# Fury at Nobel Prize Winner's DNA theory



## sel (Oct 17, 2007)

Its Mod's Day off



> *Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners*
> *Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"*
> By Cahal Milmo
> Published: 17 October 2007
> ...


Dear Lord 

This guy hasn't met Trevor McDonald obviously


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 17, 2007)

I dunno what to think of this one.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Oct 17, 2007)

> He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."


i agree with this.


----------



## Zaru (Oct 17, 2007)

So, wait, they're accusing him of racism now because of RESEARCH he did? 

Edit: lol. both that guy and the ones reacting to him are laughing stock.


----------



## Jackal (Oct 17, 2007)

i lol'd at this story


----------



## Ucal (Oct 17, 2007)

On one hand, he does make a good point.  Groups of people separated by geographical barriers, and forced to live in different environments would experience different selective forces.  Who's to say natural selection would favor something over intelligence in Africa?  But on the other hand, he could have broached the subject far more tastefully.  

Maybe he shouldn't have even broached it at all until he could provide evidence.  Merely citing some "tests" doesn't mean anything.


----------



## tinhamodic (Oct 17, 2007)

This guy's phone must be ringing off the hook from white supremists who want to book him on lecturing tours.


----------



## Morwain (Oct 17, 2007)

Ummm wow...


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Oct 17, 2007)

... Hmm... It's a bit difficult to know what to say...
Firstly, no matter what he says, you can't generalize.  By saying that 'Africans are less intelligent,' he instantly discredits himself by grouping all Africans together, when we all know that there have been very intelligent Africans throughout history- and a ton of stupid white folk, lol...
His findings... are... well... stupid...


----------



## sikvod00 (Oct 17, 2007)

tinhamodic said:


> This guy's phone must be ringing off the hook from white supremists who want to book him on lecturing tours.


What better person to support your cause than a Nobel Prize winner. He _must_ be right because he's an eminent scientist, right?


----------



## Xion (Oct 17, 2007)

Well if the research says it, it must be true.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 17, 2007)

I love this article.  we've known for hundreds of years that blacks are dumber, but the first wide IQ tests proved this in 1915, when our armed forces tested all the blacks and whites for their IQ before recruiting them as soldiers.  The gap then was 15 points.  It is still 15 points today.  A hundred years of testing by a huge assortment of groups, with tests that are completely unbiased, they can be as simple as reaction time studies where you hit the button after it flashes, or backward digit studies where you recite what you just heard backwards and the more you recite the smarter you are.  So we have unbiased IQ tests showing there is a permanent gap between black and white intelligence.  Why?  One giant coincidence?  Or is it environemental?

But the environment doesn't matter, due to twin studies addressing this very issue.  Take identical twins, separate them at birth and raise them in different homes with varying levels of wealth, parental intelligence, education, etc.  The result will still be corrlated 70%.  As in you've changed basically nothing about their adult IQ.  We have done this with over 40,000 twins.  And while we've found an almost direct relationship between genes and intelligence, we have found inversely a ZERO percent correlation between the intelligence of adoptive parents and adopted children.  So intelligence is hereditary, not 'learned.'

Now put the two together.  A hereditary trait which has consistently across all tests across all times been tested to be 15 points higher in whites than blacks, and you have, 'racism'---oh wait no the truth.  It's not like evil whites got together and created the world unequal, it's not our fault when we simply report the truth.  And by the way, whites aren't even the smartest, jews are.  Little by little the truth is getting out, despite the PC gestapos efforts.  I am so proud of this guy.  The article was a complete joke as people claimed his science was unfounded but offered no actual evidence that he was wrong, and all the racist attacks and 'you can't say that' doesn't hurt watson, it only proves how divorced from truth and reality our culture has become.  Science cannot be racist.  Truth cannot be racist.  Racist, by definition, is someone who holds FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT A RACE AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE TRUTH.  Now look at that, which of us is accepting the truth?  Which is rejecting the truth and preferring an obvious lie?


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 17, 2007)

Sometimes the results of scientific researches are not what people would like them to be...

I'm not a genetics specialist (nor have I read his papers) so I really can't say anything about his studies.


----------



## Arantia (Oct 17, 2007)

Someone post this on a White Supremists forum. I want to see the reactions [be the research true or not].


----------



## Dream Brother (Oct 17, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I love this article.  we've known for hundreds of years that blacks are dumber, but the first wide IQ tests proved this in 1915, when our armed forces tested all the blacks and whites for their IQ before recruiting them as soldiers.  The gap then was 15 points.  It is still 15 points today.  A hundred years of testing by a huge assortment of groups, with tests that are completely unbiased, they can be as simple as reaction time studies where you hit the button after it flashes, or backward digit studies where you recite what you just heard backwards and the more you recite the smarter you are.  So we have unbiased IQ tests showing there is a permanent gap between black and white intelligence.  Why?  One giant coincidence?  Or is it environemental?
> 
> But the environment doesn't matter, due to twin studies addressing this very issue.  Take identical twins, separate them at birth and raise them in different homes with varying levels of wealth, parental intelligence, education, etc.  The result will still be corrlated 70%.  As in you've changed basically nothing about their adult IQ.  We have done this with over 40,000 twins.  And while we've found an almost direct relationship between genes and intelligence, we have found inversely a ZERO percent correlation between the intelligence of adoptive parents and adopted children.  So intelligence is hereditary, not 'learned.'
> 
> Now put the two together.  A hereditary trait which has consistently across all tests across all times been tested to be 15 points higher in whites than blacks, and you have, 'racism'---oh wait no the truth.  It's not like evil whites got together and created the world unequal, it's not our fault when we simply report the truth.  And by the way, whites aren't even the smartest, jews are.  Little by little the truth is getting out, despite the PC gestapos efforts.  I am so proud of this guy.  The article was a complete joke as people claimed his science was unfounded but offered no actual evidence that he was wrong, and all the racist attacks and 'you can't say that' doesn't hurt watson, it only proves how divorced from truth and reality our culture has become.  Science cannot be racist.  Truth cannot be racist.  Racist, by definition, is someone who holds FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT A RACE AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE TRUTH.  Now look at that, which of us is accepting the truth?  Which is rejecting the truth and preferring an obvious lie?



Wow. Just wow.


----------



## Zaleho Tempest (Oct 17, 2007)

nature doesnt believe in equality


----------



## Kira (Oct 17, 2007)

If his findings are true then they are true. But, Africans are better athletes (at least in track events) than everyone else. I also wonder why he didn't mention that Asians are (or at least are possibly) smarter than Whites?


----------



## Grandmaster Kane (Oct 17, 2007)

I am a african american

I am not shocked in the least by this research

The reason for the gap is simply lack of opportunity


----------



## Xion (Oct 17, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I love this article.  we've known for hundreds of years that blacks are dumber, but the first wide IQ tests proved this in 1915, when our armed forces tested all the blacks and whites for their IQ before recruiting them as soldiers.  The gap then was 15 points.  It is still 15 points today.  A hundred years of testing by a huge assortment of groups, with tests that are completely unbiased, they can be as simple as reaction time studies where you hit the button after it flashes, or backward digit studies where you recite what you just heard backwards and the more you recite the smarter you are.  So we have unbiased IQ tests showing there is a permanent gap between black and white intelligence.  Why?  One giant coincidence?  Or is it environemental?
> 
> But the environment doesn't matter, due to twin studies addressing this very issue.  Take identical twins, separate them at birth and raise them in different homes with varying levels of wealth, parental intelligence, education, etc.  The result will still be corrlated 70%.  As in you've changed basically nothing about their adult IQ.  We have done this with over 40,000 twins.  And while we've found an almost direct relationship between genes and intelligence, we have found inversely a ZERO percent correlation between the intelligence of adoptive parents and adopted children.  So intelligence is hereditary, not 'learned.'
> 
> Now put the two together.  A hereditary trait which has consistently across all tests across all times been tested to be 15 points higher in whites than blacks, and you have, 'racism'---oh wait no the truth.  It's not like evil whites got together and created the world unequal, it's not our fault when we simply report the truth.  And by the way, whites aren't even the smartest, jews are.  Little by little the truth is getting out, despite the PC gestapos efforts.  I am so proud of this guy.  The article was a complete joke as people claimed his science was unfounded but offered no actual evidence that he was wrong, and all the racist attacks and 'you can't say that' doesn't hurt watson, it only proves how divorced from truth and reality our culture has become.  Science cannot be racist.  Truth cannot be racist.  Racist, by definition, is someone who holds FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT A RACE AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE TRUTH.  Now look at that, which of us is accepting the truth?  Which is rejecting the truth and preferring an obvious lie?



I guess the phrase "the truth hurts" does apply here.

Of course there are individual variations though.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 17, 2007)

Silly me, I've spent all of this time studying and conditioning my mind when I should have been out back throwing a football or dribbling a basketball. Best to know your stock in life, right?

People obviously don't understand the concept of an average.



> I abhor averages.  I like the individual case.  A man may have six meals one day and none the next, making an average of three meals per day, but that is not a good way to live.  ~Louis D. Brandeis



Judging people on individual merit is simply too hard and reasonable, I guess.


----------



## mislead (Oct 17, 2007)

Oh my, so whatever it is that standardized IQ tests measure, the Africans appear to have a little less of it. What's the fuss about?

I will, however, say, that the man's comment about the political situation in African countries stemming from this condition, is completely ludicrous. He should stick to genetics, the difficult world of global politics is obviously too complicated for him.


----------



## Kira (Oct 17, 2007)

Remember, the IQ test is also biased in that it was formulated to assess the IQ of White people. Anyway, people should be judged as individuals and not grouped by race or anything.


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 17, 2007)

I dunno.

Iq tests are humanities way of testing our own intelligence.........problem is we are still only human so our tests are invariably going to be flawed somehow.

They may not have the intelligence IQ tests look for however that doesn't mean they are not smarter in other ways does it?

The only true way we could EVER hope to know this as a fact is if something thats more intelligent then we are made this test up.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Oct 17, 2007)

Hmmm. If he shows scientific proof of this, then it's pretty damning.... But he hasn't shown it yet, so meh. Just because someone's dumber than you doesn't mean you should go around hating them though.


----------



## NaruTayu forever (Oct 17, 2007)

well if he actually has the scientific proof for this then ill be darned, BUT, there are things they are better then us at. oh and im indian


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 17, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I love this article.  we've known for hundreds of years that blacks are dumber, but the first wide IQ tests proved this in 1915, when our armed forces tested all the blacks and whites for their IQ before recruiting them as soldiers.  The gap then was 15 points.  It is still 15 points today.  A hundred years of testing by a huge assortment of groups, with tests that are completely unbiased, they can be as simple as reaction time studies where you hit the button after it flashes, or backward digit studies where you recite what you just heard backwards and the more you recite the smarter you are.  So we have unbiased IQ tests showing there is a permanent gap between black and white intelligence.  Why?  One giant coincidence?  Or is it environemental?
> 
> But the environment doesn't matter, due to twin studies addressing this very issue.  Take identical twins, separate them at birth and raise them in different homes with varying levels of wealth, parental intelligence, education, etc.  The result will still be corrlated 70%.  As in you've changed basically nothing about their adult IQ.  We have done this with over 40,000 twins.  And while we've found an almost direct relationship between genes and intelligence, we have found inversely a ZERO percent correlation between the intelligence of adoptive parents and adopted children.  So intelligence is hereditary, not 'learned.'
> 
> Now put the two together.  A hereditary trait which has consistently across all tests across all times been tested to be 15 points higher in whites than blacks, and you have, 'racism'---oh wait no the truth.  It's not like evil whites got together and created the world unequal, it's not our fault when we simply report the truth.  And by the way, whites aren't even the smartest, jews are.  Little by little the truth is getting out, despite the PC gestapos efforts.  I am so proud of this guy.  The article was a complete joke as people claimed his science was unfounded but offered no actual evidence that he was wrong, and all the racist attacks and 'you can't say that' doesn't hurt watson, it only proves how divorced from truth and reality our culture has become.  Science cannot be racist.  Truth cannot be racist.  Racist, by definition, is someone who holds FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT A RACE AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE TRUTH.  Now look at that, which of us is accepting the truth?  Which is rejecting the truth and preferring an obvious lie?



I see you have provided some pretty specific statistics here.  Could you provide the sources, please, so we can evaluate them for ourselves?


----------



## Jarl lKarl (Oct 17, 2007)

1) It's highly unlikely that any members of the human species have been isolated so long as to produce marked differences in inherited intelligence.

2) That being said, it's an observed (and otherwise fairly obvious) fact that training of the mind will increase scores on intelligence tests significantly, even when the tests don't necessarily require specific knowledge of a subject. Until African education is up to western standards, any attempt to prove this crackpot theory will only prove that African education is in a sorry state.


----------



## Zhongda (Oct 17, 2007)

> He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence *could be found* within a decade.


So he's... betting on this?


----------



## Ucal (Oct 17, 2007)

Thewrongway said:


> 1) It's highly unlikely that any members of the human species have been isolated so long as to produce marked differences in inherited intelligence.
> 
> 2) That being said, it's an observed (and otherwise fairly obvious) fact that training of the mind will increase scores on intelligence tests significantly, even when the tests don't necessarily require specific knowledge of a subject. Until African education is up to western standards, any attempt to prove this crackpot theory will only prove that African education is in a sorry state.




While I'm not sure about 1), I do happen to agree quite strongly with 2).

Like it or not, there are differences between the races.  Dogs are a great example.  However, until evidence has been produced that actually quantifies a marked intelligence difference between Black and White, I'll just assume for the sake of equality that we all have equal potential to be smart.


----------



## Toby (Oct 17, 2007)

Diamed, since you just claimed that we can find a correlation between the intelligence of two genetically identical twins being raised in two different families (one biological and one adoptive respectively), you just proved that you don't know jack shit about psychology. 

There is no definite method of research for studying that, and since IQ tests are specifically designed to measure a form of intelligence based on a single culture's methodology of the definition of intelligence, you are also claiming that they are valid tools for testing people of all races on an equal ground. This is baseless.

Of course the professor may be correct in that the geographic separation and economic separation could cause such a difference in intelligence measured by IQ, but of course that is so, because non-interaction between the two cultures will fail to produce common ground for defining what intelligence is.

I myself think that people are too politically correct in this world, but the claims which you and the professor are stating need evidence to back them up, and you have to consider your own personal or sampling-biases when gathering the data for this sort of research. So, like Anayia said, give us some sources, and you can just skip the correlation of intelligence study which I mentioned, because that is plainly impossible to measure to begin with. I doubt its validity in all its possible applications, be they based on psychology or genetics.


----------



## Mike Hunt (Oct 17, 2007)

Why must people always thinkg about racism? 

The scientist is obviously when it compares to individuals  and comparing one to another but however, I do feel that generally blacks are less intelligent (NOT DUMB) than westerners. I am not white nor black, I am Asian. I doubt James Watson has anything aganist black people, just his research people hates.


----------



## Sean Connery (Oct 17, 2007)

Thewrongway said:


> 1) It's highly unlikely that any members of the human species have been isolated so long as to produce marked differences in inherited intelligence.
> 
> 2) That being said, it's an observed (and otherwise fairly obvious) fact that training of the mind will increase scores on intelligence tests significantly, even when the tests don't necessarily require specific knowledge of a subject. Until African education is up to western standards, any attempt to prove this crackpot theory will only prove that African education is in a sorry state.



sounds like a bunch of hoohah to me


----------



## Mike Hunt (Oct 17, 2007)

Did we also forget that the FIRST person was found in Africa?


----------



## Adonis (Oct 17, 2007)

Da_GodFather said:


> Why must people always thinkg about racism?
> 
> The scientist is obviously when it compares to individuals  and comparing one to another but however,* I do feel that generally blacks are less intelligent (NOT DUMB) than westerners.* I am not white nor black, I am Asian. I doubt James Watson has anything aganist black people, just his research people hates.



Could it have anything to do with lackluster education? No, of course not. We can never appeal to a reason that doesn't imply racial superiority on your end. Stupidity is just in their blood.

Whenever it's suggested people have a predisposition towards criminal behavior, people are repulsed at the notion and claim everyone is equaly responsible for their crimes. Yet when the same logic is used in the context of race to deem a race inferior, everyone jumps on board and become determinists.


----------



## Seren (Oct 17, 2007)

* headdesks, headfists, headwalls, headfloors, etc *

There is no absolute scientific evidence showing any real difference in _the ability to learn and retain information_ that is genetically linked, save for possible genetic abnormalities, of which race is not one.

The only thing these studies prove is that a) testing one culture using another's culture is inherently retarded and b) that iq tests tend to be worthless.

A good example that I've seen used is a scenario wherein a teacher is assigned to a small, rural, farming community school (think stereotypical hickville in the US). Attempting to teach the younger students math, she uses the following scenario:

'There are five sheep in the pen. Three jump out. How many are left?'

She picks a young boy to answer, who promptly says 'There are none left, ma'am.' The teacher attempts to correct him, but he refuses to agree with her.

'You obviously don't math, young man,' she says calmly.

'And you don't know sheep, ma'am,' is his reply.

Mathematically speaking, the teacher is correct. But the young boy- raised as a farmer- sees only the sheep, and also gives a correct answer- if one goes, they all go. Culturally, the woman values the mathematical answer, the boy values the 'farm' answer.

Does anyone honestly think that, should you take a white, a hispanic, an asian, an aboriginial and an african child, raise them all in the same enviroment, that the white child (and possibly the asian child, depending on personal beliefs) will automatically come out on top? Where are those studies?

Do these iq tests include the ability to defend oneself in an unforgiving terrain, to hunt or build one's own shelter? No, they're based on stuff we learn in schools IF we are lucky enough to live in a society with an advanced education system.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 17, 2007)

Here's the twin study, as you can see on the graph 70% like I said.

*and everyone saying the IQ tests are biased, explain to me how hitting flashing lights is biased.  Even chimpanzees can do that test.  (by the way they test at about as smart as the average 8 year old.)



Associations between reaction times and mental ability test scores have been widely reported in the literature on the information processing theories of psychometric intelligence. There have been varying estimates of the strength of these associations, which are typically reported in terms of correlation coefficients. In a previous article, we reported correlations between scores on Part 1 of the Alice Heim 4 and simple and four-choice reaction time of −.31 and −.49, respectively

Now before you go questioning my sources these are just the ones I could google up on the fly, there is a mountain of experiments and evidence about these topics, so bashing whatever one source I provide is pointless.  For more on this topic, read "understanding human history" which goes through point by point every dumb excuse people have made about intelligence and provides the evidence against each one.


----------



## Jarl lKarl (Oct 17, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Here's the twin study, as you can see on the graph 70% like I said.



