, except to suggest that they are rapidly disappearing (something I’ve heard now for over thirty years)."
^Politics. When a scientist reports confidently by way of their research that the measure in general intelligence is closing/disappearing, there is nothing to dispute off hand. The skepticism in this bare quote offers nothing by way of a rebuttal, therefore Flynn's findings remain valid and unchallenged (especially by those who matter...credible scientists).
^^He's just grabbing for any and everything that might support his view, with ofcourse the usual incoherency , cherry picking and mis-application/interpretation.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Appealing to novelty does nothing by way of disputing the facts. Stop being so pathetic. lol @ information from 2006 not being reliable because it is "so old"..
" None of our commentators [Flynn et al.] mentions the large, persisting, and socially important black-white differences in phenotypic g, except to suggest that they are rapidly disappearing (something I’ve heard now for over thirty years)."
^Politics. When a scientist reports confidently by way of their research that the measure in general intelligence is closing/disappearing, there is nothing to dispute off hand. The skepticism in this bare quote offers nothing by way of a rebuttal, therefore Flynn's findings remain valid and unchallenged (especially by those who matter...credible scientists).
Flynn himself oscillated on this question. FIRST, he agreed that there were no gains in g. It is only AFTERWORD, that he began saying that it is g loaded gains.
Convenient that you recycle the same two quacks for each rebuttal as if it wouldn't be expected that they'd respond to such destruction of their thesis'. However, sorry to say that Flynn conceded in the paper that the necessary data to make such a conclusion simply was not available, initially. How does childish suspicion of a respected scientist count as criticism or an effective rebuttal? I'll answer for you....it doesn't. Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
And the great unsolved mysteries of this thread, may sshaun do the honors of solving:
quote: SShaun, prove how humanity is:
1) divided into arbitrary "racial" super-groups (and not regional variation) that correlate demonstrably and consistently with
2) IQ discrepancies between said groups (throughout history)and
3) how they evolved a higher form of intelligence by means of selective processes that did not occur in Africa (as they did with Home sapiens sapiens 150,000 years ago which brought us here) and why
4) Mongolia is still no more advanced than most of black Africa today. Without vague excuses please.
5) Why Germany is low in HDI and GDP, and Ireland relatively high give or take IQ scores.
6) Why Ireland is equal to African american intelligence at *91*, with the former being only "hybrids" and the latter being more or less pure white European.
Alas More clownery,
is to be expected.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: The connection to the East is made in Hart's book. He makes it very clear that Whites were not civilized and are the hairiest and considered by other racists as smelly.
None of this means anything with regard to the modern world and what does or does not have predictive value in it.
Eureka! So, if you had an IQ test 1000 years ago and gave it to ancient Britons, WHAT would your PREDICTION BE as far as their future SUCCESS? The point is that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH IQ, not in the way YOU ARE PUTTING IT. If the West Europeans had NOTHING to do with the rise of civilization then WHAT HAPPENED in the last 1000 years? WHAT CHANGED? It COULD NOT have been a GENETIC CHANGE IN IQ, because genetics DON'T CHANGE LIKE THAT. Therefore, THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS behind the rise in civilization and IQ is NOT AN IMPORTANT FACTOR, not in the current way IQ is defined and it CERTAINLY IS NOT GENETIC. Because the descendents of the SAME WEST EUROPEAN BARBARIANS are on TOP of the world today and I DOUBT that their genetics has CHANGED MUCH. Civilization is about CULTURE first and foremost, resources, ability to defend oneself through force and the PROPAGATION OF LEARNING. Any culture that has the proper resources, organization, access to learning and culture will do well NO MATTER THE IQ. In fact, their IQ will GO UP, as the standard of living GOES UP. THIS IS PROVEN BY THE HISTORY OF WESTERN EUROPE IN THE LAST 1000 YEARS. Something YOU DONT want to grasp because IT GOES AGAINST YOUR NONSENSE THEORY. These descendants of Western Europe are NOT a NEW RACE, so there IS NO WAY that their RISE IN IQ has ANYTHING TO DO WITH GENETICS. It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HISTORY and the fact that out of the things I mentioned about civilization, they were MOST WILLING to USE FORCE in acquiring ENOUGH RESOURCES through destruction of AS MANY OTHER CULTURES AND CIVILIZATIONS as possible and to USE THESE CONQUERED PEOPLE as the BASIS of their WEALTH. But NOT ONLY THAT, they are QUITE WILLING TO USE FORCE TO KEEP EVERYONE THEY CONQUERED IN SECOND RATE STATUS. And theories like IQ are just BULLSH*T NONSENSE that they use to JUSTIFY keeping themselves ON TOP.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: High IQ correlates with success, innovation, lawfulness, lasting marriage, higher education, efficiency, problem solving, occupational status.
If it is largely high IQ people that are responsible for the technologies around us, it supports to contentino that high IQ may be necessary for their creation. Moreover, if certain populations are represented more often in the High IQ category than others, it supports the idea that they're more likely to advance.
WRONG. AS I HAVE SHOWN, the RISE OF EUROPE IS NOT BECAUSE OF IQ. That is a FAIRY TALE. This whole idea of IQ is only 200 years old and IRRELEVANT to the FACTS OF HISTORY especially when it comes to the REAL FACTS of how CIVILIZATION developed. IQ had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. HIGH EDUCATION AND LEARNING is what propagates innovation. Europe did not begin to APPRECIATE LEARNING until 500 years ago. And before that WHAT WAS THEIR IQ and WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PREDICTIONS ABOUT THEIR SUCCESS 500 years later? As I said before, this BULLSH*T about IQ is more about CONTROLLING the resources and access to education in the DEVELOPING WORLD in such a way to BENEFIT WHITE SUPREMACY or KEEP WHITES ON TOP, so that NOBODY ELSE can EVER RISE TO THE TOP the way EUROPE DID. And it had NOTHING TO DO WITH IQ. The sooner you understand this, the quicker you will see that this IQ stuff is NONSENSE. If LOW IQ BARBARIAN EUROPEANS can rise to the TOP of world civilization THEN SO CAN ANY ONE ELSE ON EARTH. That is AS LONG AS NOBODY IS STEPPING ON THEIR NECKS KEEPING THEM FROM GETTING UP. THAT is why they KEEP CREATING this FANTASY history and that is why they KEEP denying that black Africans had ANYTHING to do with the development of civilization. Because they DON'T WANT THEM to rise up and PASS EUROPEANS as the TOP DAWGS. These theories of "intelligence", "race" and "IQ" are designed for one thing only GUARANTEE that the MODERN DESCENDANTS OF WHITE BARBARIANS STAY ON TOP OF EVERYONE ELSE FOR EVER AND EVER.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote: Africans have the highest educational attainment rates of any immigrant group in the United States with higher levels of completion than the stereotyped Asian American model minority.
% with college degrees: 43.8 So much for that! [/QB]
Percent of graduates says nothing about raw academic scores and the admissions process. Considering all types of affirmative action goes on, discussed behind closed doors, this is not surprising. Nobody can claim Harvard discriminates against blacks. They have their black now too, see!!
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Strange that perceived and TRUE racism against Jews didn't work the same way. Anybody guess why? Higher average intelligence.
Jews have been discriminated against, yes
Show me where Jews have been constantly told they are less intelligent and denied education
Your thing about nutrition and athletes has been addressed
Also you and I both know the inferior Mexicans have a strong tradition in mathematics
Don't you think it's strange the same races that are stereotyped as less intelegent today show the lowest IQs and those stereotyped as being smart have the highest.
Show me where Asians were scoring the highest on IQ tests before they were stereotyped as smart.
Or Chinese
British cartoon, backward Chinese blocking progress
quote:THE MISSING LINK" In 1860 the first live adult gorilla arrived at the London Zoo just after Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species had been published. Victorians flocked to see it and debate the relationship of humans to animals. In 1862 the British magazine Punch published "The Missing Link" a satire attacking Irish immigrants: "A gulf certainly, does appear to yawn between the Gorilla and the Negro. The woods and wilds of Africa do not exhibit an example of any intermediate animal. But in this, as in many other cases, philosophers go vainly searching abroad for that which they could readily find if they sought for it at home. A creature manifestly between the Gorilla and the Negro is to be met with in some of the lowest districts of London and Liverpool by adventurous explorers. It comes from Ireland , whence it has contrived to migrate; it belongs in fact to a tribe of Irish savages: the lowest species of Irish Yahoo. When conversing with its kind it talks a sort of gibberish. It is, moreover, a climbing animal, and may sometimes be seen ascending a ladder ladden with a hod of bricks
White negroes The negro and the Irishmen are inferior and should be extinct, Harper's magazine on scientific racism
quote: 1813 Lord Hastings wrote: "The Hindoo appears a being nearly limited to mere animal functions and even in them indifferent. Their proficiency and skill in the several lines of occupation to which they are restricted, are little more than the dexterity which any animal with similar conformation but with no higher intellect than a dog, an elephant or a monkey, might be supposed to be capable of attaining."
quote:The Emperor also brought Arabs scholars to Timbuktu. To his great surprise, the Emperor has found that these scholars are underqualified compared to the black scholars of Timbuktu. Abd Arahman Atimmi had such a low level that he was obliged to migrate to Marrakech to complete his prerequisites so he can sit in the classes as a student.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote: Africans have the highest educational attainment rates of any immigrant group in the United States with higher levels of completion than the stereotyped Asian American model minority.
% with college degrees: 43.8 So much for that!
Percent of graduates says nothing about raw academic scores and the admissions process. Considering all types of affirmative action goes on
Grasping at straws again? Affirmative action doesn't at all apply to African immigrants; only African Americans (descendants of the middle passage).
Courtesy of Mmmkay..
^You have no answers..
Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
Where in any of his writings did he "imply" any such thing? Or are you just babbling as usual?
Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence. It goes without saying.
I'll try to find the interview online where Spencer discusses race haha. If I recall correctly he says something like "most of the mental changes took place before Africans left Africa". Sure, most of it took place, but other changes took place thereafter in the groups that left.
How you people try to twist reality to suit your beliefs is striking and humorous.
Your post reminds me of rasols. Emptiness.
babble on!
Aww stop playing with yourself. Western Europe, the so-called EPITOME of modern civilization is descended from BARBARIANS who inhabited Western Europe 1000 years ago. What did THEY add to this BRAIN EVOLUTION? And again, MOST of what they know CAME FROM Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia, so if ANY brain development took place it was NOT IN EUROPE. Therefore, special BRAIN DEVELOPMENT is NOT the reason why Western Europe is where it is today, because I am CERTAIN that such developments COULD NOT have occurred within Europeans over the last 1000 years. The development of modern civilization is NOT directly a result of IQ, it is a result of MANY FACTORS, which you SEEM TO BE IGNORANT OF. And remember, those so-called super Aryans that developed so much faster than everyone else WERE NOT WESTERN EUROPEANS. They were the ancestors of the Persians, the Kurds and other North Central Indo Iranian peoples. It is from these peoples that you get some of the iconagraphy of Norse legends as well as some of the legends of the Arthurian knights. But where are these Indo Iranian people who were so influential in world history and developed important developments in horse warfare and were behind many important civilizations in the east today? Constant wars has a lot to do with their demise, NOT IQ. And most of what they did in their glory days was long before any remnants trickled into Western Europe. Again, civilization has historically NOT been a continuous flow, as many factors can inhibit or support the growth of civilization in ANY AREA. And MUCH of this has to do with the friction within and BETWEEN cultures. And LITTLE of this has to do with IQ, but a lot to do with HUMAN NATURE.
Of course, because of the made up history that has occurred in parts of Europe over the last 800 years, this connection to the east is diminished, in order to glorify Nordic Aryans as opposed to Indo Iranian Aryans, the original Aryans.
Doug why are you always downing Western Europeans? Both my parents are from Scotland and aside from my usual barbaric skull bashing sessions that I take out on the neighborhood every now and then, I scored exceptionally high on an IQ test given in the 8th grade. Just goes to show that not all us barbarians are that stupid. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
already answered on the previous page. here it is again.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:exhibit a: You fail to explain (everytime) Why mongolia today (homeland of his intellectual superman) has progressed no further economically and technologically than the average nation in black Africa.
Too few of them left and they live in a cold desolate areas of the world. Those involved in the warrior raids in history are now European and Asian hybrids assimilited for centuries living in Europe and Northern China.
quote:Ofcourse you fail to explain *specifically* what makes Ireland an "outlier" and why Germany falls (17 and 15 places respectively) in both GDP and quality of life behind Ireland. Even as Ireland is an "outlier" in your view,(which by the way is equal to the so-called black IQ at 91) you *cannot* explain such a large gap. After all, supposing Ireland was an outlier, why is'nt Germany atleast in the top 10 in HDI? Does that mean Germany an "outlier" as well?
Ireland is a lot like Barbados, an important center for international financial transactions. I'm not sure what your point is. Average IQ of a nation is average intelligence, nothing more nothing less. The nation with the highest IQ average doesn't mean they'll get to Mars first, but all things being equal, they're the most likely to.
Your attempts to downplay predictive value of IQ are weak. Nothing in life, especially history or the future is 100% predictive as other factors are always involved. This doesn't change the importance or role of intelligence one iota.
quote:Wrong.The US black IQ today, as reported,(Flynn and Dickens 2006) stands at 91, 3 points behind *Israel* at 94.
exhibit c:
These are gains in raw test scores, not in g.
And for that matter, don't compare IQ of Black Americans with Black Africans. The former are hybrids, the latter are overwhelmingly not.
quote:your study is based upon hypertension and its geographical distribution as determined by historical population relationships. It says they can be correlated with self-reported geographical groups. It *does not* present a genetic basis for interpopulation IQ discrepancies nor the basis of this upon self-reported groups. Not exactly what you are looking to find.
it does not counteract the study I cited as it *specifically states* its intents and purposes as to what it looks for in its *finds*:
whether differences between continental groups, although small, are nevertheless large enough to confidently assign individuals to their continent on the basis of their genotypes;
[B]whether the observed genotypes naturally cluster into continental or population groups when the sample source location is ignored.[B]
quote:1) A total Genetic basis for IQ and the historical accomplishment of certain groups
No, I'm not. Genetics and environment play a 50/50. If environment didn't matter, Europeans and Northern Chinese would likely have developed civilization first. This did not happen due to environmental factors.
quote:2) That this genetic basis varies by arbitrary geographical "race" despite a) modern humans being less than 150,000 years old b) most human gentic variation with Africa itself c) All human beings having alive having less total divristy than a siingle troop of chimpanzees.
Colors of the light spectrum such as the colors Red and yellow don't exist because there are shades of red-orange-dark-yellow in between?
Because most variation is within Africa means that populations scattered around the world for 150k years aren't different physically and mentally on average? We know this is not the case. Everything shows that we are different in both ways.
All it would take is a single mutation to make enormous differences between populations just as they do between individuals. It doesn't matter if we're 99.999% the same. That .0001% is all that's needed to observe large differences.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Convenient that you recycle the same two quacks for each rebuttal as if it wouldn't be expected that they'd respond to such destruction of their thesis'. However, sorry to say that Flynn conceded in the paper that the necessary data to make such a conclusion simply was not available, initially. How does childish suspicion of a respected scientist count as criticism or an effective rebuttal? I'll answer for you....it doesn't. [/QB]
How can I win with you? When I don't provide a source, you say it's been proven and I'm a fraud. When I provide a published source rebutting yours from heavyweights in the field, they're called quacks. Jensen is probably the single most important and influencial person in his field for the past 40 years.
You say LOOK AT WHAT FLYNN SAYS.
Then I say look at what JENSEN SAYS to rebut EVERYTHING FLYNN SAYS. But that's not good enough. Did you READ Jensen's rebuttal? It's spot on.
Got anything else?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:All it would take is a single mutation to make enormous differences between populations just as they do between individuals. It doesn't matter if we're 99.999% the same. That .0001% is all that's needed to observe large differences.
There you go again, babbling. Most mutations are neutral while the vast majority of the remaining are harmful. 85% of human variation happens at the individual level while most of the rest are identified with adaptive strategies and superficial physical differences that have no bearing on any race concepts.
You don't realize how much you expose your incompetence to this board with each post.
quote:However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
Where in any of his writings did he "imply" any such thing? Or are you just babbling as usual?
Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence. It goes without saying.
I'll try to find the interview online where Spencer discusses race haha. If I recall correctly he says something like "most of the mental changes took place before Africans left Africa". Sure, most of it took place, but other changes took place thereafter in the groups that left.
How you people try to twist reality to suit your beliefs is striking and humorous.
Your post reminds me of rasols. Emptiness.
babble on!
Aww stop playing with yourself. Western Europe, the so-called EPITOME of modern civilization is descended from BARBARIANS who inhabited Western Europe 1000 years ago. What did THEY add to this BRAIN EVOLUTION? And again, MOST of what they know CAME FROM Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia, so if ANY brain development took place it was NOT IN EUROPE. Therefore, special BRAIN DEVELOPMENT is NOT the reason why Western Europe is where it is today, because I am CERTAIN that such developments COULD NOT have occurred within Europeans over the last 1000 years. The development of modern civilization is NOT directly a result of IQ, it is a result of MANY FACTORS, which you SEEM TO BE IGNORANT OF. And remember, those so-called super Aryans that developed so much faster than everyone else WERE NOT WESTERN EUROPEANS. They were the ancestors of the Persians, the Kurds and other North Central Indo Iranian peoples. It is from these peoples that you get some of the iconagraphy of Norse legends as well as some of the legends of the Arthurian knights. But where are these Indo Iranian people who were so influential in world history and developed important developments in horse warfare and were behind many important civilizations in the east today? Constant wars has a lot to do with their demise, NOT IQ. And most of what they did in their glory days was long before any remnants trickled into Western Europe. Again, civilization has historically NOT been a continuous flow, as many factors can inhibit or support the growth of civilization in ANY AREA. And MUCH of this has to do with the friction within and BETWEEN cultures. And LITTLE of this has to do with IQ, but a lot to do with HUMAN NATURE.
Of course, because of the made up history that has occurred in parts of Europe over the last 800 years, this connection to the east is diminished, in order to glorify Nordic Aryans as opposed to Indo Iranian Aryans, the original Aryans.
Doug why are you always downing Western Europeans? Both my parents are from Scotland and aside from my usual barbaric skull bashing sessions that I take out on the neighborhood every now and then, I scored exceptionally high on an IQ test given in the 8th grade. Just goes to show that not all us barbarians are that stupid.