A 30% discrepancy means that environment obviously has an effect; given the socioeconomic status of black Americans and the average 15 point discrepancy between IQs, how does this in any way support the hypothesis that there is a significant difference in inherited IQ between the populations?


----------



## Diamed (Oct 17, 2007)

That IQ can be raised by increasing your test taking scores is a myth, provide one source where scientists actually did an experiment and managed to raise the IQ scores of someone by 15 points.

That IQ is related to knowledge is a complete lie and everyone should know this by now.  IQ is not learned, it is raw brain power, it is what your brain is capable of, it has nothing to do with what you know or don't know.  The questions are also not in the least related to knowledge, but only your ability to reason.  Again, everyone who thinks IQ tests are trivia tests, go take an IQ test.  The only way you can say that is by never taking one in your life.

Cultural bias is a lie and everyone saying it is claiming that the problems you brought up have NEVER been thought of by the scientists themselves.  As though they couldn't create a non-biased test in the last 100 years, as though independent peer reviews haven't made sure there was no bias time and time again.  There is no bias.  The tests are fair and equal, these people are experts and they know how to conduct an IQ test, you guys act like a) all scientists are complete idiots and you know better than them.   b) all scientists who conduct IQ tests are deliberately slanting things because they're all secretly racists and that's why the scores come out differently.  That's ludicrous.

Watson did not say he hated oprah because he followed the evidence and it pointed to differences in racial IQ.  No one is saying hate black #3 because of the averages.  So people objecting to this by saying it says nothing about individuals--duh.  Who said anything about individuals?  However, when affirmative action, quotas, and all sorts of crap like blacks claiming there's injustice in the legal system because they go to prison more are based on the Myth that all blacks are equally smart as whites, and laws are instituted and our society is based on a complete Myth, the social harm is tremendous.  This is why we need to know the average intelligence, so that we do not mistakenly believe unequal results must be due to unequal opportunities, ie racism.  When it could just be unequal ability.  Big difference.


----------



## AbnormallyNormal (Oct 17, 2007)

lol this is hilarious. i do argee that there is a need to allow anyone to say anything, i believe in free speech, but obviously only a retarded person would say that


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Oct 18, 2007)

I'm highly pissed at this news. And at Diamed racist yapping about blacks being inferior to whites. 

But I will chill and wait for more info.


----------



## Denji (Oct 18, 2007)

Oh jeez. Wow.


----------



## Seren (Oct 18, 2007)

It is _not_ just raw processing power.

What is intelligence? Wikipedia has a fairly decent go at the definition:

_Intelligence is a property of mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as: creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom._



If an IQ test covers all of that, then it's going to be skewered, because language obviously varies between areas, idea comprehension is going to be coloured by how our culture views things (and how much it affects us), and our reason is also noticably skewered by our enviornment. Not only that, but how we view intelligence is based on what we put more emphasis on. In NYC, we might look more favourably on financial acumen, whereas in other societies, we might put artists on a pedestal, or scientists, on spectacular story tellers or military masterminds.

Tell me, who was more intelligent, Leonardo da Vinci or Percy Lavon Julian? Hannibal or Louis Pasteur? Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn or Aung San Suu Kyi?


----------



## AbnormallyNormal (Oct 18, 2007)

the concept of intelligence is never accurately gauged by IQ tests to begin with so this is all moot point


----------



## Hothien (Oct 18, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Silly me, I've spent all of this time studying and conditioning my mind when I should have been out back throwing a football or dribbling a basketball. Best to know your stock in life, right?
> 
> People obviously don't understand the concept of an average.
> 
> ...



Quoted for truth.

You shouldn't judge people by their skin color. I find no barriers in race, and find it silly.

If this study is true, so what? Average is still just an average, you will have those above it and below it. You should judge people on their individual merits, not based on a perceived average.

Besides, it truly is a small world - in, oh, 20-50 more generations, we may no longer have distinct races.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 18, 2007)

leonardo was a great mathematician, scientist, and artist precisely because all skills are related to g, your general intelligence.

And again are you really saying no scientist in the past 100 years has ever managed to make a fair test?  That's quite a claim, where's your evidence of bias in the testing?  The results?  That's like attaching more and more epicycles because the results don't fit your theory of equality.  Provide links that IQ tests are culturally biased.  I'd like to know how hitting a flashing light when it turns on is culturally biased too.  When even chimps can understand and do the experiment, you're telling me blacks can't, it's too confusing?


----------



## Darklyre (Oct 18, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I love this article.  we've known for hundreds of years that blacks are dumber, but the first wide IQ tests proved this in 1915, when our armed forces tested all the blacks and whites for their IQ before recruiting them as soldiers.  The gap then was 15 points.  It is still 15 points today.  A hundred years of testing by a huge assortment of groups, with tests that are completely unbiased, they can be as simple as reaction time studies where you hit the button after it flashes, or backward digit studies where you recite what you just heard backwards and the more you recite the smarter you are.  So we have unbiased IQ tests showing there is a permanent gap between black and white intelligence.  Why?  One giant coincidence?  Or is it environemental?
> 
> But the environment doesn't matter, due to twin studies addressing this very issue.  Take identical twins, separate them at birth and raise them in different homes with varying levels of wealth, parental intelligence, education, etc.  The result will still be corrlated 70%.  As in you've changed basically nothing about their adult IQ.  We have done this with over 40,000 twins.  And while we've found an almost direct relationship between genes and intelligence, we have found inversely a ZERO percent correlation between the intelligence of adoptive parents and adopted children.  So intelligence is hereditary, not 'learned.'
> 
> Now put the two together.  A hereditary trait which has consistently across all tests across all times been tested to be 15 points higher in whites than blacks, and you have, 'racism'---oh wait no the truth.  It's not like evil whites got together and created the world unequal, it's not our fault when we simply report the truth.  And by the way, whites aren't even the smartest, jews are.  Little by little the truth is getting out, despite the PC gestapos efforts.  I am so proud of this guy.  The article was a complete joke as people claimed his science was unfounded but offered no actual evidence that he was wrong, and all the racist attacks and 'you can't say that' doesn't hurt watson, it only proves how divorced from truth and reality our culture has become.  Science cannot be racist.  Truth cannot be racist.  Racist, by definition, is someone who holds FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT A RACE AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE TRUTH.  Now look at that, which of us is accepting the truth?  Which is rejecting the truth and preferring an obvious lie?



I would insult you, but I'm not sure we speak the same language. You see, I speak American English, while you speak fucking stupidity.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 18, 2007)

Diamed said:


> That IQ can be raised by increasing your test taking scores is a myth, provide one source where scientists actually did an experiment and managed to raise the IQ scores of someone by 15 points.



Here's one that did better than 15 points - The Milwaukee Project



> *The Milwaukee Project*
> 
> In the late 1960s, under the supervision of Rick Heber of the University of Wisconsin, a project was begun to study the effects of intellectual stimulation on children from deprived environments. In order to find a ?deprived environment? from which to draw appropriate subjects for the study, Heber and his colleagues examined the statistics of different districts within the city of Milwaukee. One district in particular stood out. The residents of this district had the lowest median income and lowest level of education to be found in the city. This district also had the highest population density and rate of unemployment of any area of Milwaukee. There was one more statistic that really attracted Heber?s attention: Although this district contained only 3 percent of the city?s population, it accounted for 33 percent of the children in Milwaukee who had been labeled ?mentally retarded?!
> 
> ...


Harley

You might also be interested in Marva Collins, who spent her entire life proving that those labeled unteachable could be taught and go on to ivy league schools, etc.  Two presidents asked her to lead the United States education system.  I suppose it is fortunate for the students she taught directly that she chose to turn both down, but perhaps our system would be much improved had she accepted the position. 




Consider looking more into these, as well:

High/Scope Research


----------



## Hothien (Oct 18, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> Here's one that did better than 15 points - The Milwaukee Project
> 
> 
> Harley
> ...



Thank you for the sanity check. Poor areas tend to have those with a lower IQ, whether due to poor upbringing, bad teaching or children focusing on things other than school. And, unfortunately, blacks have more below the poverty line, I believe.


----------



## Toby (Oct 18, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Here's the twin study, as you can see on the graph 70% like I said.
> 
> *and everyone saying the IQ tests are biased, explain to me how hitting flashing lights is biased.  Even chimpanzees can do that test.  (by the way they test at about as smart as the average 8 year old.)



I am not going to question your sources until you answer me about the following statement which I made:

There is no clear method proving a correlation between the intelligence of two genetic twins raised in different households (one the biological, and the other in an adoptive family).

This is what I have learned from psychology, and it is based on the same important assertion which must not be made when people confound similarity, correlation and causation to one another.


----------



## Seren (Oct 18, 2007)

Cultural bias in tests:

- _It is extremely difficult to develop a test that measures innate intelligence without introducing cultural bias. This has been virtually impossible to achieve. One attempt was to eliminate language and design tests with demonstrations and pictures. Another approach is to realize that culture-free tests are not possible and to design culture-fair tests instead.  These tests draw on experiences found in many cultures.

Many college students have a middle-class background and may have difficulty appreciating the biases that are part of standardized intelligence tests, because their own background does not disadvantage them for these tests.  By doing some intelligence tests which make non-mainstream cultural assumptions, students can come to experience some of the difficulties and issues involved with culturally biased methods of testing intelligence._

Provides some examples, such as the The Australian/American Intelligence Test and Chitling Test of Intelligence.

 article- includes Howard Gardner's theory of seven different sorts of intelligence, not one.

If 'g' is the reasoning behind da Vinci's intelligence, then why are there so many people in the world who are fantastically skilled in one or two subjects, yet horrible in others? Why are some people amazing mathematicians who would burn down the house if they attempted to cook? Why is it that a great fictional writer- someone who abounds with creativity- may be complete and utter pants at learning music, or architecture, etc etc? Is da Vinci uber-special because he's white?


----------



## Hothien (Oct 18, 2007)

Small list off of the top of my head:
George Washington Carver - Brilliant Botanist who promoted alternate crops and taught farmers.

Mark Dean - Brilliant IBM guy, holds 3 of the original 9 patents on the IBM PC and led the team that created the first 1GHz chip.

Ronald McNair - Physicist and astronaut, died on the Challenger.

I'd love for you to tell me that these people were genetically predetermined to be 'stupid'.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 18, 2007)

Seren, interesting that you bring up those studies cuz I was just reading about them myself.  While initially their IQ shot up, by the time they were 17 it had returned to normal and what you would expect for their group.  

From understanding human history, page 108:

"Various attempts have been made to raise black performance by special programs that place black children in a highly enriched environment for a period of years, but all those attempts have failed.  These programs include the Abecedarian Project, the Milwaukee Project, and various "Head Start" programs administered locally.  The data from these programs has been analyzed carefully.  In general, they result in substantial short-term improvement, as measured by the results of IQ tests.  However, the gain in test scores diminishes sharply after the program ends, and the long-term improvement is rather small."

How is a test biased when it has no words at all, simply pressing a button, or looking at a series of numbers and saying what the next number should be, or looking at a series of geometric figures and saying which one doesn't fit in the group, etc?  Test bias is ridiculous, are you saying there is simply no question you can ask a human being that doesn't favor whites?  If there were such a test bias, wouldn't we see a lot of biased tests coming out of Africa showing the exact opposite, that IQ studies showed a continuous gap where blacks were always smarter than whites?  In fact, I challenge you or anyone to make a test, whatever test you like, and get a white group to test lower than the black group.  That would prove test bias exists.  But if you can't through any torture of logic reverse the test score gap, test bias clearly doesn't matter.  Again you're having to assume that every tester is a closet racist who is secretly skewing the statistics to favor whites--strange that IQ tests show Asians slightly ahead of whites then, is that because we racists are smart enough to camoflauge our test bias by including asians in the 'fair test' portion?

*and as for different specialties, just look at IQ tests or SAT tests, you will see that people who did well at math tend to also do well at verbal, and vice versa.  Though you can be slightly better or worse at one field, you'll be better at both fields than a stupid person.  This is because the basis for both is your general intelligence.  Being bad at cooking is of course a trivia question because cooking is based on knowledge not intelligence.


----------



## Maiokhan (Oct 18, 2007)

Gaawa-chan said:


> ... Hmm... It's a bit difficult to know what to say...
> Firstly, no matter what he says, you can't generalize.  By saying that 'Africans are less intelligent,' he instantly discredits himself by grouping all Africans together, when we all know that there have been very intelligent Africans throughout history- and a ton of stupid white folk, lol...
> His findings... are... well... stupid...



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Seren (Oct 18, 2007)

Uh yeah, no shit the effects didn't last forever. You're comparing kids who have been in some sort of education system probably since preschool (between two and four) and have had continious exposure to a good, stable education system since that time, and kids who have been in shitty schools since they've started. Hell, most of us in the forums would look pretty goddamned stupid if we went to crap schools, as compared to someone who went to a nice prep school.

_How is a test biased when it has no words at all, simply pressing a button, or looking at a series of numbers and saying what the next number should be, or looking at a series of geometric figures and saying which one doesn't fit in the group, etc? Test bias is ridiculous, are you saying there is simply no question you can ask a human being that doesn't favor whites?_

I said they're culturally biased, which means they're biased due to the test creators preferences and ideas on intelligence. Asian, African, rural, monarchial gov't versus a democratic one, etc. Therein lies the bias. Everything from colour to shape has cultural implications, even if you don't like it.

If I say- without stipulating what sort of connection this question has- to find the correlation between 3, 7, and 12, what would you say it was? Will your answer be wrong if it makes logical sense- even if I think it means something else, something that also makes logical sense? Whose logic takes higher precedence?

_In fact, I challenge you or anyone to make a test, whatever test you like, and get a white group to test lower than the black group. That would prove test bias exists._

Would we be able to pick and choose where we got these people of two different races at? Because I'm pretty sure even I could write such a test- in fact, it's already been done. It's called . The bias in that is obvious- it favours inner city culture (and yes, that is a world away from middle class culture).

_Again you're having to assume that every tester is a closet racist who is secretly skewing the statistics to favor whites--strange that IQ tests show Asians slightly ahead of whites then, is that because we racists are smart enough to camoflauge our test bias by including asians in the 'fair test' portion?_

I wouldn't have to assume they're a closet racist. All I'd have to assume is that their view of knowledge is culturally biased. There's a really, really, REALLY big difference. I don't think everyone who creates an IQ test is some racist bastard out to shank the minority. I think that all cultures place value in different areas. Being TCK myself, I've come to expect it.


----------



## Munak (Oct 18, 2007)

Should that stop the African-Americans from getting a good education? No.

I do have to see a good explanation before I agree to this theory. But I seriously do not agree, nor bend towards genetic determinism. It's still the mind, and how one uses it is the factor to determine the mental strength of someone.

*Yay, New here! :lol:*


----------



## Maiokhan (Oct 18, 2007)

Megatonton said:


> Should that stop the African-Americans from getting a good education? No.
> 
> I do have to see a good explanation before I agree to this theory. But I seriously do not agree, nor bend towards genetic determinism. It's still the mind, and how one uses it is the factor to determine the mental strength of someone.
> 
> *Yay, New here! :lol:*



Welcome! And good point.


----------



## impersonal (Oct 18, 2007)

Zaru said:


> So, wait, they're accusing him of racism now because of RESEARCH he did?


errr, no, not at all. Read the article.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> we've known for hundreds of years that blacks are dumber, but the first wide IQ tests proved this in 1915, when our armed forces tested all the blacks and whites for their IQ before recruiting them as soldiers. The gap then was 15 points. It is still 15 points today. A hundred years of testing by a huge assortment of groups, with tests that are completely unbiased, they can be as simple as reaction time studies where you hit the button after it flashes, or backward digit studies where you recite what you just heard backwards and the more you recite the smarter you are. So we have unbiased IQ tests showing there is a permanent gap between black and white intelligence. Why? One giant coincidence? Or is it environemental?
> 
> But the environment doesn't matter, due to twin studies addressing this very issue. Take identical twins, separate them at birth and raise them in different homes with varying levels of wealth, parental intelligence, education, etc. The result will still be corrlated 70%. As in you've changed basically nothing about their adult IQ. We have done this with over 40,000 twins. And while we've found an almost direct relationship between genes and intelligence, we have found inversely a ZERO percent correlation between the intelligence of adoptive parents and adopted children. So intelligence is hereditary, not 'learned.'


As usual, I'm suspecting your sources for most of these numbers that are white nationalist websites. I know that it is true that there is a gap in IQ between black & white populations. However, I have doubts regarding the correlation number, and I see several ways to attack it anyway:

To begin with, if there is a 70% correlation between genetics & IQ, that means 30% is environmental.

Secondly, even if the study was done seriously (ie with large differences of level of education, income, & culture among the parents), it's not difficult to reduce those 70%, since as you say they only show that the parents do not matter. 

For example, naturally muscular guys could be determined to go for sport and not pay much attention to studies, so they will get a lower IQ - so we have something cultural that's not going to be determined by using twins. Similarly, those who have glasses are going to get a lot of social pressure to become geniuses, simply because they have bad eyes. In both these cases, IQ is not determined by the parents, but by cultural stereotypes that apply on people's appearance and that you can't isolate by using twins. It is very clear that many of such cultural stereotypes apply to blacks.


			
				Ucal said:
			
		

> On one hand, he does make a good point. Groups of people separated by geographical barriers, and forced to live in different environments would experience different selective forces. Who's to say natural selection would favor something over intelligence in Africa?


Yes, I agree - it's likely that there are differences between races on the level of intelligence, and these differences can be both quantitative & qualitative. However, from personal experience, it seems to me that there is much more difference between individuals than between races (so much that I wouldn't be able to tell which race has _"the advantage"_ - but that could be because I mostly know people with the same level of education as mine). So it wouldn't make much sense to discriminate on race rather than individual abilities. What's stopping us from trying to get the better out of everyone?


----------



## Diamed (Oct 18, 2007)

I clicked on the chitling test and that's not an IQ test, it's a complete trivia test.  Testing knowledge and testing intelligence are entirely different things.  A point I have to beat my head against the wall about every post.  It is funny though. ^^.

My explanation of why you could dramatically raise IQ scores for kids but not long-lastingly do so, is that kids naturally get more intelligent as they age until about 14.  What you're looking at is kids forced ahead of their natural growth to a mental age of 14, it's possible but largely useless, because the rest of the population will catch up again at 14, and at 17 the scores will be just like before.  You can more quickly reach your potential, but you cannot surpass it.  The idea that poverty later sank them back down to stupid again doesn't accord with the minnesota adoption program, that took black children and had them raised by rich, 120+ IQ smart white parents, and then tested if it helped their IQ any.  It didn't.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 18, 2007)

Diamed said:


> From understanding human history, page 108:
> 
> "Various attempts have been made to raise black performance by special programs that place black children in a highly enriched environment for a period of years, but all those attempts have failed.  These programs include the Abecedarian Project, the Milwaukee Project, and various "Head Start" programs administered locally.  The data from these programs has been analyzed carefully.  In general, they result in substantial short-term improvement, as measured by the results of IQ tests.  However, the gain in test scores diminishes sharply after the program ends, and the long-term improvement is rather small."



Explain to me how the Milwaukee Project failed.


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 18, 2007)

I think some people here are getting it wrong.

Race is one of the variables that are responsible for inteligence, according to this scientist.

It means that:
* It is possible for a black person to have a very high IQ, but on average the IQ of black people is smaller
* Other factors (for example culture) also have an impact on the IQ

This is just like the relationship beetwen GDP per capta and HDI.


----------



## Doc. Q (Oct 18, 2007)

did this mention the guy being white?

wouldn't that be a kick in the pants for everybody bringing up the whole white racist people sterotype if he wasn't... _Racists_


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 18, 2007)

Fenristhewlf said:


> did this mention the guy being white?
> 
> wouldn't that be a kick in the pants for everybody bringing up the whole white racist people sterotype if he wasn't... _Racists_



He is white.



I'm not entirely certain he's actually trying to be racist.  I think he lacks tact and hypothesizes out loud based almost solely on observations and assumptions without taking into consideration the social impact of his statements.  He believes the observable differences in African and (white) American intelligence can be traced back to genetics and makes his claims based off of that.  

Frankly, if he is correct that genetics play a more significant role than environment, then he is entirely correct that we need to approach any assistance in African nations from a different standpoint because by approaching it from our perspective isn't likely to meet their needs.  The problem with this is that there are a number of indicators that environment does play a significant role and so far no hard and solid evidence that genetics makes any significant difference.  Even the twin studies could not rule out the role of stereotyping and prejudices based on race and adoption status and other possible factors.  No gene has yet been found linking intelligence directly to race.

The mere fact that (and even Dr. Watson admits this) black individuals are capable of excelling indicates that the genetic link either isn't there or at least is not a significant factor.


----------



## Amaretti (Oct 18, 2007)

Fenristhewlf said:


> did this mention the guy being white?
> 
> wouldn't that be a kick in the pants for everybody bringing up the whole white racist people sterotype if he wasn't... _Racists_



I saw his picture in the independant. He's white. 

Anyway, anyone can improve upon IQ tests with education. All this proves is that Africans have a shittier education system than the west, but then we've always known that.

Another case of correlation being mistaken for causation; black people in poor countries with bad education are less intelligent than white people in rich countries with good education, therefore it's all down to genetics, right? And not at all down to other major environmental factors like... _education_...?


----------



## Radical Dreamer (Oct 18, 2007)

I don't see why people are so angry at this. James Watson is one of the leading geneticists in the country and is one of the most respected men in his field. When he goes about supporting a theory, he has empirical evidence of it. Sure, it might not sound nice to a lot of people and it's not politically correct, but there is evidence out there. Does it mean there aren't any exceptions? No, it just means that Dr. Watson saw a trend. And yeah, neg rep me all you want for not being politically correct. :lol


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Oct 18, 2007)

Radical Dreamer said:


> I don't see why people are so angry at this. James Watson is one of the leading geneticists in the country and is one of the most respected men in his field. When he goes about supporting a theory, he has empirical evidence of it. Sure, it might not sound nice to a lot of people and it's not politically correct, but there is evidence out there. Does it mean there aren't any exceptions? No, it just means that Dr. Watson saw a trend. And yeah, neg rep me all you want for not being politically correct. :lol



Even the most intelligent men can be wrong at times. Blacks get shitty education in this country and that's the reason for the low IQ scores.

And I'm angry because someone said I'm genetically inferior to someone else.


----------



## Radical Dreamer (Oct 18, 2007)

Alright, fine. Let's look at some easily-observable evidence. Africa and Europe started out on the same footing millenia ago. In fact, Africa had the head start since we all had to migrate out of there and spread out. Now, look at the development between the two regions. Look at the continuing development between the two regions. Why are we sending Africa aid instead of the other way around?

It's not about opportunity, either. The only reason the rest of the world has better school systems is because we've gotten to the point where we have _made them ourselves_. Explain to me why pre-British colonized Africa wasn't as advanced as Europe and why they couldn't come up with their own school systems/infrastructure for schooling systems.


----------



## Tatsuki (Oct 18, 2007)

Black and Asian people are prone to high blood pressure than White people. Thats a fact based on race.

I don't think intelligence is solely relied on DNA/Race.
Everyone is born clueless. It depends on the environment, money and education that affects a persons intelligence.

This Japanese documentary I saw on tv a long time ago, with this Japanese actress going to Ethiopia and some other place. She mentioned that even though these people are poor, they can be smarter than people in the west. Their education may be shitty, but their general knowledge gets an A+.

I'm not angry with what he said/discovered, but he shouldn't _rely_ on what he says. People can excel science you know.

Reminds me also when BBC said Asians and Black children are less smarter than White children in elementary, due to their parents wealth and intelligence. That brought on some arguments too.


----------



## Robotkiller (Oct 18, 2007)

He may be one of the worlds most renowned geneticists, but he doesn't have a consensus agreement from his contemparies, meaning his views or findings aren't accepted science yet. These articles also mention he has previous history of negative views on race, gender and sexuality issues. 

To me, it sounds like he is simply saying this because he thinks it, with his position as a foremost geneticist taking it from relatively innocuous racist remarks to shocking and weighted racist remarks.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Oct 18, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> I saw his picture in the independant. He's white.
> 
> Anyway, anyone can improve upon IQ tests with education. All this proves is that Africans have a shittier education system than the west, but then we've always known that.
> 
> Another case of correlation being mistaken for causation; black people in poor countries with bad education are less intelligent than white people in rich countries with good education, therefore it's all down to genetics, right? And not at all down to other major environmental factors like... _education_...?



They should take the test again, but this time compare african americans with whites. This because the african americans should be closer to their ancestors while still having a decent education system available.


----------



## Radical Dreamer (Oct 18, 2007)

Viral said:


> He may be one of the worlds most renowned geneticists, *but he doesn't have a consensus agreement from his contemparies,* meaning his views or findings aren't accepted science yet. These articles also mention he has previous history of negative views on race, gender and sexuality issues.
> 
> To me, it sounds like he is simply saying this because he thinks it, with his position as a foremost geneticist taking it from relatively innocuous racist remarks to shocking and weighted racist remarks.


If you were a scientist and you saw the witch hunt that is being carried out against Dr. Watson would you come forward and say you saw a collation in the data as well or would you sit there and stay quiet?


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 18, 2007)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> They should take the test again, but this time compare african americans with whites. This because the african americans should be closer to their ancestors while still having a decent education system available.



Tests like this have been done and don't take into account extenuating factors.  Race is not the single contributing factor to level of intelligence.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Oct 18, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> Tests like this have been done and don't take into account extenuating factors.  Race is not the single contributing factor to level of intelligence.



Of course it isn't. I just gave you an example of how you could eliminate one of those factors (geographical location and crappy education)


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 18, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> The mere fact that (and even Dr. Watson admits this) black individuals are capable of excelling indicates that the genetic link either isn't there or at least is not a significant factor.



Not really.

The GDP per capita ia a very significant factor in the HDI. But it is still possible for a country to have a good HDI and a small GDP per capita.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 18, 2007)

Detonator_Fan said:


> Not really.
> 
> The GDP per capita ia a very significant factor in the HDI. But it is still possible for a country to have a good HDI and a small GDP per capita.



Maybe I missed something.  How does this refute or support that level of intelligence is determined genetically by race?


----------



## sikvod00 (Oct 18, 2007)

Radical Dreamer said:


> If you were a scientist and you saw the witch hunt that is being carried out against Dr. Watson would you come forward and say you saw a collation in the data as well or would you sit there and stay quiet?


 
Wait, so are you saying that the majority of scientists who oppose Dr. Watson's view are doing so out of fear or for the sake of being PC? Perhaps they have a valid reason for objecting to his conclusions and are not simply on a "witch hunt", as you say. You're assuming these people aren't behaving like scientists and are only concerned with censoring his controversial claims. They deserve more credit than that.

Being a Nobel Prize winner and an eminent authority in genetics certainly gives Dr. Watson elevated credibility, but authority still has its limits in science. It's reasonable for the consensus of many scientists to carry more weight than that of one individual. (Please don't use Einstein, Copernicus, etc, because there's no proof that it's the same situation).

Some here seem to defend Dr. Watson and imply that he is the real victim. The the man was only basing his opinion on research and emperical evidence. After all, science _is_ inherently amoral, cold, objective, and politically incorrect. But here's the problem: if his hypothesis turns out to be true, how are blacks in general supposed to accept this piece of information? What does this do to their self-image and motivation? Wouldn't it justify discrimination on some levels and even empower the real bigots and racists of the world?


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 18, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> Maybe I missed something.  How does this refute or support that level of intelligence is determined genetically by race?



You said that the fact that black individuals are capable of excelling indicates that the genetic link either isn't there or at least is not a significant factor.

This is not really correct.

Another example:

Some guys that didn't even have finished the high school are very rich. This does not means that education is not a significant factor on how much money someone is going to make.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Oct 18, 2007)

sikvod00 said:


> Wait, so are you saying that the majority of scientists who oppose Dr. Watson's view are doing so out of fear or for the sake of being PC? Perhaps they have a valid reason for objecting to his conclusions and are not simply on a "witch hunt", as you say. Being a Nobel Prize winner and an eminent authority in genetics certainly gives him elevated credibility, but that still has its limits in science. It's reasonable for the consensus of many scientists to carry more weight than that of one individual. (Please don't use Einstein, Copernicus, etc, because there's no proof that it's the same situation).
> 
> Some here seem to defend Dr. Watson and imply that he is the real victim. The the man was only basing his opinion on research and emperical evidence. After all, science _is_ inherently amoral, cold, objective, and politically incorrect. *But here's the problem: if his hypothesis is true, how are blacks in general supposed to feel about this? What does this do to their self-image? Wouldn't it justify discrimination on some level?*



Well I believe that intelligence is something that's earned among humans. As a person with Aspergers Syndrome, I am born without the natural ability to socialize. That's genetic. But I can learn to socialize. 

Now if you said one race learned quicker than the other on average, that is acceptable. 

But you said that one race is outright more intelligent than the other when your intelligence matters on what you have learned, because we all are born with a blank slate.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 18, 2007)

Detonator_Fan said:


> You said that the fact that black individuals are capable of excelling indicates that the genetic link either isn't there or at least is not a significant factor.
> 
> This is not really correct.
> 
> ...



You still aren't showing how this relates to intelligence and racial genetics.

If your example related, it would indicate that if genetics is the significant factor, then certain individuals would be able to defy their genetic makeup, just as some individuals have defied the criteria of education for higher income.  Are you implying that genetics is the significant factor, but some individuals can defy their genetics?


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 18, 2007)

Tell that to the Africans in Europe who are constantly out preforming EVERYONE academically ...not just whites. If Africa had better educational systems would this old man even want to think how well they would do? No, he'd probably make up some stupid thory about how melanin dampens brainwaves. BS, old man, BS. 


This old coot also fails to accomodate living conditions. Is it a coindidence that richer people have higher "IQs"?


/topic


----------



## little nin (Oct 18, 2007)

It's funny how white people point to their brutality as evidence of their intellectual superiority. Their greatest achievements have been enslavement (to the enrichment of their populations), ravaging africa and to a lesser degree the middle east for all its resources (to the enrichment of the white population again), and creating the largest doomsday devices possible which will inevitably kill everybody including the white (geniuses)

and for all the white superior intelligence the asians, including the 1 billion darker skinned indians, look much smarter right now. Not to mention the billion chinese. who have positioned themselves better than anybody to be the number 1 world superpower.

Speaking of numbers, i wonder how all that intelligence is helping them survive seeing as how the population of whites-europeans and white-americans is on a precipitous decline, so much so that the pope has to beg them to reproduce  laugh it up

don't buy all this white supremacist talk. This stupid doctor will always be known as the guy who happened upon DNA and was a racist.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 18, 2007)

little nin said:


> It's funny how white people point to their brutality as evidence of their intellectual superiority. Their greatest achievements have been enslavement (to the enrichment of their populations), ravaging africa and to a lesser degree the middle east for all its resources (to the enrichment of the white population again), and creating the largest doomsday devices possible which will inevitably kill everybody including the white (geniuses)
> 
> and for all the white superior intelligence the asians, including the 1 billion darker skinned indians, look much smarter right now. Not to mention the billion chinese. who have positioned themselves better than anybody to be the number 1 world superpower.
> 
> ...




Not to mention anyone that thinks melanin content has any effect on intelligence more than region and education( let alone, at all) has to be a grade-A retard. Thats as dumb as thinking a test can map the potential of a complexed system such as the mind. Man, these guys fail on all fronts.


----------



## Naida (Oct 18, 2007)

....

Well.... damn.

I really don't know what to say, seriously. I know a lot of very inteligent black people that are by FAR smarter than me... just.... wow. Does this guy want to get lynch mob'd or what?


----------



## Kira (Oct 18, 2007)

Like I said with Anne Coulter, that bitch needs a slap.


----------



## Orochimaru-sama Sannin (Oct 18, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I love this article.  we've known for hundreds of years that blacks are dumber, but the first wide IQ tests proved this in 1915, when our armed forces tested all the blacks and whites for their IQ before recruiting them as soldiers.  The gap then was 15 points.  It is still 15 points today.  A hundred years of testing by a huge assortment of groups, with tests that are completely unbiased, they can be as simple as reaction time studies where you hit the button after it flashes, or backward digit studies where you recite what you just heard backwards and the more you recite the smarter you are.  So we have unbiased IQ tests showing there is a permanent gap between black and white intelligence.  Why?  One giant coincidence?  Or is it environemental?
> 
> But the environment doesn't matter, due to twin studies addressing this very issue.  Take identical twins, separate them at birth and raise them in different homes with varying levels of wealth, parental intelligence, education, etc.  The result will still be corrlated 70%.  As in you've changed basically nothing about their adult IQ.  We have done this with over 40,000 twins.  And while we've found an almost direct relationship between genes and intelligence, we have found inversely a ZERO percent correlation between the intelligence of adoptive parents and adopted children.  So intelligence is hereditary, not 'learned.'
> 
> Now put the two together.  A hereditary trait which has consistently across all tests across all times been tested to be 15 points higher in whites than blacks, and you have, 'racism'---oh wait no the truth.  It's not like evil whites got together and created the world unequal, it's not our fault when we simply report the truth.  And by the way, whites aren't even the smartest, jews are.  Little by little the truth is getting out, despite the PC gestapos efforts.  I am so proud of this guy.  The article was a complete joke as people claimed his science was unfounded but offered no actual evidence that he was wrong, and all the racist attacks and 'you can't say that' doesn't hurt watson, it only proves how divorced from truth and reality our culture has become.  Science cannot be racist.  Truth cannot be racist.  Racist, by definition, is someone who holds FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT A RACE AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE TRUTH.  Now look at that, which of us is accepting the truth?  Which is rejecting the truth and preferring an obvious lie?



Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Environment makes a huge impact on IQ. People who were abused/neglected/lacking intellectual stimulation as children have lower adult IQ's. Their mental growth is stunted if they do not gain as much information as possible in the developmental "critical stage" of childhood. Though this can be reversed if intensively trained during adulthood, people tend not to be fixed, because once their IQ is stunted, their position in life will likely be one not requiring intellectual stimulation anyway, so they don't get that training. True, birth IQ determines what a person's potential is if they were to receive adequate mental stimulation, but that is difficult to judge. 

In fact, since whites do worse under pressure and poor circumstances than blacks, especially in the mental department, why don't we go ahead and say that blacks are smarter? 
Lol 
Ok, the truth is that there is too little of an evolutionary time period of separation to judge intelligence. Since we can interbreed, we are a single species, so our genetic code is too similar to cause any significant difference (don't bring up dogs: they were not weeded out and differentiated through natural selection, but through artificial evolution by humans to possess very specific traits). There may be differences in what kind of intelligence each focuses on (the same way females are more verbal and males more spatial), but even that is very difficult to determine. And I would like to see exactly what part of the DNA this guy was looking at, and what was the method by which he arrived at this conclusion (since I _do_ know a little bit about genetics myself, I can at least be a reasonable judge of whether or not this guy was actually practicing real science).

And if you still want to go by the philosophy of "experimentally judged racial intelligence"...I thought _Asians _were the smartest people in the world?!:amazed


BTW...
Ever seen DarkAdonis' posts? Now that should disprove any argument of blacks being "dumber than whites". His intelligence by far outstrips even "smart whites", so there. Nuff said.


----------



## DideeKawaii (Oct 18, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I love this article.  we've known for hundreds of years that blacks are dumber, but the first wide IQ tests proved this in 1915, when our armed forces tested all the blacks and whites for their IQ before recruiting them as soldiers.  The gap then was 15 points.  It is still 15 points today.  A hundred years of testing by a huge assortment of groups, with tests that are completely unbiased, they can be as simple as reaction time studies where you hit the button after it flashes, or backward digit studies where you recite what you just heard backwards and the more you recite the smarter you are.  So we have unbiased IQ tests showing there is a permanent gap between black and white intelligence.  Why?  One giant coincidence?  Or is it environemental?
> 
> But the environment doesn't matter, due to twin studies addressing this very issue.  Take identical twins, separate them at birth and raise them in different homes with varying levels of wealth, parental intelligence, education, etc.  The result will still be corrlated 70%.  As in you've changed basically nothing about their adult IQ.  We have done this with over 40,000 twins.  And while we've found an almost direct relationship between genes and intelligence, we have found inversely a ZERO percent correlation between the intelligence of adoptive parents and adopted children.  So intelligence is hereditary, not 'learned.'
> 
> Now put the two together.  A hereditary trait which has consistently across all tests across all times been tested to be 15 points higher in whites than blacks, and you have, 'racism'---oh wait no the truth.  It's not like evil whites got together and created the world unequal, it's not our fault when we simply report the truth.  And by the way, whites aren't even the smartest, jews are.  Little by little the truth is getting out, despite the PC gestapos efforts.  I am so proud of this guy.  The article was a complete joke as people claimed his science was unfounded but offered no actual evidence that he was wrong, and all the racist attacks and 'you can't say that' doesn't hurt watson, it only proves how divorced from truth and reality our culture has become.  Science cannot be racist.  Truth cannot be racist.  Racist, by definition, is someone who holds FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT A RACE AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE TRUTH.  Now look at that, which of us is accepting the truth?  Which is rejecting the truth and preferring an obvious lie?