The point is that there is no "magic" ingredient in ONE group of humans that GENETICALLY makes them MORE ABLE to develop civilization. ANY GROUP of humans can develop an advanced civilization. But ALL HUMAN CIVILIZATION has humble origins. Europeans started out relatively behind and rose to the top, but in just the same way so can ANY OTHER GROUP that is relatively behind today rise to the top in the future. As I said, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH GENETIC IQ, and EVERYTHING to do with access to KNOWLEDGE, RESOURCES and ORGANIZATION. But SOME OF US don't WANT anyone else to rise from HUMBLE ROOTS and DO ANYTHING ELSE BUT BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE CURRENT WORLD ORDER. So this whole NONSENSE about IQ is an excuse to pretend that people with humble beginnings CAN RISE TO THE TOP in a few hundred years, given the right circumstances. But HUMAN GREED and HUMAN NATURE just can't STAND to have competition AT THE TOP. THAT is my point.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Incase you missed my post on racism above, show me high scoring Asians on IQ tests durring or prior to WWII
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Jews have been discriminated against, yes
Show me where Jews have been constantly told they are less intelligent and denied education
Denied education? Read The Chosen. A book about how Harvard, Yale, and other top universities tried to block Jews out. It was another "Jewish Problem" because they kept scoring best beating out White Natives. Why? It's genetic. For WHATEVER reason, they've developed higher IQ. We can only hypothesis to explain what we see. We can never be certain of the REASONS, but we can observe the reality of it today.
Regardless, being told you're dumb isn't going to push your IQ down 1 standard deviation. The black middle-class kids have the best of the best raised in black homes and white homes. You're going to tell me some hidden force makes them score near the black IQ average? Not buying it. The science just doesn't support that.
quote: Don't you think it's strange the same races that are stereotyped as less intelegent today show the lowest IQs and those stereotyped as being smart have the highest.
It's not strange per se. It could very well be a product of a well observed reality. Why did those stereotypes originate? You think somebody thought it'd be neat to start proclaiming that Jews and Chinese are more intelligent than themselves? Not buying it.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Affirmative action doesn't at all apply to African immigrants; only African Americans [/QB]
You mean the policy applies only to African Americans but the practise spills over into "any black we can get". Those who have more drive are the black immigrants. Their scores may not match up to the White peers at those academic levels, but Harvard needs to show diversity. So long as they take the black cream of the crop who's going to complain.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: How can I win with you? When I don't provide a source, you say it's been proven and I'm a fraud. When I provide a published source rebutting yours from heavyweights in the field, they're called quacks. Jensen is probably the single most important and influencial person in his field for the past 40 years.
I merely stated that it is very convenient of you that these are your only sources seeing as how everyone is against their ideas, so it is natural that they frantically attack all those opposed as their backs are against the wall. Doesn't dismiss the reality that they are both crack pots and deemed by many as pseudo-scientists who can't put together a coherent argument with out lashing out and making paranoid accusations of political conspiracy theories. This is their last resort as the vast majority of their data has been challenged, scrutinized, put to the test, and ultimately discarded as racist nonsense/wishful thinking.
quote:You say LOOK AT WHAT FLYNN SAYS.
Then I say look at what JENSEN SAYS to rebut EVERYTHING FLYNN SAYS. But that's not good enough. Did you READ Jensen's rebuttal? It's spot on.
It's "spot on" to the gullible and dumb minded air heads who can't sift through the garbage. I've merely cited Flynn in direct rebuttal to one of your claims, and instead of addressing why Flynn is wrong, you merely post a link to the same wackos who are the laughing stock of the scientific community while offering me a brief assessment that in no way counter's Flynn's data, but rather casts suspicion in similar fashion as paranoid schizophrenics.
quote:Here it is again for all the Flynn cheerleaders.
^As stated, these people are merely seen as quacks..
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote: Africans have the highest educational attainment rates of any immigrant group in the United States with higher levels of completion than the stereotyped Asian American model minority.
% with college degrees: 43.8 So much for that!
Percent of graduates says nothing about raw academic scores and the admissions process. Considering all types of affirmative action goes on, discussed behind closed doors, this is not surprising. Nobody can claim Harvard discriminates against blacks. They have their black now too, see!! [/QB]
Wrong. Even in California (where affirmative action was struck down) the same results play out.
quote: Researchers at Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania who have been studying the achievement of minority students at 28 selective colleges and universities (including Berkeley, Columbia, Yale and Duke) last year found that 41 percent of the black students identified themselves as immigrants, children of immigrants or mixed race.
try yet again.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:It's not strange per se. It could very well be a product of a well observed reality. Why did those stereotypes originate? You think somebody thought it'd be neat to start proclaiming that Jews and Chinese are more intelligent than themselves? Not buying it.
I still think it's funny that the stereotypes of today seem to correlate with IQ scores, don't you think
Why did the stereotypes of modern times just begin to allign with the real hiarchy of races
Show me high IQ scores of Asians durring or prior to WWII before the smart Asian stereotype
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Jews have been discriminated against, yes
Show me where Jews have been constantly told they are less intelligent and denied education
Denied education? Read The Chosen. A book about how Harvard, Yale, and other top universities tried to block Jews out. It was another "Jewish Problem" because they kept scoring best beating out White Natives. Why? It's genetic. For WHATEVER reason, they've developed higher IQ. We can only hypothesis to explain what we see. We can never be certain of the REASONS, but we can observe the reality of it today.
Regardless, being told you're dumb isn't going to push your IQ down 1 standard deviation. The black middle-class kids have the best of the best raised in black homes and white homes. You're going to tell me some hidden force makes them score near the black IQ average? Not buying it. The science just doesn't support that.
quote: Don't you think it's strange the same races that are stereotyped as less intelegent today show the lowest IQs and those stereotyped as being smart have the highest.
It's not strange per se. It could very well be a product of a well observed reality. Why did those stereotypes originate? You think somebody thought it'd be neat to start proclaiming that Jews and Chinese are more intelligent than themselves? Not buying it.
Sshaun, you are talking NONSENSE. Individual achievement is individual achievement. There are MANY factors behind individual achievement. WHY does it MATTER what IQ blacks HAVE? IT DOESN'T. What MATTERS is that they GET the same OPPORTUNITIES FOR A GOOD education AND that they are ABLE TO LIVE IN GOOD, SAFE, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES. ALL OF THIS GOES TOGETHER. AND, as I said, NO MATTER if they are from A MIDDLE CLASS BACKGROUND OR NOT, if they GO TO A DISADVANTAGED INNER CITY SCHOOL they are JUST AS LIKELY NOT to get as GOOD an education as a person with LOW IQ who goes to A GOOD SCHOOL. There are TOO MANY FACTORS that determine INDIVIDUAL as well as GROUP ACHIEVEMENT, NOT IQ.
Those middle class black kids are just as likely to succeed as ANY ONE ELSE, REGARDLESS of IQ, given the right SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT. IQ does not measure individual achievement. How many BUMS have HIGH IQs? How many CEOs have LOW IQs? It is about the INDIVIDUAL and their DESIRE to succeed that counts MORE THAN AN IQ TEST.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: How can I win with you? When I don't provide a source, you say it's been proven and I'm a fraud. When I provide a published source rebutting yours from heavyweights in the field, they're called quacks. Jensen is probably the single most important and influencial person in his field for the past 40 years.
I merely stated that it is very convenient of you that these are your only sources seeing as how everyone is against their ideas, so it is natural that they frantically attack all those opposed as their backs are against the wall. Doesn't dismiss the reality that they are both crack pots and deemed by many as pseudo-scientists who can't put together a coherent argument with out lashing out and making paranoid accusations of political conspiracy theories. This is their last resort as the vast majority of their data has been challenged, scrutinized, put to the test, and ultimately discarded as racist nonsense/wishful thinking.
quote:You say LOOK AT WHAT FLYNN SAYS.
Then I say look at what JENSEN SAYS to rebut EVERYTHING FLYNN SAYS. But that's not good enough. Did you READ Jensen's rebuttal? It's spot on.
It's "spot on" to the gullible and dumb minded air heads who can't sift through the garbage. I've merely cited Flynn in direct rebuttal to one of your claims, and instead of addressing why Flynn is wrong, you merely post a link to the same wackos who are the laughing stock of the scientific community while offering me a brief assessment that in no way counter's Flynn's data, but rather casts suspicion in similar fashion as paranoid schizophrenics.
quote:Here it is again for all the Flynn cheerleaders.
^As stated, these people are merely seen as quacks..
The fact that you think Jensen is a quack goes to show you don't know anything about the man, his fields of experise, his contributions to science, and the high esteem with which he is held by his colleagues.
Instead of reading the response and addressing what is said in it, you attack the authors. Lame.
Jensen doesn't have to defend himself. If you find something wrong with his research point it out and show why it's not true. Otherwise there is no sense in debating. You're debating the quality of the person, which is not the issue. The issue is his research and findings.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:already answered on the previous page. here it is again.
Sorry. Your lazy half-answers *still* have not answered the questions posed. Some of which being new (expanding upon the previous).
And you just copy and paste the exact same thing despite the fact.
Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Celt:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
Where in any of his writings did he "imply" any such thing? Or are you just babbling as usual?
Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence. It goes without saying.
I'll try to find the interview online where Spencer discusses race haha. If I recall correctly he says something like "most of the mental changes took place before Africans left Africa". Sure, most of it took place, but other changes took place thereafter in the groups that left.
How you people try to twist reality to suit your beliefs is striking and humorous.
Your post reminds me of rasols. Emptiness.
babble on!
Aww stop playing with yourself. Western Europe, the so-called EPITOME of modern civilization is descended from BARBARIANS who inhabited Western Europe 1000 years ago. What did THEY add to this BRAIN EVOLUTION? And again, MOST of what they know CAME FROM Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia, so if ANY brain development took place it was NOT IN EUROPE. Therefore, special BRAIN DEVELOPMENT is NOT the reason why Western Europe is where it is today, because I am CERTAIN that such developments COULD NOT have occurred within Europeans over the last 1000 years. The development of modern civilization is NOT directly a result of IQ, it is a result of MANY FACTORS, which you SEEM TO BE IGNORANT OF. And remember, those so-called super Aryans that developed so much faster than everyone else WERE NOT WESTERN EUROPEANS. They were the ancestors of the Persians, the Kurds and other North Central Indo Iranian peoples. It is from these peoples that you get some of the iconagraphy of Norse legends as well as some of the legends of the Arthurian knights. But where are these Indo Iranian people who were so influential in world history and developed important developments in horse warfare and were behind many important civilizations in the east today? Constant wars has a lot to do with their demise, NOT IQ. And most of what they did in their glory days was long before any remnants trickled into Western Europe. Again, civilization has historically NOT been a continuous flow, as many factors can inhibit or support the growth of civilization in ANY AREA. And MUCH of this has to do with the friction within and BETWEEN cultures. And LITTLE of this has to do with IQ, but a lot to do with HUMAN NATURE.
Of course, because of the made up history that has occurred in parts of Europe over the last 800 years, this connection to the east is diminished, in order to glorify Nordic Aryans as opposed to Indo Iranian Aryans, the original Aryans.
Doug why are you always downing Western Europeans? Both my parents are from Scotland and aside from my usual barbaric skull bashing sessions that I take out on the neighborhood every now and then, I scored exceptionally high on an IQ test given in the 8th grade. Just goes to show that not all us barbarians are that stupid.
The point is that there is no "magic" ingredient in ONE group of humans that GENETICALLY makes them MORE ABLE to develop civilization. ANY GROUP of humans can develop an advanced civilization. But ALL HUMAN CIVILIZATION has humble origins. Europeans started out relatively behind and rose to the top, but in just the same way so can ANY OTHER GROUP that is relatively behind today rise to the top in the future. As I said, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH GENETIC IQ, and EVERYTHING to do with access to KNOWLEDGE, RESOURCES and ORGANIZATION. But SOME OF US don't WANT anyone else to rise from HUMBLE ROOTS and DO ANYTHING ELSE BUT BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE CURRENT WORLD ORDER. So this whole NONSENSE about IQ is an excuse to pretend that people with humble beginnings CAN RISE TO THE TOP in a few hundred years, given the right circumstances. But HUMAN GREED and HUMAN NATURE just can't STAND to have competition AT THE TOP. THAT is my point.
Of course you're right about greed. But greed exists in all groups of humans not just western Europeans. And IQ doesn't mean a thing without the motivation to go with it. Greed can be very motivating and success can almost always be gauranteed with enough motivation. It doesn't take a high IQ to succeed. All it takes is a moderate amount of intelligence and motivation to drive forward.Just because I tested with a very high IQ it still hasn't afforded me any appreciable amount of material success because I'm not motivated to succeed in that way. True intelligence can't always be measured by tests and numbers.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Affirmative action doesn't at all apply to African immigrants; only African Americans
You mean the policy applies only to African Americans but the practise spills over into "any black we can get".
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since it doesn't apply in any way shape or form to African immigrants. There are no special benefits for admitting black immigrants. Sorry, but it appears to be the case that native blacks are simply more prone to academic achievement than native whites. As was cited, the same holds true in Britain as well, which further demolishes your speculation.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Of course you're right about greed. But greed exists in all groups of humans not just western Europeans. And IQ doesn't mean a thing without the motivation to go with it. Greed can be very motivating and success can almost always be gauranteed with enough motivation. It doesn't take a high IQ to succeed. All it takes is a moderate amount of intelligence and motivation to drive forward.Just because I tested with a very high IQ it still hasn't afforded me any appreciable amount of material success because I'm not motivated to succeed in that way. True intelligence can't always be measured by tests and numbers. [/QB]
Personality traits are indeed important. These are genetic in origin, too.
However, the role of intelligence is always crucial. Why? Because if two people are equally motivated but one is a genius and the other is average, the genius, (and ONLY him - or at least statistically light years more probable), will be able to come up with a solution to that nagging quantum physics problem.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: The fact that you think Jensen is a quack goes to show you don't know anything about the man, his fields of experise, his contributions to science, and the high esteem with which he is held by his colleagues.
These are not my words, read the article. Though I don't see how that would have been any different from you calling Lieberman a "hack", which he isn't and is generally more respected by his contemporaries than the infamous Arthur Jensen.
quote:Instead of reading the response and addressing what is said in it, you attack the authors. Lame.
I've just posted a rebuttal to them, in addition to public perception of what they consist of. I'm merely repeating consensus.
quote:Jensen doesn't have to defend himself.
Yet, he always does and always ends up getting buried, along side his old pal Rushton.
quote: If you find something wrong with his research point it out and show why it's not true.
I have done that by way of citation, now please do the same for Lieberman, Gould, Jackson, the APA, the AAA, Brace, Nisbett, and the others.
quote: Otherwise there is no sense in debating. You're debating the quality of the person, which is not the issue. The issue is his research and findings.
The findings in question have been dismissed, which has been shown time and time again by generally every scholar and paper cited by me and others, yet you, in your quest to prove the infallibility of Jensen, can't comprehend such criticism. The point is that you've presented no new ideas that haven't been addressed here and soundly refuted, which is why we're subjected to this kind of clowning. The so-called "debate" was over long ago. Did you think that it was some kind of figure of speech when you were informed that you have now been reduced to comic relief status?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Affirmative action doesn't at all apply to African immigrants; only African Americans
You mean the policy applies only to African Americans but the practise spills over into "any black we can get".
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since it doesn't apply in any way shape or form to African immigrants. There are no special benefits for admitting black immigrants. Sorry, but it appears to be the case that native blacks are simply more prone to academic achievement than native whites. As was cited, the same holds true in Britain as well, which further demolishes your speculation.
Let's assume you're right. I'm happy for you that there are examples of shining lights worldwide. If we promote more of this, that's great.
Despite these sparse examples (with questionable underpinnings) I see no reason to believe that the overall general disparities in education, economics, and other facets of life in the "racial hierarchy" will change significantly due to the average innate differences overwhelmingly represented in each group.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Let's assume you're right. I'm happy for you that there are examples of shining lights worldwide. If we promote more of this, that's great.
Despite these sparse examples (with questionable underpinnings) I see no reason to believe that the overall general disparities in education, economics, and other facets of life in the "racial hierarchy" will change significantly due to the average innate differences overwhelmingly represented in each group.
How does this refute the data again, suggesting that in fact, I AM right and that you aren't? What a pathetic way to save face, what is this? Are you going to offer me a challenge or is this your way of admitting defeat? Not worried about your personal speculation.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Of course you're right about greed. But greed exists in all groups of humans not just western Europeans. And IQ doesn't mean a thing without the motivation to go with it. Greed can be very motivating and success can almost always be gauranteed with enough motivation. It doesn't take a high IQ to succeed. All it takes is a moderate amount of intelligence and motivation to drive forward.Just because I tested with a very high IQ it still hasn't afforded me any appreciable amount of material success because I'm not motivated to succeed in that way. True intelligence can't always be measured by tests and numbers.
Personality traits are indeed important. These are genetic in origin, too.
However, the role of intelligence is always crucial. Why? Because if two people are equally motivated but one is a genius and the other is average, the genius, (and ONLY him - or at least statistically light years more probable), will be able to come up with a solution to that nagging quantum physics problem. [/QB]
So what if they are geniuses. If they are STUCK in Africa among one of the many who has no ACCESS to education THEN WHAT? If they aren't born in a society where they can SUCCEED then what? If they are hit by a car THEN WHAT? If they are caught in the middle of a war and BOMBED then what? High IQ does not GUARANTEE success. EVEN in advanced countries like America. Geniuses are not always even SMART, like some of the BRILLIANT musical geniuses who have the mental faculties of a four year old. And, contrary to most opinions, GENIUSES are normally gifted only in CERTAIN AREAS. If Einstein had never decided to GO INTO PHYSICS, THEN WHAT? Some people could be geniuses in something AND NEVER KNOW IT.
Again, there are MANY THINGS that determine INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT and IQ is going to be ANY ABSOLUTE MEASURE OF SUCCESS.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote: A book about how Harvard, Yale, and other top universities tried to block Jews out. It was another "Jewish Problem" because they kept scoring best beating out White Natives
Funny you should mention that,if this is any indication , there appears to be an "African problem" in todays top universities, maybe they will start trying to "block them out"? who knows:
quote: In addition, a recent study shows the number of black immigrant students is high.
Researchers at Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania who have been studying the achievement of minority students at 28 selective colleges and universities (including Berkeley, Columbia, Yale and Duke) last year found that 41 percent of the black students identified themselves as immigrants, children of immigrants or mixed race.
quote: In 1998, the passage of Proposition 209 ended the programs in California and led to -- what many activists say -- a steady decline in African American enrollment. Critics say that the rising number of black immigrants and their children, such as Amajoyi, at the universities has further decreased outreach efforts to African Americans and have raised concerns that American- born blacks will again be left behind.
LOL.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: These are not my words, read the article. Though I don't see how that would have been any different from you calling Lieberman a "hack", which he isn't and is generally more respected by his contemporaries than the infamous Arthur Jensen.
I don't mean to be brash, but that article was written by a journalist at Slate.com online magazine, not by a scientists. Nevertheless, he makes no points in it that haven't been addressed many times over before. It's baffling how far apart the worlds of mainstream media and academia truly are.
There is nothing in that article that rebuts Jensen's paper.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: These are not my words, read the article. Though I don't see how that would have been any different from you calling Lieberman a "hack", which he isn't and is generally more respected by his contemporaries than the infamous Arthur Jensen.
I already did earlier.
Nisbett using the old discredited notions of environmentalism tried but failed to rebut Jensen's "30 years of research race differences intelligence".
Nobody, not Nisbett, Lieberman, or anybody else responded to this.
For the life of me, READ it. He directly confronts everything that Nisbett put forth in his initial rebuttal.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote: A book about how Harvard, Yale, and other top universities tried to block Jews out. It was another "Jewish Problem" because they kept scoring best beating out White Natives
If this is any indication , there appears to be an "African" problem in todays top universities, maybe they will start trying to "block them out"? who knows:
quote: In addition, a recent study shows the number of black immigrant students is high.
Researchers at Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania who have been studying the achievement of minority students at 28 selective colleges and universities (including Berkeley, Columbia, Yale and Duke) last year found that 41 percent of the black students identified themselves as immigrants, children of immigrants or mixed race.
quote: In 1998, the passage of Proposition 209 ended the programs in California and led to -- what many activists say -- a steady decline in African American enrollment. Critics say that the rising number of black immigrants and their children, such as Amajoyi, at the universities has further decreased outreach efforts to African Americans and have raised concerns that American- born blacks will again be left behind.
LOL.
Maybe you're right and there will be an "African Problem" because too many Africans are getting in and displacing Asians, Jews, and Whites because of better academics. This remains to be seen.
Should we make this interesting? Want to make a wager? Knowing what I know about IQ and scholastics, this just isn't going to happen... in my humble opinion. So, throw a number out.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: These are not my words, read the article. Though I don't see how that would have been any different from you calling Lieberman a "hack", which he isn't and is generally more respected by his contemporaries than the infamous Arthur Jensen.
I don't mean to be brash, but that article was written by a journalist at Slate.com online magazine, not by a scientists. Nevertheless, he makes no points in it that haven't been addressed many times over before. It's baffling how far apart the worlds of mainstream media and academia truly are.
There is nothing in that article that rebuts Jensen's paper.
Exactly. I study Journalism and what he is doing and is qualified to do is reference citations within a proper format and context. He is more apt than you for this task. This is all that we're doing actually, is cherry picking sources while offering our own assessment. He cites data in direct refutation to Jensen and Rushton, while overviewing their history and standing among their contemporaries. Surely the article refutes everything that he stands for and doesn' necessarily have to address that specific paper, which was aimed at Flynn.
quote:Nisbett using the old discredited notions of environmentalism tried but failed to rebut Jensen's "30 years of research race differences intelligence".
Similarly, Nisbett has simply dismissed the same tired arguments brought fourth and recycled for the past decade, nor does that paper respond to Nisbett's 2007 denunciation.
quote:Nobody, not Nisbett, Lieberman, or anybody else responded to this.
After, as stated, when you give ideologists too much attention it starts to play in their favor. This is why Nisbett, in his 2007 article only makes mention of them in the context of scrutiny and as an example of "science gone bad".
Rushton never responds to Lieberman after his brutal dismissal either.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Of course you're right about greed. But greed exists in all groups of humans not just western Europeans. And IQ doesn't mean a thing without the motivation to go with it. Greed can be very motivating and success can almost always be gauranteed with enough motivation. It doesn't take a high IQ to succeed. All it takes is a moderate amount of intelligence and motivation to drive forward.Just because I tested with a very high IQ it still hasn't afforded me any appreciable amount of material success because I'm not motivated to succeed in that way. True intelligence can't always be measured by tests and numbers.
Personality traits are indeed important. These are genetic in origin, too.
However, the role of intelligence is always crucial. Why? Because if two people are equally motivated but one is a genius and the other is average, the genius, (and ONLY him - or at least statistically light years more probable), will be able to come up with a solution to that nagging quantum physics problem.
So what if they are geniuses. If they are STUCK in Africa among one of the many who has no ACCESS to education THEN WHAT? If they aren't born in a society where they can SUCCEED then what? If they are hit by a car THEN WHAT? If they are caught in the middle of a war and BOMBED then what? High IQ does not GUARANTEE success. EVEN in advanced countries like America. Geniuses are not always even SMART, like some of the BRILLIANT musical geniuses who have the mental faculties of a four year old. And, contrary to most opinions, GENIUSES are normally gifted only in CERTAIN AREAS. If Einstein had never decided to GO INTO PHYSICS, THEN WHAT? Some people could be geniuses in something AND NEVER KNOW IT.
Again, there are MANY THINGS that determine INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT and IQ is going to be ANY ABSOLUTE MEASURE OF SUCCESS. [/QB]
I agree with everything you said, but all things equal, you're going to be better off with geniuses around than if they're not around.
The accumulative effect that smart people have on progress over 1000s of years (time is important) will, again on average, tend to result in uniquely divergent outcomes.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:in my humble opinion.
Humble indeed. As is not worth much. Except tired racist mis-interpretation and incoherent forum-spam.
next --->
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: These are not my words, read the article. Though I don't see how that would have been any different from you calling Lieberman a "hack", which he isn't and is generally more respected by his contemporaries than the infamous Arthur Jensen.
I don't mean to be brash, but that article was written by a journalist at Slate.com online magazine, not by a scientists. Nevertheless, he makes no points in it that haven't been addressed many times over before. It's baffling how far apart the worlds of mainstream media and academia truly are.
There is nothing in that article that rebuts Jensen's paper.
Exactly. I study Journalism and what he is doing and is qualified to do is reference citations within a proper format and context. He is more apt than you for this task. This is all that we're doing actually, is cherry picking sources while offering our own assessment. He cites data in direct refutation to Jensen and Rushton, while overviewing their history and standing among their contemporaries. Surely the article refutes everything that he stands for and doesn' necessarily have to address that specific paper, which was aimed at Flynn.
quote:Nisbett using the old discredited notions of environmentalism tried but failed to rebut Jensen's "30 years of research race differences intelligence".
Similarly, Nisbett has simply dismissed the same tired arguments brought fourth and recycled for the past decade, nor does that paper respond to Nisbett's 2007 denunciation.
quote:Nobody, not Nisbett, Lieberman, or anybody else responded to this.
After, as stated, when you give ideologists too much attention in starts to play in their favor. This is why Nisbett, in his 2007 article only makes mention of them in the context of scrutiny and as an example of "science gone bad".
Rushton never responds to Lieberman after his brutal dismissal either.
All I can say to you is to read each of the papers yourself and draw your own conclusion. I've read both the Slate article, Nisbett's rebuttal, and Jensen's rebuttals and his comment on Flynn. It's pretty clear who knows what's what. Read Jensen's paper. They take each of Nisbett's points and show where he's gone wrong. If you're familiar with Nisbett's sources, you'll also see where he distorts findings. For example he quotes studies done by Shuey and concluded that they showed no difference in White-Black admixture - yet that is NOT what her studies showed. They showed a correlation with White-Black admixture and increased IQ. There is a population of Blacks (I believe in Georgia) that have no White admixture. Their IQ average score is in the 70s - something we've seen elsewhere, namely in Africa. Nisbett is another PC charlatan. He means well and wants to prop up the egalitarian theory, but the walls are coming down.
The Slate article was posted in response to a 3-part series by another Slate editor named William Saletan who essentially argued that the overwhelming data on intelligence research shows there are racial differences. The article you posted was a "clean-up" done by another slate editor as a result of the emotional backlash Saletan received. Emotions aside, the science stands.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:This remains to be seen.
Its happening *as we speak*. Talk about incoherence.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:in my humble opinion.
Humble indeed. As is not worth much. Except tired racist mis-interpretation and incoherent forum-spam.
next --->
Time will tell. I have no illusions about truth and am completely confident in my position.
If any extensive body of work existed refuting the findings, I'd read them, but there isn't. Emotions, political diatribes, and hyperbole aside, there is not much left to criticize. The scores are different and persist over time and space, across generations, across countries. Explaining these away as unrelated phenomenon or worldwide conspiracy to condemn a group flies in the face of common sense.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:This remains to be seen.
Its happening *as we speak*. Talk about incoherence.
They're not keeping Africans out of higher education yet. They love it. At 8% it's hardly a problem. They still have 5% more to be representative of the black population in the US. For Harvard, it's a symbol of their great diverse multicultural policy. Now, if those numbers climb to 20, 30, 40%, there is going to be a real "problem". Won't happen though.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: These are not my words, read the article. Though I don't see how that would have been any different from you calling Lieberman a "hack", which he isn't and is generally more respected by his contemporaries than the infamous Arthur Jensen.
I don't mean to be brash, but that article was written by a journalist at Slate.com online magazine, not by a scientists. Nevertheless, he makes no points in it that haven't been addressed many times over before. It's baffling how far apart the worlds of mainstream media and academia truly are.
There is nothing in that article that rebuts Jensen's paper.
Exactly. I study Journalism and what he is doing and is qualified to do is reference citations within a proper format and context. He is more apt than you for this task. This is all that we're doing actually, is cherry picking sources while offering our own assessment. He cites data in direct refutation to Jensen and Rushton, while overviewing their history and standing among their contemporaries. Surely the article refutes everything that he stands for and doesn' necessarily have to address that specific paper, which was aimed at Flynn.
quote:Nisbett using the old discredited notions of environmentalism tried but failed to rebut Jensen's "30 years of research race differences intelligence".
Similarly, Nisbett has simply dismissed the same tired arguments brought fourth and recycled for the past decade, nor does that paper respond to Nisbett's 2007 denunciation.
quote:Nobody, not Nisbett, Lieberman, or anybody else responded to this.
After, as stated, when you give ideologists too much attention in starts to play in their favor. This is why Nisbett, in his 2007 article only makes mention of them in the context of scrutiny and as an example of "science gone bad".
Rushton never responds to Lieberman after his brutal dismissal either.
All I can say to you is to read each of the papers yourself and draw your own conclusion. I've read both the Slate article, Nisbett's rebuttal, and Jensen's rebuttals and his comment on Flynn. It's pretty clear who knows what's what. Read Jensen's paper. They take each of Nisbett's points and show where he's gone wrong. If you're familiar with Nisbett's sources, you'll also see where he distorts findings. For example he quotes studies done by Shuey and concluded that they showed no difference in White-Black admixture - yet that is NOT what her studies showed. They showed a correlation with White-Black admixture and increased IQ. There is a population of Blacks (I believe in Georgia) that have no White admixture. Their IQ average score is in the 70s - something we've seen elsewhere, namely in Africa. Nisbett is another PC charlatan. He means well and wants to prop up the egalitarian theory, but the walls are coming down.
The Slate article was posted in response to a 3-part series by another Slate editor named William Saletan who essentially argued that the overwhelming data on intelligence research shows there are racial differences. The article you posted was a "clean-up" done by another slate editor as a result of the emotional backlash Saletan received. Emotions aside, the science stands.
I've read enough of Jensen (more of Rushton) to know exactly what the arguments consist of and what Nisbett is refuting. The most devastating dismissal I've seen still stands with Lieberman. I agree that the disparity in real science is very discernable. Speaking of contradictions, Rushton even made a reply and could not even address more than one contradiction of his addressed by Lieberman. He merely rehearses his arguments, which is nothing more than repetition fallacy. He was then picked apart by every other anthropologist and psychologist involved, who all contributed more intense rebuttal and support for Lieberman. Rushton and Jensen have also been noted as suppressing and distorting data. For instance, they make no mention that Black Americans have upwards to millions of more neurons in the brain than the average white American, as well as heavier brain weight (as opposed to space). They (race idealists) also switched the hierarchy from C>M>N to M>C>>N, which exposes the arbitrary nature of their claims. Rushton himself, adheres to such bogus concepts without any anthropological or genetic support. Rushton's general ignorance is also exposed given his emphasis on cranial size, when such sizes don't effect intelligence under a certain threshold while the mean of divergence isn't wide enough to account for any difference in intelligence.
Every facet of his argument was exposed as nonsense. I suggest you go back and read, and not appeal to novelty so desperately in stating that they've written another paper last week. As Lieberman himself points out, to respond to such loon bins is simply giving them a bigger platform.
If any extensive body of work existed refuting the findings, I'd read them, but there isn't. Emotions, political diatribes, and hyperbole aside, there is not much left to criticize. The scores are different and persist over time and space, across generations, across countries. Explaining these away as unrelated phenomenon or worldwide conspiracy to condemn a group flies in the face of common sense.
You just hit the nail right on the head. Really there *isn't* anything to criticise at all or rather *worth* criticism because you have no case.
I simply asked you to answer sufficiently *without excuses* all 6 of the points I've raised as they *directly* contradict your *findings* and you've so far produced only more non-answers.
This is what I can expect from you:
Really I've had enough of this thread and my petty amusement is over. You fail to properly explain why native Africans *outperform* consistently native whites in both America and Britain. And you fail to answer a simple 6 point list of questions.
I'm done *clowning* around with you, this is a pointless exercise in futility. I'll let the others play your games.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: They're not keeping Africans out of higher education yet. They love it. At 8% it's hardly a problem. They still have 5% more to be representative of the black population in the US. For Harvard, it's a symbol of their great diverse multicultural policy. Now, if those numbers climb to 20, 30, 40%, there is going to be a real "problem". Won't happen though.
Moving the goal post again. Haven't you learned anything about effective debate tactics? And again, your speculation in non-applicable, the data is clear, nor does your speculation address why the same trend is true in the U.K.. Willingness to accept blacks in admission tells of nothing about why they succeed as a minority among a majority and over other minorities anyways. You simply are forced to concede or be seen for what you are, with out the smoke and mirrors.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Shaun writes: Doug, Your post reminds me of rasols.
^ That's because you make the same non-impression on everyone Shaun.....
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^I'm telling you, the guy is a fraud and hasn't read one lick of literature pertaining to the topic that he promotes so passionately.
^ Yes, this is clear. Shaun debunks his own agenda via lack of education/intelligence.
Not much of a fraud though, since no-one takes him seriously to begin with.
So, we just toy with him....
quote:Shaun writes: Damn, all those rich white racists out there with low IQs running the country
-> Don't forget the poor dumb ones without money, power or self respect, who turn to racial pseudo-science in a futile effort to boost their self esteeem, only to end up more frustrated than ever. Yes, Shaun, point taken.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
Genetics expert disputes claims that race, intelligence are related
The racist theories of contemporary psychometrician J.P. Rushton were dashed Friday as evolutionary genetics expert D. Joseph L. Graves presented his own viewpoint.
Graves' presentation against theories claiming that race and genetics are a main factor in an individual's intelligence, personality, social standing and other traits was titled "The Misuse of Life History Theory: J.P. Rushton and the Pseudoscience of Racial Hierarchy."
Graves discussed previous work promoting these theories, most notably Richard Herrnstein's and Charles Murray's book, "The Bell Curve." This work concluded that there was a positive difference of one standard deviation between the intelligence of whites and blacks. The core claims of "The Bell Curve" were based upon theories held by Canadian scientist Rushton. The differences between races, Rushton inferred, were not limited to genetics or intelligence but also included brain size, genital size, law-abidingness, frequency of sexual intercourse and altruism.
Graves called the conclusions made by Herrnstein, Murray and Rushton "arm-waving theories" and amateurish. Graves' evidence was of the viewpoint that racial and genetic differences had very little, if anything, to do with intelligence or other characteristics but much more to do with environment and social surroundings.
"Life history evolution is complex," Graves said. "Organisms have evolved in many different stages."
The theories of Rushton and others need to be tested in many different ways, Graves said. And even if these theories could be tested in so many ways, he added, the theories could still not be completely proven.
What does Graves personally think about these "arm-waving theories?"
"They bother me a great deal," he said.
A major disagreement Graves had with these life history theories involves the studies of evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka. Pianka put forth the idea that there are two different growth rate strategies, r and K, which relate to the population density of a group. Pianka's theory claims that caucasoids and mongoloids were of the K-selected growth rate and inhabited colder climates and negroids were r-selected and found in the warmer climates.
Graves said those who maintain two growth rate theories usually infer that r-selected groups mature and reproduce earlier and faster than the K-selected ones because K groups live in less stable habitats and experience population crashes more often.
Graves said Pianka assumed that because of the differences in the growth rates of the three groups and the climates they inhabited, it could be concluded that colder climates allowed populations to invest less energy in reproduction and more into other things, which somehow translated into bigger brains.
Graves said this theory was obviously ridiculous to explain anything about the differences between races in a social context.
"When you are talking about aspects in social structure, differences in environment can be extremely profound," Graves said. "Phenotypic differences make it impossible for a minority and majority to be the same. Unless you can control environmental conditions, you can't properly compare groups."
Pianka puts forth the idea that the harsh winter conditions of the Pleistocene glaciation increased the intelligence of the K-selected groups. Graves countered this theory by bringing up the fact that the Pleistocene era was more than 600 generations ago, making it impossible for Pianka to test his conclusions.
Another reason these theories fail, Graves said, is the fact that there are many different definitions for the two growth rates, sometimes used in the same study.
Graves said the theory that Africans have a lower intelligence because of their genetic differences from whites is also unfounded since modern Africans have more genetic variability between themselves than all other populations combined. He said even the indigenous Australians, "negroids" who were unknown by the modern world until the late 1700s, are genetically distant from African populations.
Graves maintained that differences in intelligence are more influenced by environment than any other factor. He said lower income areas are conducive to lower IQ test scores because of an obvious lack of quality education, medical care and an apparent presence of social injustice.
Over the course of the century, the number of blacks being sent to state prisons has increased sharply and inversely to whites. Graves said certain instances of social injustice promote even this. He said being arrested for crack, found predominantly in low-income areas, will net an individual a mandatory 5-year sentence, while cocaine and marijuana, which are used more by whites in high school than by blacks, do not always bring jail time.
Many different intellectuals have used Rushton's theories as truth, Graves said, despite his large lack of proof. Conversely, if Rushton's research had found that genetics and race placed blacks ahead of all other races in intelligence, Graves said, his theories would have been thrown out and buried because of their social context. Reinforcing this, Graves said, is the fact that Rushton's work is also cited by known racists and racist political organizations including former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
"The intellectual tools don't exist to prove these theories," Graves said. "I question the motivation of people who are sophisticated enough to know about these sort of problems in their work. So long as our society reinforces racist behavior, people will believe racial myths."
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Genetics expert disputes claims that race, intelligence are related
The racist theories of contemporary psychometrician J.P. Rushton were dashed Friday as evolutionary genetics expert D. Joseph L. Graves presented his own viewpoint.
Graves' presentation against theories claiming that race and genetics are a main factor in an individual's intelligence, personality, social standing and other traits was titled "The Misuse of Life History Theory: J.P. Rushton and the Pseudoscience of Racial Hierarchy."
Graves discussed previous work promoting these theories, most notably Richard Herrnstein's and Charles Murray's book, "The Bell Curve." This work concluded that there was a positive difference of one standard deviation between the intelligence of whites and blacks. The core claims of "The Bell Curve" were based upon theories held by Canadian scientist Rushton. The differences between races, Rushton inferred, were not limited to genetics or intelligence but also included brain size, genital size, law-abidingness, frequency of sexual intercourse and altruism.