Your a pathetic whore. Jews are a race? White people are a race? Are you telling me that , Asian are smarter as well? Cambodia's IQ average is lower than Japan and China. Because it is one of the poorest place in the world. China IQ levels depend always on the region,and the wealthier have higher rate of IQ. 

Now you can take your eugenics back to your limited metal faculties you intellectual midget, and spit your 1915 propaganda somewhere else.


----------



## Orochimaru-sama Sannin (Oct 18, 2007)

Diamed said:


> leonardo was a great mathematician, scientist, and artist precisely because all skills are related to g, your general intelligence.



Very few people are like Leonardo, and certainly if you look at the number of dumbass white people in the USA who think the Sun goes around the Earth and still believe Creationism, i don't think we can so safely use a single example like Leo.

Plus, are whites not a combination of many different races? We can't even say whites in general are the smartest, you'd have to specify what kind of white. Latins? Aryans? Semites? 

Exactly. And Leo was from Italy, and they were not Aryan Caucasian 100% during his time either. So don't smugly state "whites are the shit!" while using Leo as an example. Besides, few black geniuses were found not because they did not exist but because they were either not taken seriously, or never got the right education.


----------



## DideeKawaii (Oct 18, 2007)

Radical Dreamer said:


> I don't see why people are so angry at this. James Watson is one of the leading geneticists in the country and is one of the most respected men in his field. When he goes about supporting a theory, he has empirical evidence of it. Sure, it might not sound nice to a lot of people and it's not politically correct, but there is evidence out there. Does it mean there aren't any exceptions? No, it just means that Dr. Watson saw a trend. And yeah, neg rep me all you want for not being politically correct. :lol



I would rep you negatively if only i knew how, not because you are being politically incorrect, but just because you are supporting a theorie based on absolutely nothing. If you take a black population living in similar condition of your normal everydays white person, their would be no difference inbetween both.

If you think that environement as not effects on a human being, your are also saying that Darwin was wrong. And he wasnt. 

And i do not concider this man very intelligent, he's just a human being attributed of a high mathematical logic. The race theorie have been destroyed long times ago, and i could have more in common, within my Dna Structure with an Nigerian than with another white dude.

And all the whites in here,that are living in their cosy white part of town, read some Nietch, bunch of ''Last man''. I cant believe that in 2007, people still think like that. All my white people that doesnt agree stand up! We're getting a bad reputation of dudes like that!


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 18, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> You still aren't showing how this relates to intelligence and racial genetics.



It was not about genetics, it was about your argument.



Anaiya said:


> If your example related, it would indicate that if genetics is the significant factor, then certain individuals would be able to defy their genetic makeup, just as some individuals have defied the criteria of education for higher income.  Are you implying that genetics is the significant factor, but some individuals can defy their genetics?



Well, I would say that genetics is one of the factors. Just as culture (in some cultures education is considered more important than in others) and other factors.

Maybe a good way to look at this would be to see how black kids adopted by asian families would do in IQ tests compared to:
- other black kids
- asian kids
- adopted asian kids in asian families
- adopted black kids in black families
- adopted asian kids in black families


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 18, 2007)

Just something I would like to say: to have a higher IQ does not means that you are superior to anyone (and I believe nobody here said that). Intelligence is not everything.

So if there is a difference, that is not a big deal.


----------



## raisin-gun (Oct 18, 2007)

there must be some bias in this


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 18, 2007)

Detonator_Fan said:


> It was not about genetics, it was about your argument.



My argument was about genetics.


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 18, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> My argument was about genetics.



The problem was not about genetics. It was about how it is possible for a variable to be positive correlated with another and at the same time something with a small value of the first variable have a lot of the second due to other variables.

It's something like: usually asians are not very tall (for whatever reason). But then there is Yao Ming that is like 20 ft tall.


----------



## Dimezanime88 (Oct 18, 2007)

What?! I take personal insult to this! I have strived to be the man that I am today and you're telling me that I will never be as smart or smarter than the white man?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 18, 2007)

I'm not angry at him for producing a theory and testing it (that is ALWAYS to be applauded).  But it seems to me an extremely flawed theory at best.

Aside from the fact that human intelligence is far too complex and the brain far too unique from person to person to be measure by a single number (I hate the IQ system).

And even if we were to say the IQ system were a flawless representation of intelligence (which it isn't by any stretch of teh imagination), in many of these poorer regions (much of Africa for instance) many of these people have never seen a day of schooling.  They have generations of malnutrition and sickness, uneducated children being raised by uneducated parents.  Yeah, thats totally objective when compared to a child who grows up with the best private tutors and schooling money can buy.


----------



## Red (Oct 18, 2007)

Lemme ask a question. I'm a pure-blooded Nigerian, I spent my infancy in Nigeria, I spent my elementary school days in America, I did my highschool in Nigeria and now I'm currently going to college in America. For all intents and purposes I am an African.

Now I have an IQ of 122 and my twin sister has an IQ of 124. Thats above average. I know anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all, but if Africans are stupid how the fuck did I a full blooded African get that score?

in before mutation.


----------



## Xion (Oct 18, 2007)

Mr.Despair said:


> Lemme ask a question. I'm a pure-blooded Nigerian, I spent my infancy in Nigeria, I spent my elementary school days in America, I did my highschool in Nigeria and now I'm currently going to college in America. For all intents and purposes I am an African.
> 
> Now I have an IQ of 122 and my twin sister has an IQ of 124. Thats above average. I know anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all, but if Africans are stupid how the fuck did I a full blooded African get that score?
> 
> in before mutation.



Wait! Does this article have to do with Africans (white and black), blacks in general, black Africans, or what?!

And which are you?


----------



## sikvod00 (Oct 18, 2007)

I guess according to Dr. Watson, you are an exception to the rule. Just be happy that you were lucky enough not to inherit the intelligently inferior genes of your race. As for the majority of Africans, too bad, so sad...

II Xion II: He was specifically talking about blacks from African, but that would imply that their descendants (black Americans, Haitains, Jamaicans, etc.) are also susceptible to the same conclusion.


----------



## Hothien (Oct 18, 2007)

I say that it's not about the genetics so much as about the poverty and education levels, societal influences, etc. Sure, poor areas have more lower IQ persons, and blacks tend to be below the poverty line more doesn't mean you should correlate between blacks and IQ...


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Oct 18, 2007)

0Fear said:


> Not to mention anyone that thinks melanin content has any effect on intelligence more than region and education( let alone, at all) has to be a grade-A retard. Thats as dumb as thinking a test can map the potential of a complexed system such as the mind. Man, these guys fail on all fronts.



Did he actually state melanin content was the issue?

If he did he's clearly wrong, on the other hand if didn't then the reasoning is sound, even if it the result of the research is wrong for other reasons.

Assume that you have two groups of people (A and B). The groups grow up separately. If this goes on over a long enough time, mutations and random factors will make the groups different from eachother.

(i'm typing this with my grammar circuits off. i hope it's readable)

It's logical then that if one thing carries over from generation to generation (skin colour) other factors might change over time as well (intelligence, length, whatever). For example, africans don't just have darker skin than whites, they also have a different skull shape. These two factors are not connected, but they have carried over to later generations.

So it's possible that say a factor like intelligence could be tied to a specific race without being directly connected to skin colour for example. Skin colour doesn't affect skull shape and vice versa.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 18, 2007)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> It's logical then that if one thing carries over from generation to generation (skin colour) other factors might change over time as well (intelligence, length, whatever). For example, africans don't just have darker skin than whites, they also have a different skull shape. These two factors are not connected, but they have carried over to later generations.
> 
> So it's possible that say a factor like intelligence could be tied to a specific race without being directly connected to skin colour for example. Skin colour doesn't affect skull shape and vice versa.




Given the fact that more genetic diversity exists in Africa than anywhere else in the world I don't see how he can make such a claim.

And comparing something as complex as intelligence is nigh impossible.  Especially when one group of your comparison has innumerable other advantages over the other.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Oct 18, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Given the fact that more genetic diversity exists in Africa than anywhere else in the world I don't see how he can make such a claim.
> 
> And comparing something as complex as intelligence is nigh impossible.  Especially when one group of your comparison has innumerable other advantages over the other.



No i didn't mean intelligence specifically. I mean that several qualities can be connected to eachother while still not being related.

Most asians are short. Most asians also have more narrow eyes than whites or blacks. This does not mean that people with narrow eyes are short. It's just a quality of that race. The race is derived from genetics. 

I'm saying the reasoning is valid. If you believe intelligence is based on genetics, then it is logical to believe that intelligence can vary depending on race. If this is true in reality remains to be seen.

And i don't trust IQ tests.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 18, 2007)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> No i didn't mean intelligence specifically. I mean that several qualities can be connected to eachother while still not being related.
> 
> Most asians are short. Most asians also have more narrow eyes than whites or blacks. This does not mean that people with narrow eyes are short. It's just a quality of that race. The race is derived from genetics.
> 
> ...



Each race would have developed physical characteristics to match the needs of wherever in the world they went to live.

When the sun was no longer as intense their skin and eyes would lighten.  Their hair would change color to suit the environment.

I fail to see how a lower intelligence would be a desirable enough trait for it to develop in a specific location.  Or for higher intelligence to occur in all but one place.  That doesn't make sense.


----------



## fireofthewill (Oct 18, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Each race would have developed physical characteristics to match the needs of wherever in the world they went to live.
> 
> When the sun was no longer as intense their skin and eyes would lighten.  Their hair would change color to suit the environment.
> 
> I fail to see how a lower intelligence would be a desirable enough trait for it to develop in a specific location.  Or for higher intelligence to occur in all but one place.  That doesn't make sense.



Nobody said intelligence would be an undesirable trait. However, it might not be the priority trait. There is the possibility that intelligence, while not undesirable, could be passed over overwhelmingly (in comparison with the other race) for other traits, such as physical prowess or some other certain trait that indicates good health. If these two races are separated long enough, then significant differences in intelligence, along with other traits, can develop over time. It might not even take as much time as we  think because there is a theory, which is now widely accepted in the scientific  community (I forget the name, you can look it up), that says evolution isn't gradual, but can stay quite stagnant, except for a few periods of rapid change.

After saying that, I think Watson is full of shit. I think that this is an important topic that needs to be looked at but most of his comments are just generalizations and he has no data to back it up. However, it is important that we take an unbiased look and actually scientifically examine this subject without the fear of society's judgement. Up till now though, there have just been too many externalities in the environment for us to come up with a good average IQ (we also need to make some adjustments to the test, its gotten better but there are still several deep flaws). If we remove all these externalities, for all we know, blacks and other socially handicapped races might come out on top, but are just hampered by bad environments that aren't very conducive to intellectual development. Scientists need to view objectively and view this subject as an outsider in order to find the answer.

Even if one race has a lower average IQ though, it'll be complicated deciding how to deal with the situation. Just because the average is low doesn't mean that there can't be extraordinary individuals within that group, and ignoring their abilities is an awful waste.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 18, 2007)

fireofthewill said:


> Nobody said intelligence would be an undesirable trait. However, it might not be the priority trait. There is the possibility that intelligence, while not undesirable, could be passed over overwhelmingly for other traits, such as physical prowess or some other certain trait that indicates good health. If these two races are separated long enough, then significant differences in intelligence, along with other traits can develop over time. It might not even take as much time as we  think because there is a theory, which is now widely accepted in the scientific  community (I forget the name, you can look it up), that says evolution isn't gradual, but can stay quite stagnant, except for a few periods of rapid change.



If that were true then there would be noticeable physical differences in the brains of each race.  The brain of a African should be noticeably different from the brain of a westerner much like noticeable physical traits like skull structure can be changed.  Since that is not that case I find this to be doubtful.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 18, 2007)

Detonator_Fan said:


> The problem was not about genetics. It was about how it is possible for a variable to be positive correlated with another and at the same time something with a small value of the first variable have a lot of the second due to other variables.
> 
> It's something like: usually asians are not very tall (for whatever reason). But then there is Yao Ming that is like 20 ft tall.



And once again, I am going to ask that you relate your point to the topic.  You are nitpicking an argument out of context rather than arguing it on its face.  

We can play this variables game all day, but we're not arguing just any variables; we are arguing very specific variables regarding a very specific subject.  The point you are trying to make does not work in every circumstance and I am asking that you show how it works for _this circumstance_.


----------



## Uchihawk (Oct 18, 2007)

this guy was obviously studying Uchihas, and anti Uchiha fans, not race.


----------



## fireofthewill (Oct 18, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> If that were true then there would be noticeable physical differences in the brains of each race.  The brain of a African should be noticeably different from the brain of a westerner much like noticeable physical traits like skull structure can be changed.  Since that is not that case I find this to be doubtful.



How are Native American bodies different from ours. Over time, due to the scarcity of food, their bodies have evolved to burn calories much more slowly than Europe and the rest of the world. That is one reason why they're having so much trouble adjusting, because they're bodies are not used to a plentiful food supply, which is why their obesity rate is much higher than it normally would be. However, there aren't any noticeable physical traits that indicate this. Over time, small traits can accumulate over time. Just because we can't pinpoint what it is now doesn't mean it isn't there.

Varying intelligence could be the same thing. Nobody knows exactly how the brain works and there could be traits that enhance intelligence that aren't overtly obvious. That doesn't mean that they aren't there though. For instance, if you look at the brain of somebody who's extremely intelligent, I doubt you would be able to find a significantly different skull structure than a normal person.


----------



## kulgan18 (Oct 18, 2007)

Why the hell does it need to be a "POLITICAL" response to this? Really, and they are even trying to put him in jail with the anti-racism laws, thats just stupid.
First politicians have nothing to do with this, if he was speaking his conclusions from his research.
If other scientists want to disagree with him, thats just fine. But to have any sort of organized responce from people that cant even provide a decent counter for his arguements, is complete nonsense.

By the way if the consensus is that the environment affects genetic characteristics, his conclusion makes perfect sense. What else do you expect when people dont get any chance to develop themselves?.
You cant expect individuals to progress when they live in disease, war and things of that nature.


----------



## Seren (Oct 18, 2007)

I can't even fathom how it makes sense, particularly if the study is in the US. Bottom line, we are a genetically heterogenous society. There are very few people who are of one race purely- most blacks in the US have a good amount of white and native american blood; we have a growing group of Eurasians/Hapas, redbones, and other multiethnic groups. It'd be fucking impossible to say, with any degree of certainty, that (x) race has (y) amount of potential/latent intelligence when we're no longer a society wherein one can point to a person and say, with any degree of positivity, that they are so and so race. We can't prove that people from (insert test group here) is white, or black, or green or what the fuck ever. In many cases, what 'race' we consider ourselves to be is something _we_ choose. Barack Obama and Halle Berry both define themselves as black. Both have one black parent, and one white parent. They choose to self-identify as black. Does this skewer those test results too?


----------



## Keile (Oct 18, 2007)

*Simply put..*

I don't see the *reason* for such a heated *debate* over such a obviously disgraced scientist. This isn't the first time hes been involved in a lecture or debate that lead to controversy over [B race, sex, etc.[/B] 

If any of you were to research into Dr. James Watson's history, you'd find quite a variety of laughable quotes and twisted ideals based on his own theories about race, gender, etc. It is obvious, even through this simple article, that while the his Nobel Prize has granted him an aura of prestige, it has only softened the blows of criticism his unfounded idealistic views would have otherwise generated. He is 79 and well-known throughout the scientific community for his ludicrous remarks about race, gender, weight, etc.

I mean..

---

On the issue of obesity, Watson has also been quoted as saying: "Whenever you interview fat people,* you feel bad*, because you know you're not going to *hire them*."[31]

"That's why you* have Latin lovers*," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."[27]

Hes been quoting as calling one of his rivals, "* Hitler* ".

He has been quoted as saying that women that are found to have homosexual babies (as if its been proven that homosexuality is even genetic in nature) should have them aborted. Then, immediately dismissed his comments, saying that it was "hypothetical" and shouldn't be done. That is proof enough that he is involving his own morals and ideals within his lectures. 

---

And lastly, many of his colleagues (and superiors) have* dismissed* his ideals as *laughable*.

---

It *disheartens *but doesn't necessarily surprise me that the majority of people that seem to take Watson's theories as "fact" are* European* (Swedish, German, etc). I personally know a variety of darker-skinned people (by which I mean Ghanaians, Somalians as well as Nigerians) that are marginally more intelligent than their lighter-skinned peers, and have done IQ tests to prove it. It is my opinion that intelligence is determined by both genetic and environmental factors. If the majority of the people within Africa don't have access to adequate education, nutrition etc...how can one do claim to have done extensive research on the topic? The mere fact that Dr. James Watson couldn't even reference his so-called research is evidence enough that he is losing creditability within the scientific community and has decided to include his own twisted ideals within his lectures.


----------



## Rangamaru (Oct 18, 2007)

I find it weird that this thread stayed open for so long considering the mods closed the snitch thread--and that thread wasn't nearly as heated or controversial.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 19, 2007)

Rangamaru said:


> I find it weird that this thread stayed open for so long considering the mods closed the snitch thread--and that thread wasn't nearly as heated or controversial.



Heated an controversial isn't usually what gets threads closed.


----------



## Sean Connery (Oct 19, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> Heated an controversial isn't usually what gets threads closed.



amazingly it's still open


----------



## Rangamaru (Oct 19, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> Heated an controversial isn't usually what gets threads closed.



What does?


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 19, 2007)

Rangamaru said:


> What does?



Stuff like personal bashing, excessive spam, excessive off-topic chatter, etc.

What you see here is an on-topic debate, for the most part.  As long as it stays that way, it's likely to stay open.