Graves called the conclusions made by Herrnstein, Murray and Rushton "arm-waving theories" and amateurish. Graves' evidence was of the viewpoint that racial and genetic differences had very little, if anything, to do with intelligence or other characteristics but much more to do with environment and social surroundings.
"Life history evolution is complex," Graves said. "Organisms have evolved in many different stages."
The theories of Rushton and others need to be tested in many different ways, Graves said. And even if these theories could be tested in so many ways, he added, the theories could still not be completely proven.
What does Graves personally think about these "arm-waving theories?"
"They bother me a great deal," he said.
A major disagreement Graves had with these life history theories involves the studies of evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka. Pianka put forth the idea that there are two different growth rate strategies, r and K, which relate to the population density of a group. Pianka's theory claims that caucasoids and mongoloids were of the K-selected growth rate and inhabited colder climates and negroids were r-selected and found in the warmer climates.
Graves said those who maintain two growth rate theories usually infer that r-selected groups mature and reproduce earlier and faster than the K-selected ones because K groups live in less stable habitats and experience population crashes more often.
Graves said Pianka assumed that because of the differences in the growth rates of the three groups and the climates they inhabited, it could be concluded that colder climates allowed populations to invest less energy in reproduction and more into other things, which somehow translated into bigger brains.
Graves said this theory was obviously ridiculous to explain anything about the differences between races in a social context.
"When you are talking about aspects in social structure, differences in environment can be extremely profound," Graves said. "Phenotypic differences make it impossible for a minority and majority to be the same. Unless you can control environmental conditions, you can't properly compare groups."
Pianka puts forth the idea that the harsh winter conditions of the Pleistocene glaciation increased the intelligence of the K-selected groups. Graves countered this theory by bringing up the fact that the Pleistocene era was more than 600 generations ago, making it impossible for Pianka to test his conclusions.
Another reason these theories fail, Graves said, is the fact that there are many different definitions for the two growth rates, sometimes used in the same study.
Graves said the theory that Africans have a lower intelligence because of their genetic differences from whites is also unfounded since modern Africans have more genetic variability between themselves than all other populations combined. He said even the indigenous Australians, "negroids" who were unknown by the modern world until the late 1700s, are genetically distant from African populations.
Graves maintained that differences in intelligence are more influenced by environment than any other factor. He said lower income areas are conducive to lower IQ test scores because of an obvious lack of quality education, medical care and an apparent presence of social injustice.
Over the course of the century, the number of blacks being sent to state prisons has increased sharply and inversely to whites. Graves said certain instances of social injustice promote even this. He said being arrested for crack, found predominantly in low-income areas, will net an individual a mandatory 5-year sentence, while cocaine and marijuana, which are used more by whites in high school than by blacks, do not always bring jail time.
Many different intellectuals have used Rushton's theories as truth, Graves said, despite his large lack of proof. Conversely, if Rushton's research had found that genetics and race placed blacks ahead of all other races in intelligence, Graves said, his theories would have been thrown out and buried because of their social context. Reinforcing this, Graves said, is the fact that Rushton's work is also cited by known racists and racist political organizations including former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
"The intellectual tools don't exist to prove these theories," Graves said. "I question the motivation of people who are sophisticated enough to know about these sort of problems in their work. So long as our society reinforces racist behavior, people will believe racial myths."
I own Grave's book called "The Race Myth". Again, it's more hyperbole. Some interesting points, surely, but in the finality it still doesn't render race obsolete. In fact nothing will, since it exists.
If hope is what you're looking for there is always hope. Environments change, society changes, and genes change too. So what is true of today may not be true of tomorrow.
Anybody answer my question?
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture? Thanks in advance.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Do dog breeds exist? Do they differ in physical and mental ability?
I just want to be certain we're not dealing with semantics. It'd be cool if rasol would answer this one. Go for it, shooter.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Dog breeds exist because humans breeded them that way
If anything I think the harsh conditions of Africa would make them smarter
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:since modern Africans have more genetic variability between themselves than all other populations combined
And he still fails to explain *why* and/or how populations outside of Africa somehow selected for "intelligence" traits when modern "intelligence" sprung out of the *African* condition.
He has yet to explain what makes his *extra-african* intelligence (and non-existent) conditions special and above the very conditions that created it in the first place.
And we can expect more mindless rhetoric.....
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Dog breeds exist because humans breeded them that way
If anything I think the harsh conditions of Africa would make them smarter
So breeds exist? Race is not synonymous with breed? Please clarify.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Do dog breeds exist? Do they differ in physical and mental ability?
Dog breeds exist due to -artifical- selection.
When dogs are returned to their natural state - in the wild, they envariably mate across-breed, and the artifical, man made breeds - collapse.
The existence of dog sub-species, or breeds, does not prove that other species, human included, are necessarily divisible into breeds.
Actually most species of life on Earth -do not- have subspecies.
The reason for this is that sub-species is and transient and unstable condition.
Sub-species tend to interbreed into oblivion, or speciate into separate species.
There are -NO BREEDS OR SUB-SPECIES- of humans in biology.
So called race, or more aptly -ethnicity- in humans, is based upon social classification - *not biology*.
btw: This information is for the purposes of intelligent discussants who can grasp it.
Your discourse indicates that you -cannot.-
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Do dog breeds exist? Do they differ in physical and mental ability?
Dog breeds exist due to -artifical- selection.
When dogs are returned to their natural state - in the wild, they envariably mate across-breed, and the artifical, man made breeds - collapse.
The existence of dog sub-species, or breeds, does not prove that other species, human included, are necessarily divisible into breeds.
Actually most species of life on Earth -do not- have subspecies.
The reason for this is that sub-species is and transient and unstable condition.
Sub-species tend to interbreed into oblivion, or speciate into separate species.
btw: This information is for the purposes of intelligent discussants who can grasp it.
Your discourse indicates that you cannot.
Sounds a lot like races who tend to interbreed as well when put together but by geographical boundaries, didn't for centuries. This was natural selection, where as dogs were a product of artificial selection. The result is identical.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Anybody answer my question?
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Sounds a lot like races who tend to interbreed
^ Sounds a lot like you hear only what you want to hear, and ignore all facts to the contrary. This is what keeps you mired in the status of "learning disabled IQ fetishest".
I just explained to you that sub-species exist, in nature, but that not all species have sub-species.
Therefore nothing in evolutionary biology requires or implies that any species be divisible into races.
Race in biology is equivalent to sub-species.
There are *no sub-species*, or races of homo-sapiens.
So it is, that most evolutionary biologists regard race as scientifically invalid.
To this fact you present no 'counter argument'.
You merely present yourself as being too stupid to understand.
This is hilarious given your *advocacy* of IQ test intelligence determinism.
You advocate race-IQ because it makes you think you can cling to race, and hide your own - individual- stupidity.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: [qb] Genetics expert disputes claims that race, intelligence are related
The racist theories of contemporary psychometrician J.P. Rushton were dashed Friday as evolutionary genetics expert D. Joseph L. Graves presented his own viewpoint.
Graves' presentation against theories claiming that race and genetics are a main factor in an individual's intelligence, personality, social standing and other traits was titled "The Misuse of Life History Theory: J.P. Rushton and the Pseudoscience of Racial Hierarchy."
Graves discussed previous work promoting these theories, most notably Richard Herrnstein's and Charles Murray's book, "The Bell Curve." This work concluded that there was a positive difference of one standard deviation between the intelligence of whites and blacks. The core claims of "The Bell Curve" were based upon theories held by Canadian scientist Rushton. The differences between races, Rushton inferred, were not limited to genetics or intelligence but also included brain size, genital size, law-abidingness, frequency of sexual intercourse and altruism.
Graves called the conclusions made by Herrnstein, Murray and Rushton "arm-waving theories" and amateurish. Graves' evidence was of the viewpoint that racial and genetic differences had very little, if anything, to do with intelligence or other characteristics but much more to do with environment and social surroundings.
"Life history evolution is complex," Graves said. "Organisms have evolved in many different stages."
The theories of Rushton and others need to be tested in many different ways, Graves said. And even if these theories could be tested in so many ways, he added, the theories could still not be completely proven.
What does Graves personally think about these "arm-waving theories?"
"They bother me a great deal," he said.
A major disagreement Graves had with these life history theories involves the studies of evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka. Pianka put forth the idea that there are two different growth rate strategies, r and K, which relate to the population density of a group. Pianka's theory claims that caucasoids and mongoloids were of the K-selected growth rate and inhabited colder climates and negroids were r-selected and found in the warmer climates.
Graves said those who maintain two growth rate theories usually infer that r-selected groups mature and reproduce earlier and faster than the K-selected ones because K groups live in less stable habitats and experience population crashes more often.
Graves said Pianka assumed that because of the differences in the growth rates of the three groups and the climates they inhabited, it could be concluded that colder climates allowed populations to invest less energy in reproduction and more into other things, which somehow translated into bigger brains.
Graves said this theory was obviously ridiculous to explain anything about the differences between races in a social context.
"When you are talking about aspects in social structure, differences in environment can be extremely profound," Graves said. "Phenotypic differences make it impossible for a minority and majority to be the same. Unless you can control environmental conditions, you can't properly compare groups."
Pianka puts forth the idea that the harsh winter conditions of the Pleistocene glaciation increased the intelligence of the K-selected groups. Graves countered this theory by bringing up the fact that the Pleistocene era was more than 600 generations ago, making it impossible for Pianka to test his conclusions.
Another reason these theories fail, Graves said, is the fact that there are many different definitions for the two growth rates, sometimes used in the same study.
Graves said the theory that Africans have a lower intelligence because of their genetic differences from whites is also unfounded since modern Africans have more genetic variability between themselves than all other populations combined. He said even the indigenous Australians, "negroids" who were unknown by the modern world until the late 1700s, are genetically distant from African populations.
Graves maintained that differences in intelligence are more influenced by environment than any other factor. He said lower income areas are conducive to lower IQ test scores because of an obvious lack of quality education, medical care and an apparent presence of social injustice.
Over the course of the century, the number of blacks being sent to state prisons has increased sharply and inversely to whites. Graves said certain instances of social injustice promote even this. He said being arrested for crack, found predominantly in low-income areas, will net an individual a mandatory 5-year sentence, while cocaine and marijuana, which are used more by whites in high school than by blacks, do not always bring jail time.
Many different intellectuals have used Rushton's theories as truth, Graves said, despite his large lack of proof. Conversely, if Rushton's research had found that genetics and race placed blacks ahead of all other races in intelligence, Graves said, his theories would have been thrown out and buried because of their social context. Reinforcing this, Graves said, is the fact that Rushton's work is also cited by known racists and racist political organizations including former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
"The intellectual tools don't exist to prove these theories," Graves said. "I question the motivation of people who are sophisticated enough to know about these sort of problems in their work. So long as our society reinforces racist behavior, people will believe racial myths."
I own Grave's book called "The Race Myth". Again, it's more hyperbole. Some interesting points, surely, but in the finality it still doesn't render race obsolete. In fact nothing will, since it exists.
If hope is what you're looking for there is always hope. Environments change, society changes, and genes change too. So what is true of today may not be true of tomorrow.
Anybody answer my question?
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture? Thanks in advance.
None of the points presented here struck me as "hyperbole", maybe given your limited vocabulary, this was just a misuse of words in another effortless attempt at trying to discredit the entire world external to your own. Nor have you addressed why a geneticists conclusions about genetics can and should be overruled by the psychobabble of a noted pseudoscientist, most of which is indeed hyperbolic repetition.
All you have to do is type Rushton and/or Jensen and Pseudoscience into google in the same key, and see why your constant ad hominem attacks on academics is absurd. There is too much dirt on Rushton and Jensen to post here.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
Answer this: Why are African immigrants disproportionately so successful in economics and scholarship?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Sounds a lot like races who tend to interbreed
^ Sounds a lot like you hear only what you want to hear, and ignore facts you don't like.
I just explained to you that sub-species exist, in nature, but that not all species have species.
I also explained to you why this is, but you just ignore it out of slobbering stupidity which you mistake as a debate tactic when it is really self-abasement.
Race in biology is equivalent to sub-species.
There are *no sub-species*, or races of homo-sapiens.
You're going to have to repeat yourself and clarify. I may seem stupid when it comes to reading material from people who can't communicate effectively.
I re-iterate:
Races tend to interbreed as well when put together but by geographical boundaries, didn't for centuries. This was natural selection, where as dogs were a product of artificial selection. The result is identical.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: You're going to have to repeat yourself and clarify. I may seem stupid when it comes to reading material from people who can't communicate effectively.
I re-iterate:
Races tend to interbreed as well when put together but by geographical boundaries, didn't for centuries. This was natural selection, where as dogs were a product of artificial selection. The result is identical.
Let's make this simple..
1.. Define race
2... Show us your evidence for its existence, in addition to your critique of the article below.
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture?
Anybody?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Heres a question, are WHITES a breed of dog?
OBVIOUSLY NOT.
But your nonsense chatter makes it so.
AND another question, WHY are WHITES at the HEAD of world culture today?
IT ISN'T IQ.
Your IQ based PREDICTABILITY of human success is a BS based PSEUDO SCIENCE because IT ASSUMES that ALL PEOPLE live in the SAME SOCIO ECONOMIC environment, have the SAME LIFE OPPORTUNITIES, have the SAME EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES and the SAME ACCESS to WEALTH. They don't. ALL OF THESE THINGS are important to individual achievement. THEREFORE, IQ is just a boatload of statistical nonsense, ESPECIALLY if it is not taken in context. You said that black kids in the rural south who are LEAST mixed with whites have the lowest IQ. I BET that if ALL the data was PROPERLY PRESENTED, it would ALSO SHOW that these kids ALSO LIVE in VERY POOR ISOLATED COMMUNITIES with LITTLE ECONOMIC CHANCES and SUB PAR EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, among FAMILIES THAT AREN'T WELL EDUCATED THEMSELVES. THAT is what I mean about NON SENSE. There are MANY things that determine the ability to score well on an IQ test and MOST of it has to do with EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND and the environment at early childhood.
The point that you OBVIOUSLY are missing is that we want to IMPROVE people's opportunity to succeed in life. And THAT MEANS understanding ALL the factors that are behind a child's achievement and well being in the early years. This isn't something for chest thumping, it is something that you use to identify areas that NEED TO IMPROVE. IQ scores CAN be improved. And THAT is the biggest indication that IQ is NOT GENETIC.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: Answer this: Why are African immigrants disproportionately so successful in economics and scholarship?
Selection bias, both from an immigration standpoint (take the cream of the crop elsewhere and bring them here) and admissions process in the name of diversity.
Now you answer my question.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
1.. Define race
2... Show us your evidence for its existence, in addition to your critique of the article below.
rasol got himself tongue-tied trying to. Maybe you'll do better.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody answer my question?
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture?
Anybody?
This is a bait question that was already addresed by Rasol, yet you've never answered him.
Why are Jews, who posses significantly more African ancestry than the typical European, more successful and test higher than most white Americans? Clearly the dichotomy lies in their foreign ancestry (to Europe), so does this imply that their foreign ancestry has given them superior traits to that of native Europeans?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:You're going to have to repeat yourself and clarify.
I will if someone else other than you asks.
People of normal intelligence understand and so do not require repetition.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Heres a question, are WHITES a breed of dog?
OBVIOUSLY NOT.
But your nonsense chatter makes it so.
AND another question, WHY are WHITES at the HEAD of world culture today?
IT ISN'T IQ.
Your IQ based PREDICTABILITY of human success is a BS based PSEUDO SCIENCE because IT ASSUMES that ALL PEOPLE live in the SAME SOCIO ECONOMIC environment, have the SAME LIFE OPPORTUNITIES, have the SAME EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES and the SAME ACCESS to WEALTH. They don't. ALL OF THESE THINGS are important to individual achievement. THEREFORE, IQ is just a boatload of statistical nonsense, ESPECIALLY if it is not taken in context. You said that black kids in the rural south who are LEAST mixed with whites have the lowest IQ. I BET that if ALL the data was PROPERLY PRESENTED, it would ALSO SHOW that these kids ALSO LIVE in VERY POOR ISOLATED COMMUNITIES with LITTLE ECONOMIC CHANCES and SUB PAR EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, among FAMILIES THAT AREN'T WELL EDUCATED THEMSELVES. THAT is what I mean about NON SENSE. There are MANY things that determine the ability to score well on an IQ test and MOST of it has to do with EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND and the environment at early childhood.
The civilization-IQ hypothesis is Hart's. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but some of it carries weight - more with modern society than the advent of civilization itself. Environment exerts a stronger force the less technology there is so if you're in harsh conditions, it's going to be that much harder to progress. Trying to determine why and how civilization arose in point A rather than point B has to factor in this and so many other unknowns that it's not easy. But I give Hart an A for putting forth something reasonable.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:You're going to have to repeat yourself and clarify.
I will if someone else other than you asks.
People of normal intelligence understand and so do not require repetition.
lol nice cop out. For every person who asks a question, there are many more who wanted to know too but were too afraid to ask.
There are a lot of people out there wondering what it is you were trying to say but failed so miserably at executing. A lot of us stupid folk. Lord help us.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture?
Your failed semantics are now becoming redundant with desparation.
I actually asked you: Why Jews outachieve whites?
You 1st tried to imply that Jews were not "smarter" than whites until after the middle ages.
So I asked why they developed civilisation so much earlier than whites?
You then made excuses for whites:
- that they couldn't grow crops in Europe because of the climate, which is false.
- that they couldn't domesticate cattle because the didn't have any - which is false.
If you believe that intellect is determined by biology, at the very least you should flat out admit the inferiority of whites, such as yourself, to Jews.
When you make disingenuous excuses for white-inferiority, you bankrupt even the idea that you genuinely believe in your own ignorant thesis.
You're and illeterate petty ethnocentrist grasping at straws.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody answer my question?
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture?
Anybody?
This is a bait question that was already addresed by Rasol, yet you've never answered him.
Why are Jews, who posses significantly more African ancestry than the typical European, more successful and test higher than most white Americans? Clearly the dichotomy lies in their foreign ancestry (to Europe), so does this imply that their foreign ancestry has given them superior traits to that of native Europeans?
Nobody answered it nor have you. Why are they so successful economically and scholastically? YOU tell me, is it their African ancestry? YOU tell me why. I've already given you MY reasoning. Let's here yours.
You and rasol are the king and queen of avoidance.
Questiom: "why are Jews smart"
Answer: "Is it African ancestry that makes them smart?"
Sorry Jack, that's not an answer.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
1.. Define race
2... Show us your evidence for its existence, in addition to your critique of the article below.
MODERN civilization is an ACCUMULATION of knowledge from ALL SOCIETIES that have come before it. Western Europe did not INVENT A WHOLE NEW SET OF KNOWLEDGE, they just ADDED to it, once they learned it. Knowledge gets passed down from one culture to another, one civilization to another over time. Sometimes things are lost, but as time progresses, we are more able to keep information in a safer condition than in periods prior. The problem TODAY is that CIVILIZATION is DEFINED by KNOWLEDGE and TECHNOLOGY and because of the WESTERN APPROACH to civilization, THOSE THINGS ARE WORTH MORE THAN GOLD. THAT is what gives THE WEST the edge and THAT is what they TRY TO KEEP TO THEMSELVES ALONE. NO CULTURE is going to START FROM SCRATCH and REINVENT all branches of MATH and SCIENCE and JUMP START "The West" in scientific achievement. But "the West" will NOT ALLOW for all the knowledge and technology transfer that is REQUIRED to bring other cultures UP TO PAR. They WOULD RATHER that these cultures are KEPT IN SECOND AND THIRD PLACE, by RESTRICTING their access to TRULY ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES and NOT ALLOWING THEM TO TRULY AND INDEPENDENTLY USE SUCH TECHNOLOGY FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT. THAT would be a THREAT to WESTERN WORLD DOMINATION. That is the POINT. All this talk about IQ is just an EXCUSE to continue with the plan set in motion long ago to KEEP Africa and other parts of the world UNDER THE THUMB of WESTERN IMPERIALISM, for CHEAP RESOURCES, CHEAP LABOR and CAPITAL. THOSE are the FORCES that are behind the LACK of growth in many places. NOT IQ.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
I actually asked you: Why Jews outachieve whites?
Evolutionary selection for intelligence aided by social pressures. That's MY answer. What's yours?
quote:
You 1st tried to imply that Jews were not "smarter" than whites until after the middle ages.
Correct. They only got smart after the Middle Ages.
quote: So I asked why they developed civilisation so much earlier than whites?
The Jews? They DIDN'T create civilization. Other Middle Eastern populations did. Jews have always been a minority. They contributed nothing until after the Middle Ages - that means they DIDN'T create civilization or ANYTHING. I thought I made that crystal clear.
Follow me?
quote: You then made excuses for whites:
- that they couldn't grow crops in Europe because of the climate, which is false.
Not excuses. Hypotheses. More crops grow in the Fertile Crescent than in Europe. They don't have a cold winter there either.
quote: - that they couldn't domesticate cattle because the didn't have any - which is false.
Domestication comes after agriculture. They didn't do agriculture, so why would we expect domestication of animals?
quote: If you believe that intellect is determined by biology, at the very least you should admit the inferiority of whites, and stop making excuses for them.
How many times do you want me to repeat myself? Jews are intellectually superior to Whites on average.
I've said this at least FOUR times already.
quote: When you make disingenuous excuses you bankrupt even the idea that you genuinely believe in your own ignorant thesis. [/QB]
Huh?
Posted by Novel (Member # 14348) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody answer my question?
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture?
Anybody?
This is a bait question that was already addresed by Rasol, yet you've never answered him.
Why are Jews, who posses significantly more African ancestry than the typical European, more successful and test higher than most white Americans? Clearly the dichotomy lies in their foreign ancestry (to Europe), so does this imply that their foreign ancestry has given them superior traits to that of native Europeans?
Nobody answered it nor have you. Why are they so successful economically and scholastically? YOU tell me, is it their African ancestry? YOU tell me why. I've already given you MY reasoning. Let's here yours.
You and rasol are the king and queen of avoidance.
Questiom: "why are Jews smart"
Answer: "Is it African ancestry that makes them smart?"
Sorry Jack, that's not an answer.
I'll answer. But where are you going with this train of thought?
Perhaps, after the thousandth pogrom they realized ownership of a thousand acres might not be such a good idea. Life as serfs and laborers requires having a master/employer who if a racist or Jew hater may toss everyone from the land.
Being a despised and often murdered minority requires a set of survival strategies that differs from the general population.
It is not genius to realize having great amounts of capital places one in a much better situation than one who is impoverished. Being able to make a master/employer a richer man or woman through your particular expertise or loans of capital is also a good strategy for survival. Even a dog shows adaptability and basic survival skills given different environment.
Too much is being interpreted from what is fundamentally a basic survival strategy (among other options Crime) that would be adopted by any group of people in similar situation.
A despised minority subject to the whim of their majority neighbors would want their talents portable. They would place benefit in gaining knowledge, jewels, currency and such things easily taken with you, or easily hidden.
It is simply a good strategy for survival and does not require pure genius to come up with, given that you are a people blamed for another groups murdered God and considered generally criminals with bad hygiene.
SShaun, why such focus on Jews?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:This is a bait question that was already addresed by Rasol, yet you've never answered him.
...lol, and he never will.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody answer my question?
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture?
Anybody?
This is a bait question that was already addresed by Rasol, yet you've never answered him.
Why are Jews, who posses significantly more African ancestry than the typical European, more successful and test higher than most white Americans? Clearly the dichotomy lies in their foreign ancestry (to Europe), so does this imply that their foreign ancestry has given them superior traits to that of native Europeans?
Nobody answered it nor have you. Why are they so successful economically and scholastically? YOU tell me, is it their African ancestry? YOU tell me why. I've already given you MY reasoning. Let's here yours.
You and rasol are the king and queen of avoidance.
Questiom: "why are Jews smart"
Answer: "Is it African ancestry that makes them smart?"
Sorry Jack, that's not an answer.
Your question is of course senseless without context since your point in asking it, knowing your position is moot.
How about a tentative, cultural explanation. Maybe they place more emphasis on material wealth than other cultures.
Surely success is a cultural trait. An average IQ of 94 wouldn't predict such success. As for the Ashkenazi Jews who tend to score higher, there are countless explanations.
^One being that the persecution of Jews lead to more of an embrace in education as an adaptive strategy in order to adapt in such hostile territory. Different cultures react to different situations differently, but surely your genetic explanation fails here, as has been noted. Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: Answer this: Why are African immigrants disproportionately so successful in economics and scholarship?
Selection bias, both from an immigration standpoint (take the cream of the crop elsewhere and bring them here) and admissions process in the name of diversity.
Now you answer my question.
Number 1: Prove it.
Number 2: Consider these results that account for second generation immigrants, even accounting for "selection bias":
quote:Research on the assimilation of immigrants has raised the topic of the extent to which the socioeconomic attainments of the second generation differ from mainstream (i.e., the third-and-higher generation) Americans. We investigate this issue for African Americans using the Current Population Survey from 1994 to 2004. Our results indicate that the schooling and wages of second-generation African American women exceed those of the third-and-higher generation African Americans. Furthermore, second-generation African American women do not face a direct racial socioeconomic disadvantage at least in the sense that their schooling and wages are also greater than the third-and-higher generation non-Hispanic white women. Although years of schooling among second-generation African American men is on average as high as for the third-and-higher generation non-Hispanic white men, and the wages of second-generation African American men lag behind those of the third-and-higher non-Hispanic white men even after controlling for basic demographic characteristics. Second-generation African American men have higher wages than the third-and-higher generation African American men, but the wages of second-generation African American men are about 11% less than the third-and-higher generation non-Hispanic white men after controlling for schooling and other basic demographic characteristics. The theoretical implications of these findings for theories of the assimilation of African Americans are discussed.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
1.. Define race
2... Show us your evidence for its existence, in addition to your critique of the article below.
rasol, the only thing Jews contributed prior to the middle ages was a shoddy fictional book we call the Bible. The people of the Middle East couldn't have cared less about the Bible. Those civilizations arose not becaues of the Jews or the Bible. Two seperate phenoms, different population groups. Heck, every society has it's story tellers, no?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
I actually asked you: Why Jews outachieve whites?
quote:Shaun writes: Evolutionary selection for intelligence aided by social pressures. That's MY answer.
That's a series of buzz-ies not and answer.
Please provide specifics.
What are the precise evolutionary pressures that make Jews intelligent, or keep whites unintelligent - in your view?
What the social pressures that -in your view- make Jews smart and whites, such as yourself dumb?
If you can't provide specifics then you have not answered the question.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Novel:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody answer my question?
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture?
Anybody?
This is a bait question that was already addresed by Rasol, yet you've never answered him.
Why are Jews, who posses significantly more African ancestry than the typical European, more successful and test higher than most white Americans? Clearly the dichotomy lies in their foreign ancestry (to Europe), so does this imply that their foreign ancestry has given them superior traits to that of native Europeans?
Nobody answered it nor have you. Why are they so successful economically and scholastically? YOU tell me, is it their African ancestry? YOU tell me why. I've already given you MY reasoning. Let's here yours.
You and rasol are the king and queen of avoidance.
Questiom: "why are Jews smart"
Answer: "Is it African ancestry that makes them smart?"
Sorry Jack, that's not an answer.
I'll answer. But where are you going with this train of thought?
Perhaps, after the thousandth pogrom they realized ownership of a thousand acres might not be such a good idea. Life as serfs and laborers requires having a master/employer who if a racist or Jew hater may toss everyone from the land.
Being a despised and often murdered minority requires a set of survival strategies that differs from the general population.
It is not genius to realize having great amounts of capital places one in a much better situation than one who is impoverished. Being able to make a master/employer a richer man or woman through your particular expertise or loans of capital is also a good strategy for survival. Even a dog shows adaptability and basic survival skills given different environment.
Too much is being interpreted from what is fundamentally a basic survival strategy (among other options Crime) that would be adopted by any group of people in similar situation.
A despised minority subject to the whim of their majority neighbors would want their talents portable. They would place benefit in gaining knowledge, jewels, currency and such things easily taken with you, or easily hidden.
It is simply a good strategy for survival and does not require pure genius to come up with, given that you are a people blamed for another groups murdered God and considered generally criminals with bad hygiene.
SShaun, why such focus on Jews?
Inadequate explanation for Jews comprising 20% of the world's Nobel Prize Winners (50% of American winners) when they make up 1/4 of 1% of the world population.
This "strategy" can be adopted and is adopted by many, but without such disproportionate success. It's in the genes. No matter how much you strategize, if you don't have anything going on upstairs, you're not going to learn calculus.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:
You 1st tried to imply that Jews were not "smarter" than whites until after the middle ages.
quote:Shaun writes: They only got smart after the Middle Ages.
And so again I ask, on what do you base this claim?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
1.. Define race
2... Show us your evidence for its existence, in addition to your critique of the article below.
Nonsense. Though by this logic, and judging from history, the same would be the case for Europeans.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
I actually asked you: Why Jews outachieve whites?
quote:Shaun writes: Evolutionary selection for intelligence aided by social pressures. That's MY answer.
That's a series of buzz-ies not and answer.
Please provide specifics.
What are the precise evolutionary pressures that make Jews intelligent, or keep whites unintelligent - in your view?
What the social pressures that -in your view- make Jews smart and whites, such as yourself dumb?
If you can't provide specifics then you have not answered the question.
LOL, I can't provide specifics, only hypotheses. I can't travel back in time to see for myself. That's now how science works. LOL.
I see what I see present day and try to explain it. I've given you my hypotheses. Dumb Jews died, while smart ones lived. Occupational selection (due to Jews inferior status) led to pressures for intelligence selection.
Now, what's YOUR explanation. You DON'T have to give me any specifics. Just a basic overview. Environment? Culture? You're a horrible debater (don't EVER do public speaking).
Suniada, answer my question first then I'll answer yours. They're related. Your answer will in fact, provide me with my answer.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: Answer this: Why are African immigrants disproportionately so successful in economics and scholarship?
Selection bias, both from an immigration standpoint (take the cream of the crop elsewhere and bring them here) and admissions process in the name of diversity.
Now you answer my question.
Number 1: Prove it.
Number 2: Consider these results that account for second generation immigrants, even accounting for "selection bias":
quote:Research on the assimilation of immigrants has raised the topic of the extent to which the socioeconomic attainments of the second generation differ from mainstream (i.e., the third-and-higher generation) Americans. We investigate this issue for African Americans using the Current Population Survey from 1994 to 2004. Our results indicate that the schooling and wages of second-generation African American women exceed those of the third-and-higher generation African Americans. Furthermore, second-generation African American women do not face a direct racial socioeconomic disadvantage at least in the sense that their schooling and wages are also greater than the third-and-higher generation non-Hispanic white women. Although years of schooling among second-generation African American men is on average as high as for the third-and-higher generation non-Hispanic white men, and the wages of second-generation African American men lag behind those of the third-and-higher non-Hispanic white men even after controlling for basic demographic characteristics. Second-generation African American men have higher wages than the third-and-higher generation African American men, but the wages of second-generation African American men are about 11% less than the third-and-higher generation non-Hispanic white men after controlling for schooling and other basic demographic characteristics. The theoretical implications of these findings for theories of the assimilation of African Americans are discussed.
Ok, let's say my hypothesis is wrong. I certainly cannot prove it. Affirmative Action goes on behind closed doors at Harvard.
So, let's say I'm wrong.
Now, give me YOUR explanation for Jewish accomplishment.
You guys are all the same. You harp on things that are insignificant because you can't address anything head-on.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: LOL, I can't provide specifics, only hypotheses. I can't travel back in time to see for myself. That's now how science works.
But you're not a scientist so why would anyone care about one of your reactionary and split second hypotheses?
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
Now, give me YOUR explanation for Jewish accomplishment.
I've addressed this myself per direct citation as well as a bit of my own insight.
quote:You guys are all the same. You harp on things that are insignificant because you can't address anything head-on.
Another one of those multi-reflection mirrors?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: Not excuses. Hypotheses.
So called Hypothesis that attempt to explain away the failure of Europeans to produce a civilisation in antiquity via false statements such as Europe being unsuitable for agriculture or not having any cows to domesticate. In other words excuses.
quote: More crops grow in the Fertile Crescent than in Europe.
No actually they do not.
quote:They don't have a cold winter there either.
But they have desert.
This is why your 'selective pressure'mantra is a non answer.
You can arbritrarily claim 'selective pressure' as promoting or impeading any characteristic or trait at any given time.
Thus the claim is meaningless....without specifics, of which you have none.
Your one attempt at specifics - "no cows in Europe" was incorrect, so where does this leave you? With lame excuses, that's where.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
I actually asked you: Why Jews outachieve whites?
quote:Shaun writes: Evolutionary selection for intelligence aided by social pressures. That's MY answer.
That's a series of buzz-ies not and answer.
Please provide specifics.
What are the precise evolutionary pressures that make Jews intelligent, or keep whites unintelligent - in your view?
What the social pressures that -in your view- make Jews smart and whites, such as yourself dumb?
If you can't provide specifics then you have not answered the question.
LOL, I can't provide specifics, only hypotheses. I can't travel back in time to see for myself. That's now how science works.
But you're not a scientist so why would anyone care about one of your reactionary and split second hypotheses?
I never asked you to care about it. You asked me for it, so I gave it. Hart IS a scientist and it's his hypothesis too.
LOL, so now we only take what scientists say as meaningful. Are you a scientist? Are most blacks scientists? We're back at square one. I guess we can't take what blacks think about history seriously - after all, there are so few of them that a scientists (and that's all that makes one qualified to put for reasonable theories).
This is hilarious.
rasol, ok, my hypothesis is wrong and is only put forth as an excuse. Now will you EVER give your reaons to explain Jewish achievement? Hello? Anybody home?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:You guys are all the same. You harp on things that are insignificant because you can't address anything head-on.
quote:Another one of those multi-reflection mirrors?
Shaun's reflection tells him: You cling to the delusion of 'group superiority' because you cannot face your fear of personal inferiority 'head on'.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:You guys are all the same. You harp on things that are insignificant because you can't address anything head-on.
Another one of those multi-reflection mirrors?
Shaun's reflection tells him: You cling to the irrelevancy of 'group superiority' because you cannot face your fear of personal inferiority 'head on'. [/QB][/QUOTE]
rasol, ok, my hypothesis is wrong and is only put forth as an excuse. Now will you EVER give your reaons to explain Jewish achievement? Hello? Anybody home?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
I actually asked you: Why Jews outachieve whites?
quote:Shaun writes: Evolutionary selection for intelligence aided by social pressures. That's MY answer.
That's a series of buzz-ies not and answer.
Please provide specifics.
What are the precise evolutionary pressures that make Jews intelligent, or keep whites unintelligent - in your view?
What the social pressures that -in your view- make Jews smart and whites, such as yourself dumb?
If you can't provide specifics then you have not answered the question.
LOL, I can't provide specifics, only hypotheses. I can't travel back in time to see for myself. That's now how science works.
But you're not a scientist so why would anyone care about one of your reactionary and split second hypotheses?
I never asked you to care about it. You asked me for it, so I gave it. Hart IS a scientist and it's his hypothesis too.
Hart is an Astrophysicist. Name a credible historian and/or anthropologist who can support his assertions. I'm not very fond of listening wholeheartedly to a geologist trying to school me on the motion of stars.
quote:LOL, so now we only take what scientists say as meaningful. Are you a scientist? Are most blacks scientists? We're back at square one. I guess we can't take what blacks think about history seriously - after all, there are so few of them that a scientists (and that's all that makes one qualified to put for reasonable theories).
This is an incoherent non sequitur with accompanying grammar problems, which makes your point difficult to understand. Not as if you ever make any decent points, but this here cuts the cake.
quote:This is hilarious.
Yes, you are.
[/QUOTE]
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Hart is an Astrophysicist. Name a credible historian and/or anthropologist who can support his assertions. I'm not very fond of listening wholeheartedly to a geologist trying to school me on the motion of stars.
I thought you said I needed a scientist. Hart's a scientist. A historian is not a scientist. oops, another one of your logical errors exposed. You're not bright enough to argue with me.
quote:This is an incoherent non sequitur with accompanying grammar problems, which makes your point difficult to understand. Not as if you ever make any decent points, but this here cuts the cake.
Spelling and grammar aside, if you couldn't understand what I wrote, I pray for you. Don't become an English teacher!
quote:Yes, you are.
Yet more personal attacks. Humor me some more people! LOL
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Another one of those multi-reflection mirrors? Shaun's reflection tells him: You cling to the irrelevancy of 'group superiority' because you cannot face your fear of personal inferiority 'head on'.
Not witty at all and this generally makes no sense. Surely you aren't implying that you are my superior as I'd think it safe to say that so far, you've been outwitted by nearly everyone who has chosen to waste their time with you. I see you more as a pet than an opponent. Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote: I certainly cannot prove it.
Ofcourse you can't, but you just expected that response to slip by without further verification.
quote:YOUR explanation for Jewish accomplishment.
Why is it that out of 700 total Nobel laureates only Thirty women have won Nobel prize when they are approximately 50% of the population?
is there parity between jewish men and jewish women in taking the nobel prize?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
rasol (aka Avoidance King), ok, my hypothesis is wrong and is only put forth as an excuse. Now will you EVER give your reaons to explain Jewish achievement? Hello? Anybody home?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol, ok, my hypothesis is wrong and is only put forth as an excuse.
true - because it fails to posit the logical implication of your own deterministic philosophy, which is that racially hybrid Jews inherit Black African and SouthWest Asian genes, which differentiates them from and makes them superior to..... whites.
quote: Now will you EVER give your reaons to explain Jewish achievement?
I neither generalise nor denormalise Jews as you do.