*gets back on topic*


----------



## AbnormallyNormal (Oct 19, 2007)

yeah if you look into this guy's past he makes these ridiculous comments with a frequency. just because he studied DNA and genes doesnt make his insane viewpoints on race gender etc any more "correct" since they are entirely subjective to begin with.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 19, 2007)

Dr. Watson apologized and retracted his statements:




			
				CNN said:
			
		

> LONDON, England (CNN) -- Nobel laureate biologist Jim Watson apologized "unreservedly" Thursday for stating that black people were not as intelligent as whites, saying he was "mortified" by the comments attributed to him.
> 
> Jim Watson won the 1962 Nobel Prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thanos (Oct 19, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I love this article.  we've known for hundreds of years that blacks are dumber, but the first wide IQ tests proved this in 1915, when our armed forces tested all the blacks and whites for their IQ before recruiting them as soldiers.  The gap then was 15 points.  It is still 15 points today.  A hundred years of testing by a huge assortment of groups, with tests that are completely unbiased, they can be as simple as reaction time studies where you hit the button after it flashes, or backward digit studies where you recite what you just heard backwards and the more you recite the smarter you are.  So we have unbiased IQ tests showing there is a permanent gap between black and white intelligence.  Why?  One giant coincidence?  Or is it environemental?
> 
> But the environment doesn't matter, due to twin studies addressing this very issue.  Take identical twins, separate them at birth and raise them in different homes with varying levels of wealth, parental intelligence, education, etc.  The result will still be corrlated 70%.  As in you've changed basically nothing about their adult IQ.  We have done this with over 40,000 twins.  And while we've found an almost direct relationship between genes and intelligence, we have found inversely a ZERO percent correlation between the intelligence of adoptive parents and adopted children.  So intelligence is hereditary, not 'learned.'
> 
> Now put the two together.  A hereditary trait which has consistently across all tests across all times been tested to be 15 points higher in whites than blacks, and you have, 'racism'---oh wait no the truth.  It's not like evil whites got together and created the world unequal, it's not our fault when we simply report the truth.  And by the way, whites aren't even the smartest, jews are.  Little by little the truth is getting out, despite the PC gestapos efforts.  I am so proud of this guy.  The article was a complete joke as people claimed his science was unfounded but offered no actual evidence that he was wrong, and all the racist attacks and 'you can't say that' doesn't hurt watson, it only proves how divorced from truth and reality our culture has become.  Science cannot be racist.  Truth cannot be racist.  Racist, by definition, is someone who holds FALSE OPINIONS ABOUT A RACE AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE TRUTH.  Now look at that, which of us is accepting the truth?  Which is rejecting the truth and preferring an obvious lie?



IQ In other countries, even though they are as a whole racially homogeneous, are highly dependent on region. Take for example India and China, both ethnicities which are currently stereotyped for their mathematical and/or computational intelligence. In those countries, IQ varies HIGHLY by socioeconomic bracket, even though there is a very small amount of racial diversity in both those countries when compared to the United States. If you want count all Asians as a race, then you will find that your average Cambodian has a lower IQ than your average Japanese. Hmm, could this be that Cambodia is a third world country while Japan is an economic world power with a much higher standard of living? Blacks still tend to be more poverty stricken than whites. Education is the main issue, notably a lack of said education in these areas. I know, I live in one (Dorchester, Massachusetts).


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Oct 19, 2007)

Him taking back his words makes all the people who supported him in this thread look like asses.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 19, 2007)

There are physical differences that match the projected mental differences between the races.  Specifically, black brain size is somewhat smaller than asian and white.





> The published research that most clearly shows the correlation between brain size and intelligence employed MRI, which creates, in vivo, a three-dimensional image of the brain. An overall correlation of 0.44 was found between MRI-measured-brain-size and IQ in 8 separate studies with a total sample size of 381 non-clinical adults. This correlation is about as strong as the relationship between socioeconomic status of origin and IQ. In seven MRI studies of clinical adults (N = 312) the overall correlation was 0.24; in 15 studies using external head measurements with adults (N = 6,437) the overall correlation was 0.15, and in 17 studies using external head measurements with children and adolescents (N = 45,056) the overall correlation was 0.21. The head size and brain size correlation with the g factor itself, which Gould would have you believe is a mere artifact, is even larger --- 0.60! (Jensen, 1994; Wickett et al., 1996).
> 
> Further, the brain-size/IQ correlation is predictive from birth. The National Collaborative Perinatal Study analyzed data from 17,000 White babies and 19,000 Black babies followed from birth to 7 years (Broman et al., 1987). Head perimeters were measured at birth for all children. At age 7, head perimeters were remeasured and IQ assessed. For both the Black and the White children, head perimeter measured at birth significantly predicted head perimeter at 7 years, and head perimeter at both ages predicted IQ!





> Consider the following statistically significant comparisons (sexes combined) from recently conducted studies using the four techniques mentioned above. Using brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1990) summarized data for 1,261 individuals. They reported a mean brain weight of 1,323 grams for White Americans and 1,223 grams for Black Americans. Using endocranial volume, Beals et al. (1984) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world and found that East Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268 cm3 respectively. Using external head measurements from a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel, Rushton (1992) found that Asian Americans, European Americans, and African Americans averaged 1,416, 1,380, and 1,359 cm3, respectively. Using external head measures from tens of thousands of men and women from around the world collated by the International Labour Office, Rushton (1994) found that Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged 1,308, 1,297, and 1,241 cm3, respectively.



Even though intelligence is always a good trait, it's not as important a survival trait as physical ability or resistance to disease or fertility, especially in the past when intelligence was less necessary.  Africa as you know is the hotbed of disease and therefore most of their evolution went to fighting it, not gaining intelligence.  In colder climates there was less disease and less risk of dying early, so fertility (blacks reach puberty earlier and have more cases of twins, triplets etc) and disease resistance wasn't as important and they could concentrate on developing intelligence.

One interesting drawback of developing larger brains is whites and asians correspondingly required larger hips.  This has made our race less able to run, because of our awkward hips turning a lot of our energy into turning instead of moving forward.  Right now it's immaterial, though it does mean blacks have all 100 of the top 100 sprinting scores, and all the long distance running scores too.  But back then you can imagine a hunter/gatherer trying to race down a gazelle or zebra or something, with giant waddling hips.  Intelligence isn't everything in survival.

Blacks in america who are adopted by rich smart whites have every environmental advantage whites have, but they still score much lower.  Though the environment does have an effect--for instance the average IQ in equatorial guinea is an astounding 59, while blacks in america are 85--if both whites and blacks have a good environment, it's like chasing after a carrot hanging from your head.  You can keep getting smarter but you can never catch up.  The flynn effect has done the same.  Blacks got much smarter this past century---as did whites, leaving things the exact same race-wise.  It's easy to tell your ancestry with dna tests now, a half black, half white person will probably be halfway inbetween the average scores of blacks and whites.  Indeed the adoption study I posted showed mixed breeds falling halfway inbetween pure black and pure white.  I would put in a caveat though, it could be that a mixed breed is exactly as intelligent as a white or asian, because the white or asian personally picked the black because of his better-than-average comparable intelligence to their own.  In that case you would see a bunch of mixed breeds as social equals to the pure breeds, and the blacks even more devastatingly behind as all their best get 'drafted' into the NFL league of intelligence.  This has been seen in south america, where the mestizos lorded over the pure indians.

No one is saying that individual blacks aren't commonly smarter than individual whites.  But so long as blacks claim they're being discriminated against and need special laws favoring them, because of the unequal results, to defend ourselves we have to prove we're acting justly and it's due to not unequal opportunities, but unequal merit.  Actually I think blacks should welcome the truth that they're born with the short end of the stick, it means people should stop shitting on you when you had no choice in the matter, and the fact that you're the victim of fate, not your own 'evil criminal lazy violent demons,' makes caring for the poor and downtrodden an even larger moral priority.  If we had been born stupid, wouldn't we want help?  It's better to admit your failings with good grace and say "would you punish a child born with AIDS? then why a stupid child?  It's not our fault," than to keep spewing hate at whites and blaming us for all your problems and raising your kids to hate us and blame us for everything that goes wrong in life.  I think the truth would help both sides of the racial divide, and is necessary before reconciliation can ever occur.

*  It's a shame watson gave in to the PC police, but I guess he had to since in britain they were probably threatening to jail him for saying it.  It proves nothing, his real opinion is what he originally said.

Intelligence helps you get higher educations and more skilled jobs that pay more.  Of course intelligent people will be rich.  However, give all the money you want to a stupid person, he will not become more intelligent.  You're putting the cart in front of the horse.


----------



## Ecclaed (Oct 19, 2007)

Here is an article where Watson was exclusively interviewed, and there are more details about his position. The Guyver:  Bioboosted Armor Episode 26



> *As he arrives in Britain, DNA pioneer breaks his silence on racism row *
> 
> By Steve Connor, Cahal Milmo and Amol Rajan
> Published: 19 October 2007
> ...



Also...

The Guyver:  Bioboosted Armor Episode 26 


> *Watson's words disowned by own institute *
> By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
> Published: 19 October 2007
> 
> ...



I assume he made the restatement so that the media would not rampage his ideas and his Nobel Prize would not be stripped.


----------



## Thanos (Oct 19, 2007)

Diamed said:


> There are physical differences that match the projected mental differences between the races.  Specifically, black brain size is somewhat smaller than asian and white.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just want to note a few things about your "truth". As a minority, I am firmly against all forms of affirmative action. Thanks, but I dont want help from the government. Now that thats out of the way, perhaps its time to remind you where this line of thinking has led? We all know what happened when the Nazi's got a hold of "evidence" that the Jews were "inferior".

Do you know Nazi Germany started by giving "favors" (really various forms of separation disguised as favors) to Jews due to the societies automatic assumption that they (as in the nordic Germans) were superior? "Whatever we do to them is for there own good", was the motto. Propaganda can do funny things, but thats a topic for another time. 


Slavery, and the various atrocities associated with European colonialism in Africa happened because Whites accepted their genetic superiority as truth. I suggest you read on the various examples of human barbarity that occurred to the native populace in the Belgian Congo. These were perpetrated for the sole reason that these people believed the Africans to be subhuman. I also suggest you change your preaching to something else and take a look at what that line of thinking you are taking has lead to in history.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 19, 2007)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Did he actually state melanin content was the issue?
> 
> If he did he's clearly wrong, on the other hand if didn't then the reasoning is sound, even if it the result of the research is wrong for other reasons.
> 
> ...





First of all, this is not a true statement. You must take into account several things about intelligence before you can make unfounded claims. First you must prove that intelligence is relative to brain size, which isn't true. Crows often seem more intelligence than some larger mammals. Second of all, you must assume that race has a real genetic presence other than something aesthetic. Secondly, you must remove all unbalancing variables...all subjects must have similar backgrounds and education. This is NOT scientific. At all. Its psuedoscience. Not to mention the assumption that all races have the same skull, and that all Africans subscribe to the same genetics.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Oct 19, 2007)

... Another big issue with this is... how you define 'intelligence.'
I mean, I don't think that simply because someone knows more than someone else that... that person is more intelligent.  The first person simply has a larger breadth of knowledge.  This does not prove that the person is smarter...
I think that it is the application of knowledge that counts.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Oct 19, 2007)

Keile said:


> It *disheartens *but doesn't necessarily surprise me that the majority of people that seem to take Watson's theories as "fact" are* European (Swedish, German, etc)*. I personally know a variety of darker-skinned people (by which I mean Ghanaians, Somalians as well as Nigerians) that are marginally more intelligent than their lighter-skinned peers, and have done IQ tests to prove it. It is my opinion that intelligence is determined by both genetic and environmental factors. If the majority of the people within Africa don't have access to adequate education, nutrition etc...how can one do claim to have done extensive research on the topic? The mere fact that Dr. James Watson couldn't even reference his so-called research is evidence enough that he is losing creditability within the scientific community and has decided to include his own twisted ideals within his lectures.



We're not supporting what he's saying. We're supporting the REASONING BEHIND HIS STATEMENT. His research is clearly flawed (IQ tests) but the reasoning behind is SOUND.

That of each race havin unique traits, and intelligence could be one of those traits.



0Fear said:


> First of all, this is not a true statement. You must take into account several things about intelligence before you can make unfounded claims. First you must prove that intelligence is relative to brain size, which isn't true. Crows often seem more intelligence than some larger mammals. Second of all, you must assume that race has a real genetic presence other than something aesthetic. Secondly, you must remove all unbalancing variables...all subjects must have similar backgrounds and education. This is NOT scientific. At all. Its psuedoscience. Not to mention the assumption that all races have the same skull, and that all Africans subscribe to the same genetics.



Intelligence isn't relative to brain size, but what does that have to do with my argument?

ALL aesthetic traits are genetic traits. Genetic traits can also be non-aesthetic, like genetic diseases that are non-obvious to the eye.


----------



## ApuLunas (Oct 19, 2007)

so what dude? africans has longer penis! i don't care if someone has a longer penis or more iq! how should i say, if it exists, then it exists. oh wait, should i look for an african wife and create a super race! hmmm why not!


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 19, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> And once again, I am going to ask that you relate your point to the topic.  You are nitpicking an argument out of context rather than arguing it on its face.
> 
> We can play this variables game all day, but we're not arguing just any variables; we are arguing very specific variables regarding a very specific subject.  The point you are trying to make does not work in every circumstance and I am asking that you show how it works for _this circumstance_.



Why do you think that in this circumstance either there is a "perfect correlation" or there is no correlation at all (or at the most it is statistically insignificant).

What you say makes no sense.


----------



## chocy (Oct 19, 2007)

I guess those who believe in Darwinian evolution (which stipulates that races evolve differently, hence giving them different intelligence levels and characteristics) will probably agree with this theory. Though I am not a Christian, I prefer the creation account in the biblical book of Genesis. It states that there is only one human race. It is more the case of nurture than nature for me.


----------



## Kira (Oct 19, 2007)

chocy said:


> I guess those who believe in Darwinian evolution (which stipulates that races evolve differently, hence giving them different intelligence levels and characteristics) will probably agree with this theory. Though I am not a Christian, I prefer the creation account in the biblical book of Genesis. It states that there is only one human race. It is more the case of nurture than nature for me.


While this is true, I believe that the scientist guy needs to come up with far more conclusive evidence before he can say that differences in intelligence between white and black people is due to race/genetics and not due to social/environmental factors. I personally believe that there is no difference and is only due to lower levels of opportunity for black people.


----------



## Rangamaru (Oct 19, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> Stuff like personal bashing, excessive spam, excessive off-topic chatter, etc.
> 
> What you see here is an on-topic debate, for the most part.  As long as it stays that way, it's likely to stay open.
> 
> *gets back on topic*



That's complete bull I've seen people banned for making controversial threads.

*on topic*

This guy really has nothing. He should provide us with examples, case studies, and experiments where everything was the same except the race. If he can't provide this, then what's the point of making this assertion? Much of what he says goes against what I learned in Pysch.

also, you're on my ignore list, goodbye.


----------



## Simulacrum (Oct 19, 2007)

Intelligence (if it can even be described as a single attribute) depends on more than just geographical location. Society, which is dependent on food and water sources which are geographical but is also dependent on the human element for political and military upheavals, is the true standard that dictates the limitations of the majority of people. And there's no evidence to suggest that society leaves a genetic footprint, only supposition and assumptions. If you take a black child, put him in an advantageous position that upholds learning as the most valuable virtue, then he'll do more to develop his intelligence than a white child who is taught to be violent and mean. 

There was an experiment a while back (that I can't find a link to now) that took a classroom of young students and subjected them to an intelligence test. Only, the test results weren't recorded and the students were issued false results. The ones who received good (but still false) results improved their productivity in the class and ones who received poor results did worse relative to whatever their performance was before the test. Intelligence is not merely a matter of genetics, and I don't think that's what this guy was trying to say. To suggest such a thing would be to ignore everything else about life.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 19, 2007)

Detonator_Fan said:


> Why do you think that in this circumstance either there is a "perfect correlation" or there is no correlation at all (or at the most it is statistically insignificant).
> 
> What you say makes no sense.



When there is a genetic factor defining a group of people, that group will show that trait except for a small percentage of extremes.  Dr. Watson claimed that lower intelligence was a genetic factor of Africans; he then also claimed that blacks are capable of higher intelligence.  Either the general group is capable or isn't capable.  He can't have it both ways.



Rangamaru said:


> That's complete bull I've seen people banned for making controversial threads.
> 
> *on topic*
> 
> ...



  What'd I do?

Besides, I didn't say it _never_ happens, I said threads _usually_ don't get closed just for controversy.


----------



## soulnova (Oct 19, 2007)

The man discovered the DNA structure. If there is someone I should be asking about genes, its him.  And while I think intelligence has a great deal with genetics I believe in  (even if it sounds stupid) Hard Work. No matter how intelligent you are, you can get better. 

Social factors are very important too. When I walk down the street and there are some low level workers chating with eachother, its very clear the gap between their mental capabilities and mine. I grew up with the notion of everyone is the same, but as time passed I realized this was not the case. I always got the best grades in school (graduated top on College) and I did nothing special to get them while others worked their asses to get at the same level as me. People is suprised that I still read mangas and play videogames at my age.... I was told I was a female Shikamaru but of course, I know I DONT have 200 IQ.

I like Lee because of his Hard Work and I respect anyone who actually tries enough to learn things and understand them. To generalize a whole race is incorrect... there are standars, yeah, but thats not the case here. 

Will they discover the gene of intelligence in 10 years?  I agree with a 50% of probability... but I really hope they will give a good use to the information and this doesnt turn into another "OMG we are better than you!"-Nazi-fascist era. 


Oh, and in the words of a great man:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein (ftw)

LOL


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 19, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> When there is a genetic factor defining a group of people, that group will show that trait except for a small percentage of extremes.  Dr. Watson claimed that lower intelligence was a genetic factor of Africans; he then also claimed that blacks are capable of higher intelligence.  Either the general group is capable or isn't capable.  He can't have it both ways.



This is just like strenght.

White people usually are weaker than black people. But some white guys can be very strong.
That's it.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Oct 19, 2007)

It could be. 
There are physiological differences between races. Evolved because of different circumstances. So whats to say intelligence wasnt under different selective pressures on the different continents? 

That being said. IQ test being culturally based and nurture playing a role, clouds findings. 

People should NOT be so sensitive. If a race is on average less intelligent, that means intelligent wasnt as strongly selective for. Which means OTHER traits were more strongly selected for. Endurance, strength, vertility, better immune system.  

In the end FITNESS is about the NUMBER of (reproducing) offspring you are able to raise!

Very smart couples not having children or choosing career>children are biological failures in that sense. 


People are very sensitive about these matters because of the whole eugenetics and racial superiority stuff that led to so much death, hate and suffering. 

But we should step past that and keep objective. Keep an open mind. Which clearly doesnt seem to be the case seeing how the media and politics jumped on this professor. 



Really i dont care about this as much. It says little about individuals. IQ varies ALOT. Which means that even though your white. You can still be more retarded then every black around you. So to those who would take pride or a sense of superiority for something that might not even apply for them personally...i say...wtf???


----------



## Zabuzalives (Oct 19, 2007)

Detonator_Fan said:


> This is just like strenght.
> 
> White people usually are weaker than black people. But some white guys can be very strong.
> That's it.



got any links on that?? This one is harder to spot because nurture plays a huge role in this. 

Most contenders on worlds strongest man are white though.


----------



## Haze is Dreamin' (Oct 19, 2007)

kulgan18  said:
			
		

> You cant expect individuals to progress when they live in disease, war and things of that nature.



if anything i would expect them to progress beyond the normal limits. War and the natural selection of destroying those who can't survive one way or another would have left only the strongest. Just like the slave voyage killed the ones who couldn't survive the trip. the survivors were far stronger.

naturally the same countries that take this theory as fact are the ones profiting most from the theft of africa's resources most. money is the root of all evil, as long as they believe they aren't stealing from humans they can be happy with themselves and rich.