The fact is, Jewish culture involves and ancient and in some cases continuous tradition of literacy philosophy, rivaled perhaps by the Chinese and few other cultures.
I don't have deterministic thesis - and so I don't have the need to make up fake explanations that in fact explain nothing.
That's your self-assumed burden.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I thought you said I needed a scientist. Hart's a scientist.
Quote where I've stated this.
quote: A historian is not a scientist. oops, another one of your logical errors exposed. You're not bright enough to argue with me.
What need is there for a scientist to map the history of Jewish progress and why the straw man fallacies? Apparently I'm TOO bright to argue with you and this is not what I'm doing anyways.
quote:Spelling and grammar aside, if you couldn't understand what I wrote, I pray for you. Don't become an English teacher!
No one understands you, and who exactly are you praying to? A racist God who favors in group superiority? You're more delusional than I thought.
quote:Yes, you are. Yet more personal attacks. Humor me some more people! LOL
Personal attack? Why be so sensitive and insecure? Who's to say that you genuinely don't humor me?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:YOUR explanation for Jewish accomplishment.
Why is it that out of 700 total Nobel laureates only Thirty women have won Nobel prize when they are approximately 50% of the population? [/QB]
This is your explanation for Jewish accomplishment? Makes no sense. What do women Nobel winners have to do with the question of Jewish accomplishment? You guys certainly like to answer questions with other questions (even when they're totally unrelated).
To answer your question, it's because men are represented much more at the highest levels of the IQ distribution. And because men are on average naturally better at maths and scientists. This has to do with brain structure and spatial ability.
Now will you or rasol or ANYBODY Lordy Lord, answer my question: How do YOU explanation Jewish accomplishment? Environment? Culture?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
sshaun002.. What is race and how is it defined biologically as it concerns our species?
I've answered your Jewish question..
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^^is there parity between jewish men and jewish women in taking the nobel prize?
Seeing as they are after all, genetically no different?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:rasol, ok, my hypothesis is wrong and is only put forth as an excuse.
true - because it fails to posit the logical implication of your own deterministic philosophy, which is that racially hybrid Jews inherit Black African and SouthWest Asian genes, which differentiates them from and makes them superior to..... whites.
quote: Now will you EVER give your reaons to explain Jewish achievement?
I neither generalise nor denormalise Jews as you do.
The fact is, Jewish culture involves and ancient and in some cases continuous tradition of literacy philosophy, rivaled perhaps by the Chinese and few other cultures.
I don't have deterministic thesis - and so I don't have the need to make up fake explanations that in fact explain nothing.
That's your self-assumed burden.
Wow that was anti-climactic but expected. You have no answers. It's all cultural. LOL.
African genes doesn't preclude high intelligence. I've said this before and I'll say it again. You can take people of 100% Black African stock, and if you breed them over generations selecting for intelligence, you'll have high IQ blacks.
Your inferiority complex makes you see everything that I say through and inferiority prism. That's besides the point and not what this discussion is all about. If blacks are on average less intelligent than others, doesn't mean that you as an individual are. But let's be honest about generalizations. They can and will be made whether they're nice or not.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
To answer your question, it's because men are represented much more at the highest levels of the IQ distribution. And because men are on average naturally better at maths and scientists. This has to do with brain structure and spatial ability.
Then why is it that Black Male crania on average has a higher capacity than white women, yet these same males are also underrepresented here as well, in contrast to white females?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: What need is there for a scientist to map the history of Jewish progress and why the straw man fallacies? Apparently I'm TOO bright to argue with you and this is not what I'm doing anyways.
I asked myself the same question when you wrote:
"But you're not a scientist so why would anyone care about one of your reactionary and split second hypotheses?"
Strange, you don't have any recollection of the things you write.
I've hit a nerve on this board and nobody can confront it.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
To answer your question, it's because men are represented much more at the highest levels of the IQ distribution. And because men are on average naturally better at maths and scientists. This has to do with brain structure and spatial ability.
Then why is it that Black Male crania on average has a higher capacity than white women, yet these same males are also underrepresented here as well, in contrast to white females?
I said brain STRUCTURE, not SIZE.
Can you people read? At least TRY to be more careful when you're reading.
And as I said, blacks are on average LESS intelligent, so why are you comparing between races? Of course there are going to be more White women represented. Their IQ average is 100, blacks - both male and female - is 85.
Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
There's a genetic basis for Jewish accomplishment but it stems mainly from cultural and enviromental pressures. Especially since they have been a small and persecuted group of people for most of their history.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: What need is there for a scientist to map the history of Jewish progress and why the straw man fallacies? Apparently I'm TOO bright to argue with you and this is not what I'm doing anyways.
I asked myself the same question when you wrote:
"But you're not a scientist so why would anyone care about one of your reactionary and split second hypotheses?"
Strange, you don't have any recollection of the things you write.
Your claim was that Jews only became smart after the middle ages, so again, the inattentiveness comes from YOU. A.D.D, perhaps? Surely a hypothesis is put fourth by a scientist as it is part of the scientific method. You'd need to explain this in an evolutionary context, but only a dimwit wouldn't see why. History comes into play given what you attribute to them as far as accomplishments. Wow, you are so obtuse.
quote:I've hit a nerve on this board and nobody can confront it.
Being a persistent troll doesn't equate "hitting a nerve". Like most trolls, maybe this was your intention but anyone at least more intelligent and educated than you are can see the signs and aren't affected by any of your rhetoric.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Celt: There's a genetic basis for Jewish accomplishment but it stems mainly from cultural and enviromental pressures. Especially since they have been a small and persecuted group of people for most of their history.
Evergreen Writes:
1. What are the accomplishments? 2. When we say Jews do we mean all Jews or a sub-set of Jews? 3. Where can I find the peer reviewed data that supports point 1 and 2 above?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Celt: There's a genetic basis for Jewish accomplishment but it stems mainly from cultural and enviromental pressures. Especially since they have been a small and persecuted group of people for most of their history.
Correct! Somebody gets it!!
WOW!!!!
Some thick skulls around here. Could use more brains.
I know others looking in are shaking their heads. You look like a bunch of ignorant children. Emotion rules you, not logic.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Being a persistent troll doesn't equate "hitting a nerve". Like most trolls, maybe this was your intention but anyone at least more intelligent and educated than you are can see the signs and aren't affected by any of your rhetoric. [/QB]
HAHAHA! Sure, whatever you say!
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:African genes doesn't preclude high intelligence
Thats your problem. You fail to isolate what makes northern Asians so similar to "Jews" and how the conditions for intelligence that *created* human cognitive abilities today somehow failed Africans.
Meanwhile were still waiting for your real answer as to why mongolia and black africa are equal today in overall production and GDP.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by sshaun002:
To answer your question, it's because men are represented much more at the highest levels of the IQ distribution. And because men are on average naturally better at maths and scientists. This has to do with brain structure and spatial ability.
Then why is it that Black Male crania on average has a higher capacity than white women, yet these same males are also underrepresented here as well, in contrast to white females? I said brain STRUCTURE, not SIZE.
Can you people read? At least TRY to be more careful when you're reading.
I'm not concerned with what you stated since the implications are the same. Capacity is supposed to correlate with innate ability. Brain weight and neurons ALSO favor Black Americans, over both white males and females, if you're referencing structure. I just didn't think that you wanted to dig that deep of a hole.
quote:And as I said, blacks are on average LESS intelligent, so why are you comparing between races? Of course there are going to be more White women represented. Their IQ average is 100, blacks - both male and female - is 85.
Actually, the "85" report is outdated, it has increased to at least 91, according to Flynn. Also, as stated, IQ supposedly correlates with brain or mental capacity, so why the contradictions? Surely you've been stripped down to nothing but test scores and have all but abandoned biology.
quote:Originally posted by Celt: There's a genetic basis for Jewish accomplishment
Prove it or demonstrate how, don't just assert it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Wow that was anti-climactic
I'm interested in truth, not drama.
quote:You have no answers. It's all cultural
You mean - no pseudo-scientific theories to explain why Jews out perform whites?
Yes that's correct.
However, I do have a theory of how Jews outachieving whites, drives some whites looney to the point of promoting bizarre racial theories, to rationalise their fear and envy.
But, I don't think you want to hear any more about that? Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Wow that was anti-climactic
I'm interested in truth, not drama.
quote:You have no answers. It's all cultural
You mean - no pseudo-scientific theories to explain why Jews out perform whites?
Yes that's correct.
However, I do have a theory of how Jews outachieving whites, drives some whites looney to the point of promoting bizarre racial theories.
But, I don't think you want to hear any more about that?
LOL! rasol you're one of a kind!
This case is officially closed. Kids, you're dismissed. Don't forget your lunchbox.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:is there parity between jewish men and jewish women in taking the nobel prize?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:LOL! rasol you're one of a kind!
And proud of it. Hence I regard intellect as individual, and don't need to hide behind race-delusion, as you do.
quote:African genes doesn't preclude high intelligence
quote:^ Mmmkay writes: Thats your problem. You fail to isolate what makes northern Asians so similar to "Jews" and how the conditions for intelligence that *created* human cognitive abilities today somehow failed Africans.
Meanwhile were still waiting for your real answer as to why mongolia and black africa are equal today in overall production and GDP.
^ Good observation:
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored.
Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities.
Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. ShaunWatch Posted by Novel (Member # 14348) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Inadequate explanation for Jews comprising 20% of the world's Nobel Prize Winners (50% of American winners) when they make up 1/4 of 1% of the world population.
This "strategy" can be adopted and is adopted by many, but without such disproportionate success. It's in the genes. No matter how much you strategize, if you don't have anything going on upstairs, you're not going to learn calculus.
Of course, it is an inadequate explanation. You are continuing this purely for the sake of argument. I participate to exchange ideas.
Continue the factoid storm...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Why is this topic still being debated??! The debate should have ended on page 1 of the thread!
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
Actually to be fair, *nobody* has really provided concrete peer reviewed data on the jews and and their perceived intelligence or a real rebuttal thereof. But Maybe because there was nothing to rebuke, hence the lack?
In any case provide your proofs.
But I want him to answer my question above.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:African genes doesn't preclude high intelligence
Which genes and how does that explain human brain development and intelligence progressing in the African savannah? If anything, the ideal stimulus for human intellect seem to have its roots in the African environment.
Evidently, this appears to have regressed into simplistic racist remarks from you, which has been the case since your first post, but under a different guise. I credit the members of Egypt search with exhausting your mental resources. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: Actually to be fair, *nobody* has really provided concrete peer reviewed data on the jews and and their perceived intelligence or a real rebuttal thereof. But Maybe because there was nothing to rebuke, hence the lack?]
Correct and perceptive. Never get baited into defending somone elses pre-conceived notions.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: Actually to be fair, *nobody* has really provided concrete peer reviewed data on the jews and and their perceived intelligence or a real rebuttal thereof. But Maybe because there was nothing to rebuke, hence the lack?
In any case provide your proofs.
But I want him to answer my question above.
Look harder, my friend. He deliberately ignored me and continued on with his usual antics.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Anybody answer my question?
Why are Jews so disproportionately successful in economics and scholarship? Is it there culture?
Anybody?
This is a bait question that was already addresed by Rasol, yet you've never answered him.
Why are Jews, who posses significantly more African ancestry than the typical European, more successful and test higher than most white Americans? Clearly the dichotomy lies in their foreign ancestry (to Europe), so does this imply that their foreign ancestry has given them superior traits to that of native Europeans?
Nobody answered it nor have you. Why are they so successful economically and scholastically? YOU tell me, is it their African ancestry? YOU tell me why. I've already given you MY reasoning. Let's here yours.
You and rasol are the king and queen of avoidance.
Questiom: "why are Jews smart"
Answer: "Is it African ancestry that makes them smart?"
Sorry Jack, that's not an answer.
Your question is of course senseless without context since your point in asking it, knowing your position is moot.
How about a tentative, cultural explanation. Maybe they place more emphasis on material wealth than other cultures.
Surely success is a cultural trait. An average IQ of 94 wouldn't predict such success. As for the Ashkenazi Jews who tend to score higher, there are countless explanations.
^One being that the persecution of Jews lead to more of an embrace in education as an adaptive strategy in order to adapt in such hostile territory. Different cultures react to different situations differently, but surely your genetic explanation fails here, as has been noted.
Though I agree. Looking for "peer reviewed data" (key words I didn't initially catch) is just a trap set out by the afromentioned weasel. It is a political and social (non-biological) topic. It is like chasing your own tail when seeking out any biological explanation.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
This case is officially closed. Kids, you're dismissed.
Ah, the refreshing words of a mentally beaten troll. Classic signs of intellectual break down. I haven't seen anyone take this much of a spanking since reading some of the older posts by Evil Euro. To think that he was more resilient speaks volumes about this guy's potential.
Another defeat for the Eurocentrics. Jeeze, they sure don't make em like they used to...
Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
I'm sure glad I have other hobbies.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Celt: I'm sure glad I have other hobbies.
^I'm glad that you choose to cowardly play devil's advocate while pretending to be standuppish and objective when not in the presence of your hereditarian bothers. It gives me a better feel of how much of a fake you are and why to ignore anything you say in the future (starting now).. Posted by Novel (Member # 14348) on :
I think the Factoid Blitzkrieg has ended.
Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by Celt: I'm sure glad I have other hobbies.
^I'm glad that you choose to cowardly play devil's advocate while pretending to be standuppish and objective when not in the presence of your hereditarian bothers. It gives me a better feel of how much of a fake you are and why to ignore anything you say in the future (starting now)..
Ah come on....you just hate me because I'm a barbarian.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Some funny moments of this thread...
On civilization and agriculture:
Europe failed to produce civilization because civilization starts with agriculture.
Discovery and invention are DIFFICULT and it is likely that a few geniuses in the Middle East invented agriculture. The climate there is warm and ideal for growing crops - of which a large variety grow. There are many large animals that can be domesticated in that region as well.
Europeans were unable, at the time, to make that giant leap. Part of it has to do with environment. There are far less crops that grow in Europe and no large animals. The seasons change and are unstable and hostile for a good portion of the year.
It was the introduction of Middle Eastern civilization and knowledge that was transmitted.
It's much easier to learn a process than to invent it and agriculture among other practices of civilization is what Europeans needed an introduction to, to get the ball rolling. Once this knowledge was adopted, Europeans improved on it many times over, refined and surpassed the Middle Easterners at their own game due to higher average intelligence.
On cattle domestication:
They didn't have cattle domestication, um, maybe because there were NO COWS in Europe. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
1.. Define race
2... Show us your evidence for its existence, in addition to your critique of the article below.
rasol, the only thing Jews contributed prior to the middle ages was a shoddy fictional book we call the Bible. The people of the Middle East couldn't have cared less about the Bible. Those civilizations arose not becaues of the Jews or the Bible. Two seperate phenoms, different population groups. Heck, every society has it's story tellers, no? [/QB]
WRONG.
The true history of the Jewish people is the history of merchants and craftsmen. They are widely documented as being merchants and traders even as far back as the Muslim invasion of North Africa. They continued to be traders and merchants during the Moorish period in Spain, all widely documented. After the expulsion of the Moors they continued to be merchants and traders in North Africa and in Europe (albeit disguised as Christians). They continued to be important merchants and traders when they arrived in America. In America a good number of Jews, who changed their names, became important in many sectors of business, including Hollywood and elsewhere. And, it is also true that some of this merchant and trading activity involved slaves and this is in all of these historical areas they are found in. So THAT is the reason why they have done well. And THAT SUCCESS is part of the reason for the persecution in Germany as part of the racist propaganda propagated by Hitler. And THAT may be why they do so well on IQ tests, meaning that they come from historically well to do backgrounds that are highly educated.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Celt: There's a genetic basis for Jewish accomplishment but it stems mainly from cultural and enviromental pressures. Especially since they have been a small and persecuted group of people for most of their history.
Correct! Somebody gets it!!
WOW!!!!
Some thick skulls around here. Could use more brains.
I know others looking in are shaking their heads. You look like a bunch of ignorant children. Emotion rules you, not logic.
The problem is that the person with the THICK SKULL is YOU. Environmental pressure IS NOT GENETICS. Jewish people ARE NOT A RACE. Therefore, this DOES NOT PROVE ANY SORT OF RACIAL dimension TO IQ OR TO ACHIEVEMENT.
As for blacks, considering they were not ALLOWED to learn to read in America for MOST of their history there. And SOME of them did AGAINST THE ODDS of being punished by VIOLENCE for learning to read. There are FAMOUS examples of this. MOST OF THE PLACES in the MIDDLE AGES TREATED THEM AS SLAVES AND NOT ALLOWED TO LEARN, WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS DO YOU THINK THAT PRODUCES? The places where they DID NOT get persecuted and WERE ALLOWED to learn they EXCELLED, like Mali, Songhai, Egypt, Moorish Spain and parts of North Africa. The point is that Africans were FACED WITH DEATH for trying to achieve ANYTHING outside their prescribed position as slaves. Jews, even though they were oppressed, NEVER were oppressed in such a HARSH way in a GLOBAL sense. Africans were UNDER A DIFFERENT SET of social and environmental pressures, MAINLY INVOLVING DEATH, that did a LOT to explain their lack of achievement. Case in point, how do you explain that the standard of living and life expectancy for black Africans HAS DECREASED since contact with WHITES? How do you explain that the level of civilization, life expectancy and standard of living for NATIVE AMERICANS HAS DECREASED since contact with whites? OBVIOUSLY it because WHITE CULTURE has historically been a DESTRUCTIVE FORCE AGAINST ACHIEVEMENT OUTSIDE THE WHITE COMMUNITY. But of course that would GO AGAINST the NONSENSE HISTORY THAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN, where EVERYONE HAS A FAIR CHANCE TO SUCCEED AND IQ is the ONLY THING you need to determine achievement. NO THEY DON'T. They WANT to believe that WESTERN EUROPEAN civilization has been a FORCE FOR POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND ADVANCEMENT. IT HASN'T. It has PRODUCED MORE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION THAN ANY CIVILIZATION ON EARTH. ONLY NOW are Africans beginning to rise from the YOKE of oppression, but there are LINGERING affects of economic and academic isolation along with social oppression that they are having to overcome. But OF COURSE you don't care about the PRESSURES OF SLAVERY, because you want to prove that BLACKS ARE DUMB and DESERVED IT. That's my point. Therefore, you CONTRADICT yourself, because SLAVERY is a PRESSURE AGAINST ACHIEVEMENT. You cant ACHIEVE GREATNESS when you are at RISK OF DEATH OR DISMEMBERMENT for picking up a book. On top of that, even AFTER slavery, blacks were STILL FACING DEATH if they TRIED to even ENTER many schools of higher education OR TO PERSUE ANY PATH that would put them ABOVE WHITES. So if you are going to sit here and ACKNOWLEDGE that GENETICS has NOTHING to do with IQ then stop CLOWNING. The only reason people HARP ON IQ in AMERICA and EUROPE is to JUSTIFY why EUROPE has RISEN TO THE TOP over the LAST 500 years, by PRETENDING that it has NOTHING TO DO with the VIOLENCE AND GENOCIDE that they have committed against SO MANY PEOPLE around the world. They want to pretend Western Europe has some "special" genetic IQ that SEPARATES THEM FROM EVERYONE ELSE. As if they were some peaceful people with SPECIAL GENETIC INTELLIGENCE who INVENTED EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW and are THE SPECIAL CUSTODIANS OF EVERYTHING IMPORTANT IN LIFE and that they were ONLY KEEPING THE RACE PURE AND FREE FROM DEFECTS, in doing what they did. They were SAVAGE BARBARIANS up to 1000 years agon and they OBTAINED GUNPOWDER, which of ALL THE CIVILIZATIONS THAT HAD IT BEFORE THEM, ONLY THEY DEVELOPED IT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY CAN DESTROY THE ENTIRE PLANET VIA WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. How smart IS THAT EINSTEIN?
This WHOLE NONSENSE about IQ is because Europeans think they are SO DAM SMART that they can CONTROL the hands of DESTINY and FATE in order to MAKE SURE that they STAY ON TOP. NO OPPORTUNITY for fortuitous social and environmental factors such as those that provided the impetus for THEM to rise to the top are going to be ALLOWED to take place IN ANYPLACE ELSE or in ANY WAY that would JEOPARDIZE white supremacy. THAT is why they are SO CONCERNED about predicting achievement, NOT BECAUSE they CARE ABOUT blacks GETTING AHEAD, but because they REALLY DON'T WANT EVERYONE TO GET AHEAD and SURPASS WHITES. They want to maintain a CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT for ACHIEVEMENT where SUCCESS IS MEASURED RELATIVE TO WHITES and nobody EVER REALLY GETS TO OVER TAKE THEM AT THE TOP. They are SCARED and cant stand the IDEA of someone DOING TO THEM what THEY HAVE DONE TO EVERYONE ELSE.
Posted by demMuhfughan African AmericanZ (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^I've seen no such insults, actually. These are observations of clarity, nothing he really says about you has been absent of demonstration. You've embarrassed yourself multiple times in this thread.
Those who deny evolution and biodiversity have embarrase
Denied evolution and biodiversity? Wow, "illiterate"? You guys were merely being discriptive in your posts, no ad-hominem any 'worse' than his ad-hoc and red-herring arguments of "PC" and "denials of evolution and biodiversity".
But I will: htis guys a clown.
Notice the fool merely rants, and never provides specifics, or examples of how his position is valid. Just rants on in a sure tone, as if he knows what he is talking about.
He's lucky that, for his psyche's sake, forum members haven't even bothered to address the entirrety of his posts in detail - the result would be too many pages full of humiliation.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay:
quote:Watson knew it. Spencer knows it.
Those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other so why put them in the same context.
They do have a lot in common. Both were/are involved in breakthrough research on humanity.
However, Watson is candid about the topic of race and the findings on issues of race whereas somebody like Spencer implies the same but does acrobatics around the issue to avoid being ostracized.
Dude - you can't view things from a political sphere in order to make judgements on the validity of scientists.
Whether you are on the side of the Politically Correct, or on the side of what's Politically Correct (to you), POLITICS have nada to do with science, and therefore inserting "PC" into dialogue about geneticists and using it as a basis for your assessment about their credibility is illogical.
Just as assuming 'races' (a social and political invention) exist just because "most people say/tink it is" is illogical.
quote:If Spencer ever said there are likely average differences between races in intelligence he would be outcast,
^This is why people don't responde in detail to you.
What you are saying there is irrelevant to the topic.
By the way, I addressed YOUR attempted rebuttals, DON'T responde to me by changing the subject as you always do to something or other about our political agenda, our posting manner, ADDRESS THE POINTS THEREIN, DEFEND YOUR CLAIMS.
quote: his research stopped, fired from his job, attacked for the remainder of his life.
Actually, many people support him, and only regret that he apologized, and denied having implied the alleged.
quote:Nevertheless, what his research implies is clear.
How the Phuc so?
Ofcourse it is.
Expand on hte biology behind the scenes, please.
Expand on the invalidity behind The Mismeasure of Man.
Wow. (Notice the person assumes IQ as synonimous with intellect/human brain capability.)
It really wouldn't hurt him to read about how people might have aquired the modern mind in the first place (hint hint, it has to do with diet).
When you think the post couldn't get anymore silly Sshaun writes:
quote:(note that it hasn't effected Black athletic ability).
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Show me where maldnuturist Africans do well in sports
THANK YOU.
He (and others like him typically) fail to see athletic success as individual, and see it as a GROUP thing LOL. (Broken logic: all [most] good sporst figures are black = all blacks are good and sports figures. This is applied to the similar "all/most blacks are maltrutritioned" logic. And for that fleeting moment which I bet he could go back and edit, it spewed out onto the forum.
Like on that Simpsons episode where their bar/driking buddy (Lenny/Stu) can summer-sault slam dunk a ball though he's never been seen playing. All logic - that the ones who succeeded had worked at it - gets thrown out the window.
I have read some of the Bell Curve, seen some of the breaks in logic (not to mention it's fraudulent methodology), and even read the weak "rebuttals" of the The Mismeasure of Man.
Howevern, unlike Gould, I nor any other member of the forum have written a book.
So why not read Gould's book?
Posted by demMuhfughan African AmericanZ (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence.
LOL!!
His bluff was called and this is the best he had to offer. My goodness, why is this guy not being completely ignored? He clearly has an extremely limited understanding of evolutionary biology as well as human population history, which is the only reason why he'd draw such a completely absurd conclusion. My god! Talk about IQ and education.
Yes, I too wonder why he isn't completely ignored.
I mean, the guy apparently confuses allelles, population clusters, and genetic distances, with 'race' and his posts are getting more and more clearly sporadic and his mood (from what I can glean from his typing) more frantic.
He confuses species - as in: of Dog - with human populations indigenous to certain geographies.
He assumes 'race',
quote:Sshaun002 Let's suppose it is
He assumes 'race', as an appropriate dichotomy of humans (ie. sub-species), without knowing that such a dichotomy in humans is invalid because of genetics, and has nothing to do with "inhumanity".
You know he's going crazy when several posts in a row are none other than his own, in which he feverishly responds to the members of this board, and upon seeing rasol's post, he posts:
quote:Originally posted rather tellingly by sshaun002: Rasol's usual logical fallacies. Nobody on our board openly agrees with Shaun (they agree inside, but can't admit it) therefore he is wrong and we are right. We're the majority after all. Don't take him seriously. Shut him up. Nobody needs to hear such truths. It's dangerous.
then, when several respond to him,
he still comes back to rasol who hasn't even responded yet with these lame ad-hoc & red-herring antics:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sshaun002: ThePeople Versus rasol
ThePeople: Genes and environment effect IQ
rasol: Yes but environment has greater influence
ThePeople: But environment can only take a person as far as they're genes allow
rasol: Yes, but "blacks" and "whites" are of equal intelligence. This is a given. It must be accepted outright as true. Besides, race isn't real.
ThePeople: Humans cluster according to geographic region and those fuzzy boundaries can be called race. It's no different than calling different breeds of dogs breeds or races even though there are fuzzy boundaries between dogs.
raso: you can't compare humans to dogs. You just can't. It's inhumane.
ThePeople: For argument's sake, let's say there is a black and white race. The blacks historically are those residing in subsaharran Africa and whites historically in Europe. With my own eyes, and with their own admission, they can be categorized using phenotype because alleles are more frequent in one group over the other, so this seems to be fair.
rasol: ok, but just remember there is more variation within Africa than outside of Africa because Africa is the cradle of humanity
ThePeople: um, yeah. Anyway, if we seperate these groups they have average disparities in IQ of 1 standard deviation or MORE.
rasol: this is due to malnutrition, racism (real and perceived), educational background, income level and poverty, broken schools, breastfeeding or lack thereof, test bias, and culture.
ThePeople: ok, but even if we eliminate malnutrition from within both groups that we're studying, the gap still exists.
There are more opportunities today than ever before, yet the gap remains exactly as it did 50 years ago. There are more role models than ever. Racism was felt by others such as Jews, but it didn't lead to a gap in IQ scores for them. In fact, no matter the conditions, their IQ has always been higher than Native Whites.
Education has effects on IQ. So let us remove kids who have had no education from the study. If we focus on those who have been provided with education (both in black homes and white adopted homes), we still see the IQ gap. Likewise we see the gap between middleclass advantaged blacks and Whites come from poverty. The Whites still outscore the blacks. It seems to me these aren't sufficient explanations.
Blacks aren't breastfed as frequently. This is true, but any small gains in breastfeeding (which is minimal if it exists at all) has no real effect on the large gap.
IQ tests were largely biased in the early days. Measures have been taken to reduce the bias. The APA says there is no apparent test bias and it is understood that IQ tests are not biased to native born english speakers. Likewise cross-cultural IQ tests use non-language IQ tests. We find the black-white gap, still, in light of no widespread test bias. If test bias existed, it's strange that it effects all blacks in all black cultures across the globe virtually the same, and for Whites and Asians for that matter.
Culture does play a role but blacks don't belong to one monolithic culture. They belong to many cultures whether it be Canadian, American, British, African, and so many in between. Yet blacks consistently score at least 1 SD lower than Whites regardless of the culture they're submerged in. It's troubling.
rasol: the legacy of racism of colonialism in Africa and slavery in America has a lot to do with their low scores
ThePeope: ok, but what about those African countries that didn't have colonialism? What about Black kids born who never experienced slavery or the Civil Rights era? The scores are the same for them as well.
Do you think, maybe there is a genetic difference?
rasol: Absolutely not. I told you from the start that there is none. Therefore there is none. You're a low IQ idiot. You're embarrasing yourself. Race DOESN'T EXIST. You've defeated your own argument. We like to toy with low IQ, poor trash like you who try to take pride in race for your own shortcomings.
ThePeople: But I'm not poor. I'm university educated, grew up and live in middle-class home. I've never actually taken an IQ test but since there is a correlation between IQ and scholastic achievement, I'm certain that I'm at least average if not slightly over the average.
rasol: you're pathetic, a foolish loser trying to pass off your pseudo-science superiority. You're not even acquinted with the great works of Gould and Lieberman. They single-handledly dismantle all 100 years of your research. I don't care about The Bell
Posted by demMuhfughan African AmericanZ (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Um, yes, anybody who believes in evolution and the out-of-Africa theory inherently imply that races are not of equal intelligence.
LOL!!
His bluff was called and this is the best he had to offer. My goodness, why is this guy not being completely ignored? He clearly has an extremely limited understanding of evolutionary biology as well as human population history, which is the only reason why he'd draw such a completely absurd conclusion. My god! Talk about IQ and education.
Yes, I too wonder why he isn't completely ignored.
I mean, the guy apparently confuses allelles, population clusters, and genetic distances, with 'race' and his posts are getting more and more clearly sporadic and his mood (from what I can glean from his typing) more frantic.
He confuses species - as in: of Dog - with human populations indigenous to certain geographies.
He assumes 'race',
quote:Sshaun002 Let's suppose it is
He assumes 'race', as an appropriate dichotomy of humans (ie. sub-species), without knowing that such a dichotomy in humans is invalid because of genetics, and has nothing to do with "inhumanity".
You know he's going crazy when several posts in a row are none other than his own, in which he feverishly responds to the members of this board, and upon seeing rasol's post, he posts:
quote:Originally posted rather tellingly by sshaun002: Rasol's usual logical fallacies. Nobody on our board openly agrees with Shaun (they agree inside, but can't admit it) therefore he is wrong and we are right. We're the majority after all. Don't take him seriously. Shut him up. Nobody needs to hear such truths. It's dangerous.
then, when several respond to him,
he still comes back to rasol who hasn't even responded yet with these lame ad-hoc & red-herring antics:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sshaun002: ThePeople Versus rasol
ThePeople: Genes and environment effect IQ
rasol: Yes but environment has greater influence
ThePeople: But environment can only take a person as far as they're genes allow
rasol: Yes, but "blacks" and "whites" are of equal intelligence. This is a given. It must be accepted outright as true. Besides, race isn't real.
ThePeople: Humans cluster according to geographic region and those fuzzy boundaries can be called race. It's no different than calling different breeds of dogs breeds or races even though there are fuzzy boundaries between dogs.
raso: you can't compare humans to dogs. You just can't. It's inhumane.
ThePeople: For argument's sake, let's say there is a black and white race. The blacks historically are those residing in subsaharran Africa and whites historically in Europe. With my own eyes, and with their own admission, they can be categorized using phenotype because alleles are more frequent in one group over the other, so this seems to be fair.
rasol: ok, but just remember there is more variation within Africa than outside of Africa because Africa is the cradle of humanity
ThePeople: um, yeah. Anyway, if we seperate these groups they have average disparities in IQ of 1 standard deviation or MORE.
rasol: this is due to malnutrition, racism (real and perceived), educational background, income level and poverty, broken schools, breastfeeding or lack thereof, test bias, and culture.
ThePeople: ok, but even if we eliminate malnutrition from within both groups that we're studying, the gap still exists.
There are more opportunities today than ever before, yet the gap remains exactly as it did 50 years ago. There are more role models than ever. Racism was felt by others such as Jews, but it didn't lead to a gap in IQ scores for them. In fact, no matter the conditions, their IQ has always been higher than Native Whites.
Education has effects on IQ. So let us remove kids who have had no education from the study. If we focus on those who have been provided with education (both in black homes and white adopted homes), we still see the IQ gap. Likewise we see the gap between middleclass advantaged blacks and Whites come from poverty. The Whites still outscore the blacks. It seems to me these aren't sufficient explanations.
Blacks aren't breastfed as frequently. This is true, but any small gains in breastfeeding (which is minimal if it exists at all) has no real effect on the large gap.
IQ tests were largely biased in the early days. Measures have been taken to reduce the bias. The APA says there is no apparent test bias and it is understood that IQ tests are not biased to native born english speakers. Likewise cross-cultural IQ tests use non-language IQ tests. We find the black-white gap, still, in light of no widespread test bias. If test bias existed, it's strange that it effects all blacks in all black cultures across the globe virtually the same, and for Whites and Asians for that matter.
Culture does play a role but blacks don't belong to one monolithic culture. They belong to many cultures whether it be Canadian, American, British, African, and so many in between. Yet blacks consistently score at least 1 SD lower than Whites regardless of the culture they're submerged in. It's troubling.
rasol: the legacy of racism of colonialism in Africa and slavery in America has a lot to do with their low scores
ThePeope: ok, but what about those African countries that didn't have colonialism? What about Black kids born who never experienced slavery or the Civil Rights era? The scores are the same for them as well.
Do you think, maybe there is a genetic difference?
rasol: Absolutely not. I told you from the start that there is none. Therefore there is none. You're a low IQ idiot. You're embarrasing yourself. Race DOESN'T EXIST. You've defeated your own argument. We like to toy with low IQ, poor trash like you who try to take pride in race for your own shortcomings.
ThePeople: But I'm not poor. I'm university educated, grew up and live in middle-class home. I've never actually taken an IQ test but since there is a correlation between IQ and scholastic achievement, I'm certain that I'm at least average if not slightly over the average.
rasol: you're pathetic, a foolish loser trying to pass off your pseudo-science superiority. You're not even acquinted with the great works of Gould and Lieberman. They single-handledly dismantle all 100 years of your research. I don
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Ok again, so your saying the stereotypes of today just happened to allign with the real racial hiarchy? Why would the stereotypes allign with the racial hiarchy just recently
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:It's not strange per se. It could very well be a product of a well observed reality. Why did those stereotypes originate? You think somebody thought it'd be neat to start proclaiming that Jews and Chinese are more intelligent than themselves? Not buying it.
I still think it's funny that the stereotypes of today seem to correlate with IQ scores, don't you think
Why did the stereotypes of modern times just begin to allign with the real hiarchy of races
Show me high IQ scores of Asians durring or prior to WWII before the smart Asian stereotype
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
I think the real issue here is whether the Flynn effect is real or not. Flynn and Charles Murray debated recently; it would be interesting to read, although I haven't been able to find a transcript.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
Hey sshaun,
We are still waiting for your answers?
we are still waiting for your peer reviewed source on the jews? Otherwise your assertions are no more than empty speculation.
on northern asians?
Why did'nt europeans create a civilisation? (without lame or otherwise totally ignorant excuses such as not having cows lol)
you have yet to answer my 6 questions?
Sundiata said:
quote:They don't make em like they used to
Indeed
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
It's time for this **** to be closed.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
My oh my! I just got through reading this thread, and all I can say is that Shaun,...
by every intelligent poster in here, but especially by Rasol!!
Your whole thesis of determined high intelligence being more selective in some 'racial' populations more than others has been completely annihilated.
First of all, the stereotype that Africans have low IQs and the fact that there are many African immigrants in high status colleges and professions due to affirmative action as been exploded long time ago!
African immigrants are outperforming whites academically not only in North America but in Europe also and are taking many of the high intelligence professions!
Second of all, the thesis that important historical and cultural events such as urbanization or its roots-- agriculture are somehow due to a "few geniuses" in the Middle East is also erroneous. As Ehret and other experts agree, agriculture was invented independently from several to a dozen different areas in the globe includling Africa but NOT in Europe. Also the discovery of agriculture wasn't some instantaneous event or "revolution" as many Western historians once claimed but a gradual process which is exactly what plant domestication took! Also, this process was most likely initiated by women and NOT men, since in the proto-economy of humankind that we call hunting-and-gathering, women were the ones that dealt with plants by gathering them while men hunted animals. Women were also the ones who likely invented pottery to store food and water and thus all the elementary and rudimentary tools essential for settled urban life and thus civilization.
Virtually all of the earliest centers of civilization began in tropical to subtropical regions by blacks and other peoples of color and NOT in northern cooler regions. Even the basic historical premise that East Asian civilization began in China, specifically northern China, is being challenged by evidence of far older advanced cultures to the south in southeast Asia (which I hope to one day present to this forum)!
And of course civilization in Europe primarily came from the Mediterranean, introduced there by peoples from Southwest Asia by peoples of African descent!
So why is that you Shaun are so desperate to attribute civilization and the supposed correlation to 'whites' and lighter-skinned peoples is beyond me. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Significance?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Some funny moments of this thread...
On civilization and agriculture:
Europe failed to produce civilization because civilization starts with agriculture.
Discovery and invention are DIFFICULT and it is likely that a few geniuses in the Middle East invented agriculture. The climate there is warm and ideal for growing crops - of which a large variety grow. There are many large animals that can be domesticated in that region as well.
Europeans were unable, at the time, to make that giant leap. Part of it has to do with environment. There are far less crops that grow in Europe and no large animals. The seasons change and are unstable and hostile for a good portion of the year.
It was the introduction of Middle Eastern civilization and knowledge that was transmitted.