BTW that bitch ass doctor has since retracted his statement, he claims he didn't say it at all  where is your racist gene scientist now!


----------



## Juubi (Oct 19, 2007)

I call bullshit. And lol at Diamed's racist rants.


----------



## Dream Brother (Oct 19, 2007)

Giovanni Rild said:


> Him taking back his words makes all the people who supported him in this thread look like asses.



To be honest, they looked like asses from the very second that their posts appeared on this thread. The amount of ignorant ranting here would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.


----------



## Keile (Oct 19, 2007)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> We're not supporting what he's saying. We're supporting the REASONING BEHIND HIS STATEMENT. His research is clearly flawed (IQ tests) but the reasoning behind is SOUND.
> 
> That of each race havin unique traits, and intelligence could be one of those traits.
> 
> ...



No. I do not believe his reasoning is "sound". As I mentioned above, before even Dr. Watson retracted his comments and decided to say what I so blatantly pointed out , he has *NO* scientific basis on which to even judge the intelligence of African people. He was talking out of his ass and he admitted to it. So, any and all of your preconcieved notions of European supremacy are ill-advised nonsensical slander citing non-factual statements as "fact". Even the man (and his peers) in which you seek to believe has dismissed the comments in which you intend to defend. 

It is of YOUR opinion that Africans may have less intelligence than yourself, but that is an opinion based on little more than idiot, racial stigma. You, as a European, are no more intelligent that any African that has grown with the same luxuries as yourself, or has chosen to make decisions (based on intelligence) that reflect your own. 

You have no scientific basis on which to make assumptions as to whether or not their is an intelligence level between animals of the same species. I have seen dark-skinned individuals dramatically outperform lighter-skinned individuals that seemed to have the same work ethnic and vice versa. 

As for Diamed, no one is going to believe such an obviously biased website. Please give reputable examples. We're not looking for a white supremacist funded site..perhaps..wikipedia?


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Oct 19, 2007)

Keile said:


> No. I do not believe his reasoning is "sound". As I mentioned above, before even Dr. Watson retracted his comments and decided to say what I so blatantly pointed out , he has *NO* scientific basis on which to even judge the intelligence of African people. He was talking out of his ass and he admitted to it. So, any and all of your preconcieved notions of European supremacy are ill-advised nonsensical slander citing non-factual statements as "fact". Even the man (and his peers) in which you seek to believe has dismissed the comments in which you intend to defend.
> 
> It is of YOUR opinion that Africans may have less intelligence than yourself, but that is an opinion based on little more than idiot, racial stigma. You, as a European, are no more intelligent that any African that has grown with the same luxuries as yourself, or has chosen to make decisions (based on intelligence) that reflect your own.
> 
> ...



WHEN THE FUCK DID I SAY AFRICANS ARE STUPID?! You're putting words in my mouth.

Skin colour = genetic trait (proven)
Skull shape = genetic trait (proven)
Eye shape = genetic trait (proven)

What i listed above was a set of genetic traits. Some of these traits are more common in some races than others. Guess why? Genetic heritage.

Intelligence is then also, atleast that part of intelligence depending on the brain itself and not knowledge already stored in the brain, dependant on genetics. If one trait such as skin colour is inheriteable, then it is likely that other traits such as musicality, perfect pitch, logical thinking, are inheritable to some degree.

And i think i said it twice in this thread already, but i don't believe in IQ tests. They don't measure your intelligence, they only measure how well you do in logic tests.

Taking the fact that IQ tests are affected by education and education seems very lacking in africa, it's just as likely that africans are ABOVE WHITES in intelligence. They just don't have the education to make use of their brain capacity.


----------



## CrimsonRex (Oct 19, 2007)

That's dumb as hell, that guy should be killed.


----------



## Red (Oct 19, 2007)

Diamed said:


> There are physical differences that match the projected mental differences between the races.  Specifically, black brain size is somewhat smaller than asian and white.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> When comparing different species brain size does present a correlation with intelligence. For example the ratio of brain weight to body weight for fish is 1:5000; for reptiles it is about 1:1500; for birds, 1:220; for most mammals, 1:180, and for humans, 1:50. However within the human species modern studies using MRI have shown that brain size shows substantial and consistent correlation ( r = .35 to .43 in various studies) with IQ among adults of the same sex [1] Some scientists prefer to look at more qualitative variables such to relate the size of measurable regions of known function. For example relating the size of the primary visual cortex to its corresponding functions, that of visual performance.[1][2].
> _*The brain is a metabolically expensive organ, and consumes about 25% of the body's metabolic energy. Because of this fact, although larger brains are associated with higher intelligence, smaller brains might be advantageous from an evolutionary point of view if they are equal in intelligence to larger brains.*_ Skull size correlates with brain size, but is not necessarily indicative.
> Brain size is a rudimentary indicator of the intelligence of a brain, and many other factors affect the intelligence of a brain. Higher ratios of brain to body mass may increase the amount of brain mass available for more complex cognitive tasks. *Brain size in vertebrates may relate to social rather than mechanical skill. Cortical size realtes directly to a pairbonding life style and among primates cerebral cortex size varies directly with the demands of living in a large complex social network.[3]*


Your interpretation on the subject is limited on what you choose believe. Hell you think all Africans are stupid so jump on anything that would prove so.

I'm not an expert on the subject but do you know why Africans have a smaller brain? Not because the evolutionary pressure was more on strength but because smaller brains means less strain on the body in terms of energy requirement. We don't have smaller brains because we are stupid, we have smaller brains because we are _efficient _. You said it yourself, there are more advantages to having a smaller more efficient brain than to have an overly large brain that does the same function, without the pitfalls.


And you know what? The difference in brain size between Africans and Caucasian effects the IQ. That one is obvious. But to what degree? A couple decimal places is insignificant in the overall picture and the only thing brain mass ever effected was the social aspect. But *Gasp* Africans still have a lower IQ that means they are the stupids right? Wrong. Have you heard of Gardener? He believed that intelligence is a sum total of the following:

Intra-personal
Interpersonal
spatial
Bodily-kinesthetics
linguistics
Music
Logical Mathematics.

Only when you take it account all these aspects can you begin to estimate a person intelligence. the quote above me makes it very clear that brain size only effects the social aspect in primates, along side the energy requirements being lowered did it ever occur to you that the reason Africans brain size are different is because the social structure which effects the size of the brain are different?. All the other aspects are the same, Logical reasoning, music etc. _they are the same.
_
The rest of your post is just how Africans should know their place right? go take that garbage to storm front.


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 20, 2007)

People have been talking about blacks vs. whites here, but are neglecting a lot more important issue: French vs. German. As described in the article, recent studies have shown that Germans have 13 points higher IQ than French. (Which, by the way, is basically the same as the 15 points with blacks vs. whites mentioned earlier in the thred.)

I think this study is racist and the people who made it should be sued using anti-racism laws. I am neither French nor German, but I feel French have been treated unjustly here. There _clearly_ must be a _strong_ gap between the educational systems of France and Germany. Also a clear gap in GDP. When I look at the IQ scores, it is obvious it must be as clear as between Africa and Europe on average. (I didn't bother checking these facts, but they _must_ be true.)

I mean, how on earth can those people make claims like that? Everyone knows they're not true! And if science finds something that's against the common belief, the study _must_ be wrong. That's the way you do science: if you find something unpleasant, keep trying until you get it right.

Maybe it's the difference in culture and the test was biased towards German culture! Yes, that must be it. I think the test was probably similar to the ones mentioned earlier, and was very dependant on the testee's English skills. Everyone knows French don't like speaking English, so that must be why they didn't do as well as Germans in the test.

I know I'm not wrong, and I will never admit I am, even if all the evidence in the world said I'm wrong. But if I was wrong, and French really were more stupid than German, it would naturally mean Germans are better people and we should treat Germans different from French. After all, intelligence _is_ the thing that defines your value as human being, right?


----------



## TekJounin (Oct 20, 2007)

I've read every comment in this post.  As far as I know, they human genome isn't fully understood and there has not been a gene or genes isolated that determine intelligence.

I understand that there is a huge controversy over whether or not any one group can be pointed out as being more intelligent on average or that intelligence can be determined by tests created by a group that isn't comprised of individuals from the groups that the test it applied to.

I fail to see how that could make any group in the whole of humanity superior overall.  Even if one could say "the group with these specific attributes is undeniably more intelligent" by whatever voodoo is used to decide it, what does that mean overall?  Will there also be testing done to determine which groups use their intelligence (no matter where it ranked on the scale used to determine who had the most) to what ends?

I have a brother with an IQ of 200.  He works construction, is missing a few teeth, drinks beer and does origami.  He can discuss complex ideas and usually grasps them easily.  He's a very nice man and is happy with his life.  He's not rich and doesn't care to be.  Just because a person has great potential doesn't mean that it will be exploited or used to the fullest of that potential.  And I think he's a worthwhile human being, no matter what.

I'm not fond of blanket statements.  Generalizations tend to do a disservice to anyone who is not average.


----------



## matsuo (Oct 20, 2007)

Well, scientific or not, there are things in this world that are better left unsaid.

As a medical student I personally endorse all sorts of researches, be that the stem cell shit or whatever. But Mr. Watson needs some pragmatical approaches to these things.

Shutting that big trap might be better - well, sometimes.

Besides, sometimes the average IQ of a certain ethnic group is highly due to its demographic features in terms of age groups, education levels and so on. To actually prove that the differences of IQ is due to a racial basis would be a pretty much of a mission impossible - simply because it's too hard to set up the case-control groups that are totally free from the influences of other social factors, and that are big enough.


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 20, 2007)

Ok, irony aside... This thread is fun, but also sad. Well, I guess if I want some serious discussion on the subject, this isn't the best place, but people's attitudes still amaze me. There's been so much messed up crap said, it's unbelievable. So I'm sorry, but this might be long...

Generally, Dr. Watson said loads of things I wouldn't agree on. He likes controversy, and he , but he didn't change his oppinion about the gap in intelligence. More on this later. And even if he had, that does not make people who supported him to some extent "look stupid".

I actually also happen to agree with Diamed on lots of things, but I think some things he said do seem a bit rascist: "Actually I think blacks should welcome the truth that they're born with the short end of the stick".

*What science is*


matsuo said:


> Well, scientific or not, there are things in this world that are better left unsaid.


Er... What?
That's _not_ the way you make science. Sometimes truth hurts, but that does *not* make it less true. And you're saying just telling the truth is a bad thing? You think Galileo should've just "shut that big trap"?

On a personal level, you have a point. If someone's mother is working as a prostitute, saying "your mother's a whore" is clearly an insult, even if it is true. However when we go to the global scale of whole scientific world, and tell the truth as politely as possible, I don't see anything wrong with that. Watson might've not been as tactful as possible, but that doesn't make his major point any less true.

*What scientific discussion is*


raisin-gun said:


> there must be some bias in this


When someone comes to a thread like this, and that's the only thing he says, he's being ignorant. Science doesn't always have to be pleasant. And yet again, being unpleasant doesn't make it less true, but for some reason whenever something nasty turns up, people refuse to believe it. If it's something good, they believe it _a lot_ easier. Here's a link for you: 

Again, I know this might not be the right forum, but I thought I'd mention anyways.



ThoraxeRMG said:


> That's dumb as hell, that guy should be killed.


Here's another one-liner from a guy who probably just read small fraction of it.

*What average is*


Dimezanime18 said:


> What?! I take personal insult to this! I have strived to be the man that I am today and you're telling me that I will never be as smart or smarter than the white man?


As Diamed said, people here fail to understand the concept of average. How on earth can you be personally insulted on something like this? Noticing something like this does not make you less intelligent. It most certainly does *not* mean you can never be as smart as the white man. Besides, for the purposes of general intelligence, you're pretty much going to be as smart as you are now for the rest of your life. Let us assume the average gap really is 15. That's not much. As I mentioned before, that's practically the same as between French and the German, but do you see any fuss raised from that?

It's _average._ That does not mean all black people are "15 points stupider" than the white guy next to them. It just means even if the top 10% of black people beat majority of white people, it's less than 90%.



TekJounin said:


> I'm not fond of blanket statements.  Generalizations tend to do a disservice to anyone who is not average.


Again, it's just an average... It doesn't mean to offend anyone, it's just a neutral statistical fact.

*What about genetics?*


TekJounin said:


> I've read every comment in this post.  As far as I know, they human genome isn't fully understood and there has not been a gene or genes isolated that determine intelligence.


No, there has not yet been any findings, but majority of scientists believe there exists gene(s) that correlate with intelligence. I just saw a documentary about it. The search is still on.

It is generally accepted _fact_ intelligence is at least partly genetical. The races have different traits, so why is it so hard to accept intelligence could be one of the traits that's different? And who's to say the races haven't had enough isolation for it to be different? And again, on what basis is this claim? You can't really try to prove your point with arguments you pull out of your ass.



0Fear said:


> Not to mention anyone that thinks melanin content has any effect on intelligence more than region and education( let alone, at all) has to be a grade-A retard. Thats as dumb as thinking a test can map the potential of a complexed system such as the mind. Man, these guys fail on all fronts.


This actually made me laugh out loud. I'm tempted to leave it at that, but... Melanin content is only *one* of the traits that's different. But usually the traits go hand in hand. Not always, but that's why were talking about averages.

*What about brain size?*


Tsukiyomi said:


> If that were true then there would be noticeable physical differences in the brains of each race.  The brain of a African should be noticeably different from the brain of a westerner much like noticeable physical traits like skull structure can be changed.  Since that is not that case I find this to be doubtful.


Why on earth should they be _noticeably_ different?! And on what basis do you make these weird claims? When Einstein died, there was a bunch of doctors waiting who removed his brain so it could be studied. They found nothing out of ordinary. Bigger brain does *not* mean you're more intelligent. Actually, Neanderthals had bigger brains than modern humans. Men also have bigger brains than women. The usual theory is that bigger muscle mass requires bigger brains. (Well,  men really have 3-4 point advantage to women, but women did better in memory tasks.)


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 20, 2007)

[Sorry for double posting, but I went over 10000 characters.]

*What IQ tests measure*

IQ tests try to measure something they call the "general intelligence factor" or just "g-factor": 
There are also theories, like the multiple intelligences theory, but  "Every multiple domain IQ test ever normed has shown that all the areas tested are correlated." Again, it doesn't mean it's correlated on everyone, only on average.

I happen to believe in IQ tests a bit more than Ganryu. Why? Well IQ correlates rather well with other stuff, so it means there *is* something to be tested. Is that something what is generally considered "intelligence" I don't know, and it doesn't even matter because it relates to other stuff and is useful as such, but from what I've seen, it's at least pretty close.

In my oppinion those IQ tests mentioned earlier are flawed. They over-emphasize education. To me, they seem to be almost pure trivia tests. Here's a test similar to the ones Mensa uses:  It's in Danish, but it doesn't matter, because the test itself doesn't have any words.

Now, I'm not saying a test like that isn't affected by education and other things. In my oppinion  clearly shows that success in IQ tests is not purely genetical. In the adoption studies, the intelligence of the adopted black kids first went up, but went down to _almost_ the same level after the proram ended. Now imagine if the special program lasted for their whole life? Not only education, but also nutrition, free-time activities and work. I'm still not thoroughly convinced the gap can't be explained by education, but from the actual research data I have seen, I think it is more probable that the gap really *is* there even with education and other things considered. It just might not be as big as it seems. It might also be other way around. But as said before, the tests say Asians have done better in IQ tests than white people, so how could it be essentially culturally biased towards whites? Here's a funny picture about it from Wikipedia: 

*What intelligence is*


Diamed said:


> Even though intelligence is always a good trait, it's not as important a survival trait as physical ability or resistance to disease or fertility, especially in the past when intelligence was less necessary.


Diamed is onto something here, there's lots of stuff more important than intelligence, but he's wrong in one thing: intelligence is _not_ always a good trait.

Let's take this study for example: 
So, smarter teens have less sex. Well duh? Everyone knows this. But this thing says that apparently it's not just a silly stereotype. Anyone ever seen the movie 

Here's another thing:


TekJounin said:


> I have a brother with an IQ of 200.  He works construction, is missing a few teeth, drinks beer and does origami.  He can discuss complex ideas and usually grasps them easily.  He's a very nice man and is happy with his life.  He's not rich and doesn't care to be.  Just because a person has great potential doesn't mean that it will be exploited or used to the fullest of that potential.  And I think he's a worthwhile human being, no matter what.


I read somewhere that the average IQ for people with the best "real-world success" is 120. The people who go over that start to be too intelligent for their own good. They simply stop caring about material stuff too much. Now I don't know if one thinks of this as a good thing or not, but at least it should help me prove that intelligence might _not_ always be a good trait.

*Is there a gap?*
Well, I'm not going to go too deep into this, but I advise people who don't believe in the gap to read stuff like:

)

*So why the hell are people so angry about this?*
I thought I'd put this first so people might actually read this, because this is important.

_No-one_ got truly offended from the same gap between Germans and Frenchs, so why on earth would it be any different with whites and blacks? Maybe the people who are getting angry are racists? Well, I think it's the other way around. While I'm happy to see this forum doesn't have almost any racists, these days the group of people that might find their way here is taught to hate racism so much, it has gone a bit overboard in the other end. People try to be so politically correct they start developing some kind of racismphobia. Blacks and whites *ARE* different! For the love of everything, accept that. Should they be treated differently? _Hell no._ Black, white, yellow, brown, everyone is living on the same planet and should learn to get along with each others even with their differences.

For Diamed: Maybe better way than treating blacks and whites differently, we should treat tall and short people differently. I mean, the short people just should accept they're born with the short end of the stick. Or if you think blacks and whites should be treated differently because of the gap in IQ, that's silly and inaccurate. Better way would be to test the intelligence of every citizen and then treat "stupid" people differently. No wait, that's just as stupid as treating tall people better.

For whatever reason, for majority of people their intelligence seems to be somehow very personal and they might get very offended about it. I really don't see why. Intelligence does *not* make you a better person. It does *not* determine your value as a human being. As said before intelligence might actually be bad for you. And either way, I'm certain stupid people enjoy life just as much as smart people.

But let Dr. Watson himself end my seemingly endless rant. As you probably won't bother to read this article, I'll pick some hilights from there. I didn't actually read the article in full before starting to write this, but it's weird how many things are same as what I've been saying here. Simply put, the guy's a scientist.