It's much easier to learn a process than to invent it and agriculture among other practices of civilization is what Europeans needed an introduction to, to get the ball rolling. Once this knowledge was adopted, Europeans improved on it many times over, refined and surpassed the Middle Easterners at their own game due to higher average intelligence.
On cattle domestication:
They didn't have cattle domestication, um, maybe because there were NO COWS in Europe.
^ Shaun demonstrates a personal lack of intelligence - completely mooting his rant on 'group intelligence' of supposed races.
There is a lesson to be learned here, for those who - unlike Shaun, are capable of learning.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Michael H. Hart Biography:
Michael H. Hart (born April 28, 1932 in New York City) is an astrophysicist who has also written three books on history and controversial articles on a variety of subjects.
Hart, a graduate of the Bronx High School of Science who enlisted in the U.S. army during the Korean war, received his undergraduate degree at Cornell in mathematics and later earned a PhD in astrophysics at Princeton University. He also holds graduates degrees in physics, astronomy, and computer science, as well as a law degree. He was a research scientist at NASA before leaving to be a professor of physics at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. He has also taught both astronomy and history of science at Anne Arundel Community College in Arnold, Maryland. His published work in peer-reviewed scientific journals includes several detailed computer simulations of atmospheric evolution.
His first book was The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, which has sold more than 500,000 copies and been translated into 15 foreign languages. His second book, A View from the Year 3000, published in 1999, is a history of the future which includes both technological advances and political developments.
His most recent book, Understanding Human History, (Washington Summit Publishers: 2007) is a history of humanity, beginning about 100,000 years ago and going through the 20th century. It includes discussions of developments in every major area of the world. Unlike other books on world history, Hart's work explicitly discusses group differences in intelligence, and explains how, why, and when they arose. The book also discusses the many consequences that those differences have had on human events, starting in prehistoric times and continuing to the present. The book includes an abundance of data and tables, together with sixteen maps, three tables, an extensive bibliography, and a thorough index.
Hart describes himself as a Jeffersonian liberal, while his critics call him a conservative and a racial separatist. At a 2006 conference, Hart had a public confrontation with David Duke, the former Gran Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and one-time Louisiana politician, over Duke's anti-Semitic remarks.
Among Hart's controversial articles was one, published in 1975, that gave strong scientific support for the conclusion that the only intelligent life in the Milky Way Galaxy resides on the planet Earth.
Another article disputed the authorship of the literary works of Shakespeare, asserting that the famous plays and poems were in fact written by Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford rather than the man from Stratford-on-Avon who is credited with them.
Also controversial was his paper that suggested that a future of Yugoslavia-type ethnic conflict in the United States could be avoided by a voluntary partition of the country into four states: an integrated mixed-race state, a white state, a black state, and a Hispanic state.[1]
It's dangerous to trust authors with an ideological agenda, science and ideology don't mix very well: I have in mind the Nazi ideology that led to the extermination of millions of Jews...
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
I'm happy to see that we're all finally on the same page.
The only differences between dog breeds and human races (a significant difference) is 1) ALL humans have the capacity to reason, while dogs are instinctual and 2) dogs were created via artificial selection while humans via natural selection.
Aside from this the analogy of dog breeds and human BREEDS/races holds true. There is no "biological reality" to dog breeds. They exist on a gradient just like humans. Nonetheless, we all know that dog breeds and human races exist when all things are considered.
Technology was brought to Europe via Middle Eastern peoples. The Greeks improved on all that the Arabs knew by lightyears. Many of these discoveries were nearly lost (save for Byzantium, which remained a center of commerce and knowledge throughout the Dark Ages in much of the rest of Europe), but the Greek knowledge had been transmitted back to the Arabs by this time (since the Arabs had conquered much of Europe).
The Arabs made tweeks of their own further advancing upon some of the Greek wisdom and this was re-introduced the Europe in the Late Middle Ages. By this time Europe was coming out of the Dark Ages and beating the Arabs back and throwing them out of Europe. Christianity began to rein supreme again as the Moslems were swept aside.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
The hypothesis that selection pressure should have existed within African populations is intriguing and theoretically it seems very plausible. However, we know this did not happen, clearly, since African populations have lower average IQ. If intelligence was selected for, the IQ debate would be moot since the differences between population IQ would be negligible as it is between Asians and Europeans.
Asian IQ may in fact be the same or slightly less than European since IQ tests from Asia show selection bias - primarily middle-class Asians have been tested in places like Hong Kong which is not representative of entire Asian populations.
As we can all see, rasol's credibility has been shot in his assertion that Jews are extremely overrepresented in academics, economics, and wealth because of their 'culture'. Culture plays a role, but it alone isn't going to get you to the top. We may never know the precise reasons why or how Jews gained on the IQ ladder, but clearly they have and it could only have occured through evolutionary processes. Where and when this occured and the details of how will never be completely known. Theories to explain this using principles of evolution and that corroborate with what is known about history are the best we have. Hart's hypothesis takes into account both evolution and history.
Hart's contention that Jews probably only developed high intelligence recently makes sense when one considers that Jews played no significant role in world events or events in the Middle East until after the Middle Ages. They were nothing but outcasts walking around with a fictional tale of a God that would accept them in a "Heaven" if they did good deeds while on Earth. This actually makes a lot of sense; it may have been an appeal to their persecutors to be kinder or they risk going to a "Hell".
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
First of all, the stereotype that Africans have low IQs and the fact that there are many African immigrants in high status colleges and professions due to affirmative action as been exploded long time ago!
I think this is fantastic and demonstrates a functioning and successful immigration process. Allowing primarily African professionals into the country is exactly what should be done in America. Unfortunately we take anybody of any status from Africa, Mexico, or elsewhere instead of just the best that those countries have to offer.
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: It's dangerous to trust authors with an ideological agenda, science and ideology don't mix very well: I have in mind the Nazi ideology that led to the extermination of millions of Jews... [/QB]
The dangers are clear and Hart would understand this as he is Jewish. However, invoking Hitler into this discussion only serves to invigorate emotional reactions over reason. The reality of racial differences need not lead to genocide.
I find Hart's idea of seperate countries for different races interesting only on a theoretical level. I do not ever foresee it coming to pass as it is logistically impossible in this modern age. Humans have and will continue to interbreed and live amongst each other, and moreso in the future. In fact, Africa would do good to import communities of Europeans and Asians for this reason. It will lead to increases in IQ in African populations. This will inevitably be beneficial.
Hart has no ideology except truth in mind. He is indeed correct that ethnic conflicts are a real possibility in the future. We see it spring up between Whites and Blacks, but more commonly between Mexicans and Blacks (but the latter is never talked about). It will get worse before it gets better, if it ever gets better. Look no further than Egypt, South America, the Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe for violent persistent ethnic divisions. It's clear we're heading down a similar path but steps can be taken to alleviate or minimize how dramatic it becomes. Knowledge is the key. Hart's book attempts to broaden our understanding.
I plan to read Jared Diamonds book, Guns Germs and Steel after finishing Hart's book. Judging by how often Hart cites Diamonds book, it seems to me that Hart uses much of the same data as Diamon but draws different conclusions. It'll be interesting to see just how much each book overlaps while supporting slightly different theses.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: Hey sshaun,
We are still waiting for your answers?
Why did'nt europeans create a civilisation? (without lame or otherwise totally ignorant excuses such as not having cows lol)
you have yet to answer my 6 questions?
Sundiata said:
quote:They don't make em like they used to
Indeed
Please refer to pages 213-226. It is a summary of the coming of the age of the Ancient Greeks. The conditions that existed environmentally for them and the civilizing process they underwent as a result of Middle Eastern transmission.
Furthermore, it provides a breakdown of the great Greek contributions that are the cornerstone of modern civilization.
Also see pages 365-366. It explores why the Industrial Revolution was likely to occur in England rather than almost anywhere else. I found it quite interesting.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Please refer to pages 213-226.
lol.
No one's going to read the racist tripe you obnoxiously attempt to promote.
That stuff is strictly for intellectually insecure whites - desparate for a 'cheer up'.
IE -> these folks: You're wasting your time.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Shaun attempts to take a false pride in the notion of 'group IO', but lack the self respect that is required to educate himself.
Serious readings.....
^ Please refer to pages 1 thru---> the end.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by basicbows: I think the real issue here is whether the Flynn effect is real or not. Flynn and Charles Murray debated recently; it would be interesting to read, although I haven't been able to find a transcript.
It was absolutely true for the first half of the last century as improvements in diet and nutrition took hold across the Western world. The same is happening in developing countries as we speak.
The debate centers around the second half of the last century where we were still seeing the Flynn Effect in the West that diet cannot account for. It could be "selection effects" or having to do with the variable nature of heritability which accounts for 60% - 80% of intelligence. It has been suggested that this would allow for as much as a 3 point IQ increase.
It seems that g hasn't changed very much. And when you think about it, it intuitively makes sense that we have not gotten any smarter. The Great geniuses in Ancient Greece could not have existed if people were so much more dumb at that time then now. IQ has a base value for different populations that only nutritional deficits and extreme environmental conditions can lower. Besides that, we are essentially as we always have been. In other words g has remained relatively constant. However, if we take intelligence of populations over the past 5000 years some increases even in g would not be out of the question. But this is a far cry from the Flynn Effect which operates in mere decades and thus is an artifact of immediate differences in environment, circumstances, conditioning, etc in technologically advanced societies.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Shaun attempts to take a false pride in the notion of 'group IO', but lack the self respect that is required to educate himself.
Serious readings.....
^ Please refer to pages 1 thru---> the end.
I will definitely get a copy of the book about Egypt. I read the review of the book and it tells of how Egyptians were open to other neighboring cultures and peoples that influenced them and who they influenced mutually.
I may skim thru a copy of Gould's political drudgery for laughs. Surely I cannot take seriously something that prominent biologists have described as wholly obtuse, incorrect, and in violation of evolutionary understanding.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I will definitely get a copy of the book about Egypt.
Please fool. No one hear is as stupid as you need them to be to take you seriously.
If you were interested in learning about evolutionary biology this would a be 1ST READ.
Instead you spend your time troll-promoting racism because that is your sole agenda.
quote:I may skim thru a copy of Gould's political drudgery for laughs.
The idea that could read or critique Gould or any real scientist with your "Europeans couldn't build civilisation because Europe has no cows", moronic ignorance - is the joke.
Be gone from this forum - your stupidity has exhausted its own potential for amusement.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
My critcisms of Hart's book will come when I'm finished reading it. I've been making notes of matters that don't add up and that he needs to tackle. However, for all its faults (like nearly EVERY history book ever written), I will say that it is a good read.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:My critcisms of Hart's book will come when I'm finished reading.
^ No one cares.... Mods would you please follow Wally's advise and *close this thread.*
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Please refer to pages 213-226. blah blah blah
Furthermore, it provides a breakdown of the great Greek contributions blah blah
Also see pages 365-366. blah blah blah.
Anyone else noticing a silly pattern?
How about at least providing direct referenced quotes supporting your assertions (from reputable sources) as opposed to merely hiding behind vague (pseudo-scientific) sources. No one is taking you seriously at all.
And you ramble and spam on about "dog breeds and human races" and other such nonsensical non-sense, when:
1) You've have established no such thing under peer reviewed source nor proven it.
2) you have *still* to answer our very pertinent questions (which would probably answer your biased perceptions anyway so you elect not to)
Rasol is correct in this regards. This thread is going nowhere, and I recommend it be closed.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
rasol stop kidding around. It's not me who has critiqued Gould. It is his own colleagues who have and they conclude that he's a fraud at odds with mainstream evolution and psychology.
As for my cow comment: I could condemn you just as easily for your remarks about human races vs dog breeds (among many ludicrous statements you've made) which have been utter gobbledygook but I refrain from belaboring the point that you simply do not know that which you speak.
It's as if you think that shutting your eyes and plugging your ears is going to make the world disappear.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Mmmkay, I've provided more than enough primary sources. When I do so, you all attack the authors - they're racist, they have an agenda. Hart does a tremendous job at referencing what he writes. Have a look.
I'm not going to grab peer reviewed sources to prove things that are well known - that human races are comparable to dog breeds. The problem with the way you and rasol argue is that you place an inordinate amount necessary "proofs" or supporting evidence in order to accept what is true and when plenty abound (if you cared to look, or not ignore reality). But so long as there is a little corner here and there, nothing suffices for you. This is done when one is losing an argument. It's regression infinitum.
This is of little concern to me. It is the collective breadth of information taken together that paints the general picture of truth. There are missing links in our understanding of evolution, yet we don't say evolution is wrong because of the as yet unknowns. All the information supports the theory of evolution as truth.
I've won round after round in this discussion. Maintaining a level head is a good start and this is where rasol went wrong right from the start. His name-calling in the early stages was a clear sign of mental attrition and defeat.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^Wow. This guy's capacity for ignorance and knack for grasping at straw men is uncanny. As if any one person in here has ever disputed the theory of evolution as opposed to your elementary understanding of it and its mechanisms, while asserting somehow that it inevitably supports your position by default. This seriously isn't fun anymore as you are truly a dumb founded troll.
Please guys, ignore him until the Mods get around to locking this thread. Surely this is my last post and I think sshaun002 has been refuted and embarrassed enough. Let him have the last word if he must, any intelligent person who references this thread will see a discernable pattern in intellect and education and he'll be easily isolated as the main outliner here. If the poor kid needs to reassure himself (that he's won "round after round" ) since no one else will do it for him, then so be it.
^With that said, I have nothing more to contribute to this thread. Good job guys!
---Sundiata
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote: I've provided more than enough primary sources.
you've done no such thing.
*listen* (and for the last time), if you make an assertion (and then predicate your entire pro *argument* upon that assertion) then you must back it up with direct quotes and *sources* or it is simply *empty* talk and a waste of time. Nobody is going to do the dirty work for you, because you are too lazy to direct reference your *own* arguments. Hence this is partly why,
1) no one takes you seriously 2) people have altogether stopped participating in this thread.
quote: I'm not going to grab peer reviewed sources
We already know your not. You've shown that repeatedly. We don't even know *why* we bother to ask.
quote:ou place an inordinate amount necessary "proofs" or supporting evidence in order to accept what is true
Its called "science"........wow again.
quote:This is of little concern to me.
Indeed. Thats why you half-ass your arguments.
quote: All the information supports the theory of evolution as truth.
I'm glad you learned something today.
quote: I've won round after round in this discussion.
You've won nothing. Akin to a never ending circus act or unsolvable puzzle. Questions abound as to whether you were actually here to *entertain* us or not.
Needless to say those questions have probably been answered.
Your done for the night. Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^Wow. This guy's capacity for ignorance and knack for grasping at straw men is uncanny. As if any one person in here has ever disputed the theory of evolution as opposed to your elementary understanding of it and its mechanisms, while asserting somehow that it inevitably supports your position by default. This seriously isn't fun anymore as you are truly a dumb founded troll.
Please guys, ignore him until the Mods get around to locking this thread. Surely this is my last post and I think sshaun002 has been refuted and embarrassed enough. Let him have the last word if he must, any intelligent person who references this thread will see a discernable pattern in intellect and education and he'll be easily isolated as the main outliner here. If the poor kid needs to reassure himself (that he's won "round after round" ) since no one else will do it for him, then so be it.
^With that said, I have nothing more to contribute to this thread. Good job guys!
---Sundiata
I read Malcom's article. It is one of many that were inspired by William Saletan's "racist" piece on Slate.com.
Mr. Malcolm Gladwell's article is better than mots but it does nothing to trump what I've written. Moreover, Gladwell is another member of a a long list of mainstream JOURNALISTS (HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST) commenting on things he is unfamiliar with.
While Flynn is still debating with his colleagues about whether the gains are g loaded or not (unlikely), even if we accept the Flynn Effect as REAL, it says nothing about racial differences. There is still a gap Flynn Effect or not - knock on wood.
Note that in one of my posts on this very page (look above) I paraphrased information gleaned from the very article you cite - that Asians may have lower IQ than Europeans. And nobody has ever said that personality traits aren't important in academic success or any other success for that matter. In spite of Flynn's recalculations of Japanese having an IQ of 99 instead of 106 does very little for the IQ of blacks at 85 or 91 which some of you proclaim. He talks of Chinese with IQs of 90 operating at levels that Whites with IQs of 97 do (this is the White AVERAGE). Yippee, they can do managerial work! You need an IQ of 120 and above to do technical work - you know those high paying jobs that require analyitical thinking - lawyers, doctors, etc.
I could go on and on. Flynn's findings have been addressed by the rebuttal submitted by Jensen (the paper I linked to in this thread at least twice). Charles Murray debated Flynn last month. What has been gained here?
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
You're mistaking my comments about racial IQ with racial determinism and individual determinism. Evolution doesn't stand still. We are STILL evolving (in fact, we're evolving more rapidly than ever before - a new study released showed). Averages do not speak to what individuals can accomplish. It doesn't matter if a group has an IQ of 90 and you have an IQ of 160. You can do what those at the average level cannot. Whether you will or not relies on your personality and circumstance.
Just as Jews seemingly increased IQ over a thousand years so can others. It's been said that a trait less heritable than IQ can increase dramatically and reach parity in 500 years.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Mmmkay you're being absurd. A mind is a horrible thing to waste. Shame on you.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
You're right that many (even most) anthropoligists reject race. But not all. Your hero C. Loring Brace rejects it (and he makes good arguments):
Who is right? Is George W. Gill a loser who wants to promote racial hierarchy and out of step with science?
I'm going with what my eyes and ears tell me.
Posted by sshaun002 (Member # 11448) on :
Malcolm Gladwell is the same type of person that praised Gould's book and promoted it in mainstream news. He's unqualified to make any indepth assessement being that he is just a journalist. Meanwhile scientists were hanging their heads down at the insanity of it all. This is precisely why the general public is not in step with scientific research in particularily contentious areas.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:The reality of racial differences need not lead to genocide.
Genetics indicate that Hebrews and Arabs have substantially African blood, their semitic languages have their root in Africa, it's naive to think that Arab and Jews are distinct from their African brothers who live next door. I can provide you the data on genetics if you want...Europeans, even Trukish people or Asians have at least more arguments...culturally they share circumcision and other traits, Hebrews and Arabs are the most African of any group outside Africa beside Africans from the diaspora...obviously shaun is a novice in science and in linguistic. Even physically many tend to look more African: curly Black hair, tan skin, thick lips...Ashkenazi just mixed too much with Europeans...some even doubt their jewishness, but that's another story.
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
Thread closed because of trolling. sshaun002, consider this a very strong first warning because of your trolling. I am not banning you outright since I can't tell if you're really this naive or just a troll who knows how to play by the rules and your posts outside of this thread have not been inflammatory, but watch your step.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
is clouded by biased wishful thinking. I know this because I'd just given you a PDF study preformed by Leonard Lieberman and contributed to by a plethora of other scientists in direct denunciation and refutation of the very race loons that you cite here.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Surely, the most basic of darwinian principles allow for this to apply to a completely homogeneous species? Did you read the paper or what?![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Why is this topic still being debated??! The debate should have ended on page 1 of the thread!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