			
				To question genetic intelligence is not racism said:
			
		

> Rarely more so than right now, where I find myself at the centre of a storm of criticism. I can understand much of this reaction. For if I said what I was quoted as saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it. *To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant.* More importantly from my point of view, there is no *scientific basis* for such a belief.
> 
> I have always fiercely defended the position that we should base our view of the world on the state of our knowledge, on fact, and not on what we would like it to be. This is why genetics is so important. For it will lead us to answers to many of the big and difficult questions that have troubled people for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
> [...]
> ...



​


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Oct 20, 2007)

You give me a study where the subjects had a identical background, and I'll listen.  But other than that, I'm calling bullshit


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 20, 2007)

Giovanni Rild said:


> You give me a study where the subjects had a identical background, and I'll listen.  But other than that, I'm calling bullshit


If you sit down for a moment and think, you might realize it's impossible to have a study of large groups with identical background. That's why this stuff isn't conclusive, it just makes certain assumptions more probable.

Anyways, there have been some programs studying the possible effect of a better background.
Here's some links for the stuff:
AnimeFanlistings.Org


> 2) Black IQ scores are validated by their correlation with independent measures of educational achievement and job performance. In other words, there is no psychometric evidence that IQ tests are culturally biased against Afro-Americans.
> 
> 3) Differences in reaction times to elementary cognitive tasks cannot be determined by cultural variables or motivational factors. Blacks, on average, have slower reaction times than whites.
> 
> ...






> Four often-cited studies,  the Early Training Project, the Carolina Abecedarian Project, the Perry Preschool Project, and the Milwaukee Project, show, at best, a long-term improvement of a few points of IQ.



AnimeFanlistings.Org
Talking about four similar programs:


> Only the Milwaukee Project found any long-term effect on IQ.


And as mentioned in the first link:


> In the case of the Milwaukee Project, improvements in scores, rather than representing any underlying increase in g, were the result of what is graphically called “teaching to the test”.



Also might be interesting read:


Now, Giovanni Rild, as I said before, we can't make definitive tests, we can only make tests which might give some direction. And as I said, from stuff like these, I think it is probable that there really *is* a gap, even though it might not be as big as suggested by all these studies. But if there is no gap, _please_ explain the difference between Asians and blacks. And _please_ explain why no-one is getting furious about the gap between French and Germans, which is *the same* as between blacks and whites in the US.

After all this data, it's actually the other way around. *YOU* should be the one giving studies. Almost every study mentioned here supports the theory of IQ gap. Once again, it does *not* mean anything definitive, but it does make it seem likely. Or do you have any study showing otherwise?

Science does not try to be racist. Science does not try to be pleasant. Science is based on evidence. Science does not try to offend anyone, but still, some people are offended by science. There's no reason for that, because science is just trying to find the truth. It's just ... science.


----------



## Believe It! (Oct 20, 2007)

I don't agree with Watson on the point of race. He studied Africa, not black people's DNA. Westerners are smarter than Africans because we have more opportunities and because we raise our kids to learn and be smart. In Africa they have a poor quality of life, and so low intelligence begets low intelligence.

It is the same way in America. It is all about how a child is raised and how they grow up. A black kid born in the ghetto is likely to emulate those around him and be as stupid as they are. On the other hand, a white girl who is born into a rich family and is given everything she wants is likely to become a stupid spoiled brat who gets drunk and high at 4 in the morning and pukes on herself in a nightclub.

It has nothing to do with race. Rather it has everything to do with upbringing and the effort that people put into learning. Believe it!


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 20, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> It is the same way in America. It is all about how a child is raised and how they grow up. A black kid born in the ghetto is likely to emulate those around him and be as stupid as they are. On the other hand, a white girl who is born into a rich family and is given everything she wants is likely to become a stupid spoiled brat who gets drunk and high at 4 in the morning and pukes on herself in a nightclub.


Then why do the studies mentioned here indicate that putting a black kid in the rich family doesn't help him enough to explain the gap?

You also made one good point I didn't emphasize enough earlier. *He was talking about Africa.* And *all* studies comparing Africa and Europe show a clear gap. Meaning people who live in Africa are less intelligent, at least in the way that can be measured by IQ tests, be it due to genes, nutrition or education. Is there anyone willing to disagree with those studies? But still people are all like "Nooo! It can't be! Let's lynch the guy!"

Mostly because of Diamed, however, the discussion here took a more general turn and people started talking about the genetics of whites and blacks.

Don't just believe it, *Look it up yourself!*


----------



## Simulacrum (Oct 20, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> I saw his picture in the independant. He's white.
> 
> Anyway, anyone can improve upon IQ tests with education. All this proves is that Africans have a shittier education system than the west, but then we've always known that.
> 
> Another case of correlation being mistaken for causation; black people in poor countries with bad education are less intelligent than white people in rich countries with good education, therefore it's all down to genetics, right? And not at all down to other major environmental factors like... _education_...?


 QFT =\ 

It's no secret that IQ tests have degrees of cultural bias (the only way to escape this problem is to have the test focus exclusively on mathematics, biology, astrology and geology, and even then some parts would be based on theoretical sciences that lends itself to cultural bias while it would leave out epic amounts of academic material like history, art, and literature). The only way for IQ tests to be useful in comparing levels of whole academic intelligence between two or more groups would be if each test was suited to each given geographical region's test subjects, while each test was also equal in all ways to all the other tests. And even if this impossible scenario could be achieved the results still wouldn't be proof of a _genetic_ disparity. 

The reason this guy was dogged for his idea, and why the scientific community and his peers turned on him, and why he recanted his statement, was because the premises is just too silly.


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 20, 2007)

Simulacrum said:


> It's no secret that IQ tests have degrees of cultural bias (the only way to escape this problem is to have the test focus exclusively on mathematics, biology, astrology and geology, and even then some parts would be based on theoretical sciences that lends itself to cultural bias while it would leave out epic amounts of academic material like history, art, and literature). The only way for IQ tests to be useful in comparing levels of whole academic intelligence between two or more groups would be if each test was suited to each given geographical region's test subjects, while each test was also equal in all ways to all the other tests. And even if this impossible scenario could be achieved the results still wouldn't be proof of a _genetic_ disparity.


IQ test focusing on astrology?!?!
I know you meant astronomy, but even still astronomy has *nothing* to do with IQ tests.

Do you have any idea what real IQ tests are like? Check the IQ test I linked in my long post.

Of course you can study for tests that ask trivia about geology, the question is: how much can you learn for a modern IQ test? And is that enough to explain the gap?


----------



## Keile (Oct 20, 2007)

*Err..*



Kuukunen said:


> Then why do the studies mentioned here indicate that putting a black kid in the rich family doesn't help him enough to explain the gap?
> 
> You also made one good point I didn't emphasize enough earlier. *He was talking about Africa.* And *all* studies comparing Africa and Europe show a clear gap. Meaning people who live in Africa are less intelligent, at least in the way that can be measured by IQ tests, be it due to genes, nutrition or education. Is there anyone willing to disagree with those studies? But still people are all like "Nooo! It can't be! Let's lynch the guy!"
> 
> ...



Give us REPUTABLE websites, none of Diamed's nonsense. Wikipedia would suffice. No website with capital W's for White and lowercase B's for Blacks. Lmao. I know, I know, it sounds stupid but its TRUE.  

I don't know much about the studies comparing Africa and Europe. But, Europe is a developed continent and its not at all surprisingly that it has higher IQ test scores. I mean, if the vast majority of Africans don't even have the money to attend school on a daily basis, how can you decide to immediately give them an IQ test? When one is trying to survive, who has time for school?

The only country within Africa that has adequate education is South Africa, and the general IQ of one South Africa university student doesn't represent the whole of Africa (assuming that Africa was as developed as its European counterpart).

---

As for our eminent doctor...

It doesn't matter what the subject of his opinion was (Africa or otherwise, he doesn't KNOW anything at this point about either of the subjects). What does matter is that he has no scientific basis on which to* judge* them (The mere fact that he admitted to that signifies his willingness to ).Which, then leads us to the undeniable fact that he didn't use science to give us an accurate description of intelligence, but instead relied on stigma. 

Again, HE hasn't done adequate research into the subject and THUS, it cannot be said that *Africans/Asians/Native Americans etc are inherently less intelligent than Europeans*. That is what people fail to see. Your opinion, as important as it is, doesn't mean much when you cannot prove it matters.


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 21, 2007)

Keile said:


> Give us REPUTABLE websites, none of Diamed's nonsense. Wikipedia would suffice. No website with capital W's for White and lowercase B's for Blacks. Lmao. I know, I know, it sounds stupid but its TRUE.


Actually, I've linked to Wikipedia already seven times, but I guess you just ignored them. Wikipedia doesn't have too much information about the actual genetic gap. I would guess mostly because it would be a bit too controversial for Wikipedia since there hasn't been enough studies done in the field to call it final.



Keile said:


> I don't know much about the studies comparing Africa and Europe. But, Europe is a developed continent and its not at all surprisingly that it has higher IQ test scores. I mean, if the vast majority of Africans don't even have the money to attend school on a daily basis, how can you decide to immediately give them an IQ test? When one is trying to survive, who has time for school?


The studies that mention 15 point gap have been studies about black people in North America. The gap between Europeans and subsaharan Africans is 33 points. At least according to 

Don't get your hopes up yet though. It very conceivable that the gap between North American blacks and subsaharan Africans only mean that the smart ones left for North America. Which, of course, as I've been saying for the whole time, might not explain the whole thing and at least part of it might be due to education. 



Keile said:


> Again, HE hasn't done adequate research into the subject and THUS, it cannot be said that *Africans/Asians/Native Americans etc are inherently less intelligent than Europeans*. That is what people fail to see. Your opinion, as important as it is, doesn't mean much when you cannot prove it matters.



Actually, I read the offensive article again, and at *no* point does it say he claims Africans are *inherently* less intelligent. He just said they're less intelligent. He probable meant genetics too, since his commentary article on the whole thing is titled "To question genetic intelligence is not racism". (In which he is absolutely, unquestionably right.) (Also do notice the messed up title of this thread.)

Now speaking about the gap in the non-genetical, actual intelligence... Once again! Wikipedia to the rescue!


And if the IQ tests are culturally biased towards western people, why the hell do East Asians get better score?

So why am I so eager in this thing? Because I find the attitude of most people here offending. Firstly, it's offending towards scientists, who get shit thrown at them simply for making theories.

Getting angry at news like this is also offending towards people of different races. I mean, could someone tell me *why* people won't get angry at the German - French gap?! *Races are not such a big deal.* It's like living in a different country. (France or Germany for example.) In my oppinion it's very arrogant to think we should treat them specially and every time anyone says *anything* bad about them, immediately he's got everyone throwing rocks at him. When people are doing stuff like this, it makes me feel they think black people are inferior and need our protection. By "we" I mean white people since from what I've seen, this is mostly white people getting angry at white people because it's PC. The only person here who has been reasonable enough to clearly state he's not shocked by this has been African American.

There's yet a third group. Stupid people. They exist, you know? If you claim that saying "Black people are inherently less intelligent than white people" means "Black people are genetically inferior," you're just being offensive idiot. Do you mean stupid people are "genetically inferior"?! Get this, *stupid people have genes that make them less intelligent!* Does this mean they're worth less as human beings? What the hell are you people talking about?!

I'll say this once again because I don't trust people would read my posts too carefully: _Intelligence does *NOT* define your value as a human being. It's simply one trait among others, like height, shape of the eye or size of the brain. Parts of it might be defined by non-genetic factors the same way as height is also defined by nutrition._


----------



## AbnormallyNormal (Oct 21, 2007)

i think the problem is that we view "intelligence" subjectively.... if you could come up with a completely impartial and objective definition of "intelligence" then while it could theoretically be measurable (although probably very difficult to do, and many theories show that one's "IQ" can change throughout life given environmental stimuli), at the same time it would cease to have political importance since you would strip out the aspects to "intelligence" that people find so appealing in order to create an objective idea of it


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Oct 21, 2007)

Kuukunen said:


> Actually, I've linked to Wikipedia already seven times, but I guess you just ignored them. Wikipedia doesn't have too much information about the actual genetic gap. I would guess mostly because it would be a bit too controversial for Wikipedia since there hasn't been enough studies done in the field to call it final.
> 
> 
> The studies that mention 15 point gap have been studies about black people in North America. The gap between Europeans and subsaharan Africans is 33 points. At least according to
> ...



I'm black. You must have thought I was white. Your mistake. To be less intelligent is to be inferior and I will prove that study wrong by increasing my intelligence beyond what that study says I can.

No one tells me what my limits are. I take this personally


----------



## Thanos (Oct 21, 2007)

I remember reading some interesting things related to lifestyle choices and intelligence. One poster in here brought up a good point about nutrition. It may sound corny, but what you eat, when you sleep and exercise habits play quite a role in this.  A fat guy who eats shitty food, doesn't exercise and has an irregular sleep schedule generally wouldn't be able to think as well as he would if he wasn't fat or if he was getting proper food in his body.

Im not going to believe that intelligence is purely a hereditary trait, since there are so many factors that affect your overall mental well being.

The IQ test posted above was basically spatial reasoning and pattern recognition (No math or language?). Lets hypothesize that if you take that test twice it generates different questions. Now right now as I post this I havent gotten more than 3 hours sleep in days due to large amounts of work. If i take that test now, and take it again after getting 9 hours sleep, I am 100% positive that my score will be higher the second time around.


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 21, 2007)

Giovanni Rild said:


> I'm black. You must have thought I was white. Your mistake.


I didn't assume, I only thought of it as the more probable option. Afaik, majority of people here are white.



Giovanni Rild said:


> To be less intelligent is to be inferior


So you're saying stupid people, white or black, are inferior? Are you sure you're not the one with prejudice?


Giovanni Rild said:


> and I will prove that study wrong by increasing my intelligence beyond what that study says I can.
> No one tells me what my limits are. I take this personally


As I tried to explain earlier, (which you probably didn't read) the average doesn't in any way set limits. And in particular, it does not set any limits for you. You can't prove anything by getting a 300 point IQ. It just means you're in the other end of the bell curve. If you want to prove something, you'd have to teach every African American enough to raise their IQ score by 15 points.

Besides, even with the "mostly non-hereditary" intelligence theories, it would probably be too late for you to raise your intelligence by any reasonable amount. If you want to cheat the statistics, you can always practise IQ tests of a certain kind, but that won't change your intelligence in any way.

And I still can't get over the white-black vs. comparing countries. If a study said Finnish people are on average less intelligent than Dutch people, I wouldn't be offended. No wait, there HAS been  saying that.



Thanos said:


> I remember reading some interesting things related to lifestyle choices and intelligence. One poster in here brought up a good point about nutrition. It may sound corny, but what you eat, when you sleep and exercise habits play quite a role in this.  A fat guy who eats shitty food, doesn't exercise and has an irregular sleep schedule generally wouldn't be able to think as well as he would if he wasn't fat or if he was getting proper food in his body.


Well, you can read more for example from here: 
But I think that deals more with the long-term effects, not with the effects to the current situation. (Such as level of tiredness.)
However, I think saying a fat guy is stupider without giving any evidence to support that assumption is only repeating stereotypes you have about others and is exactly the same as saying "black people are less intelligent".




Thanos said:


> Im not going to believe that intelligence is purely a hereditary trait, since there are so many factors that affect your overall mental well being.


Mental well being doesn't necessarily have anything to do with intelligence, so you can't base your assumptions on that. However most scientists do agree with you that intelligence isn't purely hereditary. It's a topic that's been under massive discussion but people still can't figure out where the line goes. There has been respectful scientists supporting all the way from 0% to 100% genetic intelligence. I think it's probably somewhere in between. But discussing if that's the thing explaining the 15 point gap is another thing altogether.



Thanos said:


> The IQ test posted above was basically spatial reasoning and pattern recognition (No math or language?).


Well, duh? The whole point is to try to catch the "actual intelligence" or at least a certain subset of it, afaik, it has been widely accepted that there are many types of intelligences, but they all correlate with each others. Math and language are something you learn. Of course one can argue you learn to do stuff like in that test by normal education, but I think it's a lot harder to learn to do test like that than it is to do a normal math test. And I think it should be a lot less culturally biased too. (I'm sorry, but I have to pull these out of my ass, so feel free to correct me if you have a reference.)


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 21, 2007)

sel the mute said:


> Link removed
> 
> Dear Lord
> 
> This guy hasn't met Trevor McDonald obviously



We knew that the Nobel Prize was a joke when Gore won...


----------



## Casyle (Oct 21, 2007)

I think I'd rather perform felatio on Syazel than get into this.


----------



## Simulacrum (Oct 21, 2007)

Kuukunen said:


> IQ test focusing on astrology?!?!
> I know you meant astronomy, but even still astronomy has *nothing* to do with IQ tests.


 For the purposes of an IQ test, astronomy is just as valid a test matter as geology. 



> Do you have any idea what real IQ tests are like? Check the IQ test I linked in my long post.


 I did check the IQ test you linked, and it focuses exclusively on geometry. It seems obvious (at least to me) that someone who spends their life concerned with geometric equations like a canvas painter is going to perform better at that specific kind of test than, say, a history major, and that they'll both do better than a poorly educated or uneducated person. For a poorly educated person to even come close to an educated person on any kind of test it would have to mean that the poorly educated person is of exceptional quality in a given school of intelligence. Again, my point here is that such tests can't be used as proof of genetically-inclined general intelligence limit of different groups when non-genetic factors play such a heavy role. 



> Of course you can study for tests that ask trivia about geology, the question is: how much can you learn for a modern IQ test? And is that enough to explain the gap?


 Yes. The fifteen point difference between Europeans and Africans is actually very small considering the wide gap in social and economic situations between them. I'd suggest that you read Amaretti's post again, but you're already so deep into your own preconceived opinion (since you've already stated that you put a high value on IQ tests) that discussing this with you isn't going to amount to anything. =\


----------



## Verdius (Oct 21, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Silly me, I've spent all of this time studying and conditioning my mind when I should have been out back throwing a football or dribbling a basketball. Best to know your stock in life, right?
> 
> People obviously don't understand the concept of an average.
> 
> ...



I'd also like to point out all of the access intelligence in the world doesn't amount to shit if you don't try to do anything with it. 

Isn't that right rednecks?


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Oct 21, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Silly me, I've spent all of this time studying and conditioning my mind when I should have been out back throwing a football or dribbling a basketball. Best to know your stock in life, right?



Not really.
You shouldn't be throwing a football. You should be catching it.




Just kidding.


----------



## Ichiban-nin (Oct 21, 2007)

Hmm, he did later apogolise about those comments not intending to draw such responses. It seems he only wanted to find out if there were any differences between groups of people regarding intelligence and that's exactly what a scientist would do: find out stuff. I guess in the face of frontier science it can usually breach peoples beliefs about the world.

Personally I don't care as even if science were to find supporting evidence for racial intelligence differences that's only half the pie as it's just the nature side, you can  make it up in the nurture side with hard work, take Rock Lee for instance.


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 22, 2007)

Ichiban-nin said:


> Hmm, he did later apogolise about those comments not intending to draw such responses. It seems he only wanted to find out if there were any differences between groups of people regarding intelligence and that's exactly what a scientist would do: find out stuff. I guess in the face of frontier science it can usually breach peoples beliefs about the world.
> 
> Personally I don't care as even if science were to find supporting evidence for racial intelligence differences that's only half the pie as it's just the nature side, you can  make it up in the nurture side with hard work, take Rock Lee for instance.


Yay for reasonable people.


Simulacrum said:


> For the purposes of an IQ test, astronomy is just as valid a test matter as geology.


Exactly! Both have validity close to none.
IQ tests are *not* trivia tests that test your knowledge about one certain subject. On the other hand, IQ test scores correlate with school success, so it is possible that for astronomy students, the test success in astronomy correlates with their points in IQ test. But when you compare an astronomy student to someone else? Nah.

IQ tests also correlate with years spent studying, so it is more likely to hit a guy who has studied astronomy, but it also astronomy test correlates to intelligence through other things. Being a second hand correlation, it's not too accurate.


Simulacrum said:


> I did check the IQ test you linked, and it focuses exclusively on geometry. It seems obvious (at least to me) that someone who spends their life concerned with geometric equations like a canvas painter is going to perform better at that specific kind of test than, say, a history major, and that they'll both do better than a poorly educated or uneducated person. For a poorly educated person to even come close to an educated person on any kind of test it would have to mean that the poorly educated person is of exceptional quality in a given school of intelligence. Again, my point here is that such tests can't be used as proof of genetically-inclined general intelligence limit of different groups when non-genetic factors play such a heavy role.


Geometry?!
Have you ever studied geometry?!
You know, angles and stuff? The part of mathematics where you calculate sizes of areas and stuff? That test has nothing to do with geometry. I hope by geometry you were meaning something else.

Here's a quote from the website of Mensa Finland: (Translated)
"The test used by Mensa Finland is a pattern reasoning test, so success in the test is not dependant on culture. The idea of the test is that testee's education, profession or other enviromental factors would not substantially affect the outcome." ... "The test used by Mensa Finland measures "

I don't know about you, but I'll rather trust those guys than your facts you pull out of nowhere without any references or a shred of evidence...

Of course, I'm afraid tests like that might not be the ones used when bringing out the gap.



Simulacrum said:


> Yes. The fifteen point difference between Europeans and Africans is actually very small considering the wide gap in social and economic situations between them. I'd suggest that you read Amaretti's post again, but you're already so deep into your own preconceived opinion (since you've already stated that you put a high value on IQ tests) that discussing this with you isn't going to amount to anything. =\


Well, I don't know if you refuse to read or something, but the 15 point gap was between blacks and whites in North America.

Also, what is my "preconceived opinion"? At no point have I said "black people are definitely less intelligent". My whole point here is that it is *possible.* (Even though the real gap, if it exists, is probably a lot less than 15.) It's also possible black people are smarter than white people.

Amaretti's preconceived opinion is that white people and black people *MUST* definitely be equally intelligent. rences, he only said something like "Of course there's a gap in IQ tests scores, it just means there's a gap in education." That's what I call a preconceived opinion, he started his reasoning from the unproven assumption "Every race is equally intelligent." While this is pretty good assumption when talking about stuff like equality and racism, scientifically there's lots of reasons to think otherwise.

And about putting high value on IQ tests...
Well, I explained this earlier, but I guess you either chose to not read it or just to forget it. I put rather high value on IQ tests because they correlate *very* strongly with other variables. Check this page:


As I said before, it doesn't really matter if IQ measures "intelligence" or not, as long as it correlates with other things. And from the experience, "intelligent" people really DO seem to get high IQ scores. Actually, most of the time here, by "intelligence", I have meant the g-factor.

And related to The Bell Curve, the book raised loads of controversies, so American Psychological Association created a task force for studying the claims there. In their oppinion, parts of it has been over emphasized, but they also agreed with lots of things mentioned in the book. The final report was linked in Wikipedia: Death Penalty Information Center

Even though it's a bit long, (40 pages) It's also an excellent introduction to the whole subject. I read through it and it has loads of stuff that I've been talking about:
-IQ tests correlate well with things like later school performance and years of education.
-According twin studies, the hereditary of intelligence seemed to explain 75% of the variance. (While other things, such as environment and testing errors explained the other 25%.) This however was with a rather low variance in the status of the homes.
-The "head start" programs produced a significant increase in early age, but the effect didn't last.
-The IQ test success as adult is actually hugely more hereditary than IQ success as a child. The cause is pretty much unknown.
-The gap between North American blacks and whites is there, it's 15, hasn't decreased in a long while and the test construction is not biased nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status.
-Even though there is pretty much no _direct_ evidence supporting the hypothesis that black people were less intelligent, there is no really any widely accepted theory explaining the gap, meaning the genetic hypothesis is a possibility. (And as they say, it has not been tested enough to say anything conclusive.)


----------



## Diamed (Oct 22, 2007)

kuukunnen--  stupid people can't be expected to support themselves in the information age, it's unfair.  If you want them to support themselves, give them back 100 square miles per person and stock the land with fish and game.  Otherwise, if you want to use that land for a better purpose, you have to recompense the guy.  It's the law of due compensation.

We've made it impossible to subsistence farm or hunt and gather, what stupid people can do for a living, but then turn around and say they should make a living? how?  By studying up on robotics?  By publishing a new thesis on shakespeare?  be reasonable.  Every time we make a robot that dispossesses skads of workers.  What becomes of them?  Even if they find a new job eventually the robots will get that too.  Anything that doesn't require intelligence a robot can do faster and better and more than a human.  I guess they could all work as prostitutes, but apparently by 2050 robots will do that too, there was an article on that. >>.  Eventually huge chunks of our society will be destroyed by the impossible demands on intelligence, and there will only be a few 'employed' people who are beyond brilliant.  What you're seeing are just the first casualties, probably within our lifetime, there will be either a great depression sized unemployable group of people, or a new perspective on what people deserve, not what they make, but what they need.  Those are the only two futures.


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> kuukunnen--  stupid people can't be expected to support themselves in the information age, it's unfair.  If you want them to support themselves, give them back 100 square miles per person and stock the land with fish and game.  Otherwise, if you want to use that land for a better purpose, you have to recompense the guy.  It's the law of due compensation.
> 
> We've made it impossible to subsistence farm or hunt and gather, what stupid people can do for a living, but then turn around and say they should make a living? how?  By studying up on robotics?  By publishing a new thesis on shakespeare?  be reasonable.  Every time we make a robot that dispossesses skads of workers.  What becomes of them?  Even if they find a new job eventually the robots will get that too.  Anything that doesn't require intelligence a robot can do faster and better and more than a human.  I guess they could all work as prostitutes, but apparently by 2050 robots will do that too, there was an article on that. >>.  Eventually huge chunks of our society will be destroyed by the impossible demands on intelligence, and there will only be a few 'employed' people who are beyond brilliant.  What you're seeing are just the first casualties, probably within our lifetime, there will be either a great depression sized unemployable group of people, or a new perspective on what people deserve, not what they make, but what they need.  Those are the only two futures.


Overall, this post is so detached from reality, it's unbelievable. But I'll play along.

You're talking about "stupid people". For the sake of making your argument a bit more believable, I'm going to assume you mean "very, very stupid people".

First of all, the jobs robots and computers do better are not necessarily related to intelligence required. Robots can do math already a lot better than humans, even though it math requires intelligence. Of course the the research on mathematics still has to be done by humans, but not too long ago if they wanted to have something big done, they had to have room full of intelligent people doing calculations for days.

On the other hand there are stuff that computers can't really do, even though any human can do them easily. Such as pattern recognisition. Show a picture of a house to a computer and ask "What is this?", any retard can tell what it is, but computers are still _long_ way from that. And what's even more important, computers are a long, long way from actually understanding speech.

One would also rather have a real human to talk to when dealing with stuff, such as buying groceries or whatever. It doesn't take much intelligence to work as a cashier. Or a prostitute. The fact there was an article saying "in 2050 we will have no human prostitutes" doesn't mean shit.

The only people who can't take care of themselves are the total retards, (in the medical sense) who couldn't have dealt with life before either. It is possible that there exists people who can't support themselves today but could've done so two hundred years ago, but according to the Flynn effect, people two hundred years ago had average IQ of 40 by today's standard.

Farming isn't easy either. If you take a total retard who can't do any real work and give him a farm, he's not going to stay alive.

You're talking about that "robots doing all the easy stuff" scenario as if it would be a problem next week. Well, it's not. Robots can't even walk properly yet. And even if 50 years to the future, they do make a janitor-bot that does what a human janitor does, try to guess how expensive it would be as compared to hiring someone? Ok, maybe not everything what a human janitor does, but even if limited to just basic cleaning.

Good thing you didn't mention black people in your post, because this whole subject has nothing to do with them. The gap of 15 is only one SD, it means the groups are so interleaved you can't basically make any assumptions from it.

All in all, claiming unfounded stuff like that based only on assumptions and stereotypes is rather derogatory and gives the feeling you're saying stupid people are somehow less valuable as human beings. (By the way, my mother happens to work as a social worker with disabled people, including mentally retarded.)


----------



## Amaretti (Oct 22, 2007)

> Amaretti's preconceived opinion is that white people and black people MUST definitely be equally intelligent. rences, he only said something like "Of course there's a gap in IQ tests scores, it just means there's a gap in education." That's what I call a preconceived opinion, he started his reasoning from the unproven assumption "Every race is equally intelligent." While this is pretty good assumption when talking about stuff like equality and racism, scientifically there's lots of reasons to think otherwise.



He is a she, actually.

And how ironic that you talk about my assumption and presumptions when you're strawmanning everything I said.

When did I say every race is equally intelligent? The only thing you should have gotten from my post is that we have NO effective and definite way of measuring  intelligence in a fair and equal way. Because of the different standards of education in Africa and America, it is fucking obvious that the results are going to vary. Does this mean that blacks are dumber than whites? No. Does it mean blacks and whites are equally intelligent? No.

You can't say for sure so stop with the unfounded assumptions on such pathetically unreliable data. Least of all, don't misquote me and make up 'preconceived opinions' for me.


----------



## uncanny_sama (Oct 22, 2007)

this shit again 

it never ends


----------



## Juubi (Oct 22, 2007)

Uncanny said:


> this shit again
> 
> it never ends



I know how you feel, lol. It seems that every few years or so, someone's trying to "prove" the inferiority of black people--as if they don't catch enough hell already everywhere they live.


----------



## Hitomi_No_Ryu (Oct 22, 2007)

As a geneticist, this Noble Prize Winner's opinion on something that has to do with PSYCHOLOGY should not given any scientific value.


----------



## RICKisBOSS (Oct 23, 2007)

What an idiot...hur hur I'm not saying he's black...


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 23, 2007)

Hitomi_No_Ryu said:


> As a geneticist, this Noble Prize Winner's opinion on something that has to do with PSYCHOLOGY should not given any scientific value.


That's simply wrong. The whole thing is greatly genetic, but even if it was purely psychological, you can't say: "That guy is not an expert on this field, therefore his claims have no value." It's a logical fallacy. Amusingly enough, it's called 


Amaretti said:


> He is a she, actually.


Yea, sorry about that. I was actually thinking about putting "he/she" just to conform with feminist consciousness raising, buuuut then I thought I'd just go use the old grammar of putting "he" in the case of unknown sex.


Amaretti said:


> When did I say every race is equally intelligent? The only thing you should have gotten from my post is that we have NO effective and definite way of measuring  intelligence in a fair and equal way. Because of the different standards of education in Africa and America, it is fucking obvious that the results are going to vary. Does this mean that blacks are dumber than whites? No. Does it mean blacks and whites are equally intelligent? No.


Yes, I have to apologize again, I read between the lines a bit too much. I took "all this proves" as an attempt to explain the whole thing, and from the 
general tone of the post I got "this whole thing is utter crap", without seeing attempt at questioning one's own beliefs. But other than that, I'm strawmanning _everything_ you say?

I know this wasn't fully part of the post, but on the matter of "blacks are dumber than whites"... You have to define intelligence first. It's not easy. But even you must agree that IQ tests at least correlate with all reasonable definitions of intelligence? (Otherwise lots of psychologists are going to cry.) And you too must agree with the definition of intelligence which can be raised with to better nutrition and education? (Ie, it's not purely genetic.) This pretty much means North American blacks *are* "dumber" and North American whites, even though it _might_ be all due to education and such.


Amaretti said:


> You can't say for sure so stop with the unfounded assumptions on such pathetically unreliable data.


If psychology used only "reliable data"... There would be no psychology. There is not very much data that, using your term, is not "pathetically unreliable". There's very few "laws" of psychology that all psychologists agree on. In the same way you can't say for sure education has anything to do with intelligence, there are people who suggest it's purely genetic. (I'd assume they mean after a certain small level of mental practise and without malnutritioning.)


Simulacrum said:


> Shape patterns are inherently geometric. If you disagree you'll have to come up with something more than outrage to support your point.


Sigh. This is just stupid...

ge·om·e·try
1.	the branch of mathematics that deals with the deduction of the properties, measurement, and relationships of points, lines, angles, and figures in space from their defining conditions by means of certain assumed properties of space. 
2.	any specific system of this that operates in accordance with a specific set of assumptions: Euclidean geometry. 
3.	the study of this branch of mathematics. 
4.	a book on this study, esp. a textbook. 
5.	the shape or form of a surface or solid. 
6.	a design or arrangement of objects in simple rectilinear or curvilinear form.

Yes, I do know of the fifth definition for the word, which is a lot rarer than the first one if context is not clearly defined and especially after all your talk about "mathematics, biology, astrology and geology", any reasonable person would assume "geometry" refers to the branch of mathematics. English isn't my first language, but I think it's grammatically incorrect to say the test focuses on geometry, since that definition refers to shape or form of one surface or solid. Not to mention there was stuff in the test used the shapes more as glyphs than actual shapes. (So you could say any test with words focuses on geometry since letters have shape.) Go talk to random people about test that "focuses exclusively on geometry", to which you should practise "geometric equations", (your words) and make some statistics on how many of them thought about the fifth definition.

All I'm saying that at least according to Mensa pattern reasoning is very good at being independent of one's education and profession.


Simulacrum said:


> "Facts out of nowhere" like shape patterns being geometric?


No, not like shape patterns being geometric, but like: not having referenced to any kind of study or any evidence of any kind and so far having nothing to offer but pure assumptions and... preconceived opinions.


Simulacrum said:


> If you're just going to backtrack then why should anybody bother reading your posts?


Backtrack? I'm only talking about possibilities here. There's more than one, you know? It's healthy to acknowledge that. If you want, I can only talk about the possibilities that make my arguments look good, but I'd feel stupid doing it and it might leave too much ammunition in your hands.


Simulacrum said:


> 15 points is a very low difference for the educational difference between the two groups. Since IQ can be raised through proper education this shouldn't even be a point of contention.


On the other hand 15 points *is* one standard deviation. Meaning if you check the tables for normal distribution, it means 84% of black IQ scores are lower than the average of white IQ scores.


Simulacrum said:


> Again, take note of how the guy who hypothesized a genetic causation of lower IQ among Africans compared to Europeans recanted his claim


Actually, could you link me to a page where he recants that claim. (Quote from the page would be pretty good too.) Did you even read the articles?

All I see him first saying that according to testing Africans are less intelligent than white people. Which is true. (See above.)  He does not say anything about education or genes at this point. After that, the newspaper added: "He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade." Both points hold true independently,  but putting them close to each others makes it seem horribly racist. (At least without evidence.) Either way, those quotes in the article were stupid things to say, but I still have no idea of the context.

After that, he apologizes saying: "I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said", giving even more reason to believe in quotation out of context. On the other hand it might've been been an old man throwing careless things from the top of his head. However, after the apology he says: "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science." Which is basically my whole point here.


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 23, 2007)

Simulacrum said:


> You said you put a lot of stock into IQ tests, and when I started bringing up the point that IQ tests cannot be used as proof of genetically-inclined intelligence differences you disagreed. I don't see the two points as being separate.


I don't quite get your point here, but are you saying all those twin studies showing that IQ test success *is* hereditary are simply false? Or do you mean that in this case those tests between Africans and Americans that have been already done don't mean much genetically? Becaus IQ tests _can_ be used for proving the genetics of intelligence, given the right testing environment.


Simulacrum said:


> This does not disagree with my position.


Nor does it try to, unless you're saying "IQ scores don't mean much". All I was saying there that IQ scores *do* mean a lot.


Simulacrum said:


> Since you've previously admitted that higher education causes higher intelligence, and since there's no proof of genetics causing lower intelligence (remember, the guy merely claimed that it might be possible to find such genes within the next decade) you're quickly walking yourself into a corner on this issue.


Again, if you didn't just rely on your _preconceived opinions_ and actually read something about this thing, you might've noticed that according to majority of scientists, intelligence *is* greatly hereditary. (You know, as in "caused by genetics".) Therefore genetics *can* cause lower intelligence. The fact we don't yet know which gene(s) causes it is hugely irrelevant.


Simulacrum said:


> But this means nothing in the case of genetic causation.


I didn't say it does. Again, I'm just saying high IQ score means that in addition to other things, you will do better in school. Proving IQ tests actually tell something about intelligence.


Simulacrum said:


> Do you have a link to these studies? This blurb of yours is like saying a college professor's children are more likely to have higher than average results for an IQ test which says nothing about genetic causation.


No, that's not what it's saying. It's simply saying that 75% of intelligence is decided by genes and rest by something else, at least in the studies that have been performed. In the context of these studies, it would mean: college professor's child who gets adopted as a baby to an average family will have better IQ score than average. But more importantly...
_Do I have a link to these studies!?!?!?!?_ What the hell are you smoking?
I might've questioned your ability to read what other people write before, but never as much as now. Let me quote the part of my post which that comment was for:


> And related to The Bell Curve, the book raised loads of controversies, so American Psychological Association created a task force for studying the claims there. In their oppinion, parts of it has been over emphasized, but they also agreed with lots of things mentioned in the book. The final report was linked in Wikipedia: HERE
> 
> Even though it's a bit long, (40 pages) It's also an excellent introduction to the whole subject. I read through it and it has loads of stuff that I've been talking about:
> -IQ tests correlate well with things like later school performance and years of education.
> -According twin studies, the hereditary of intelligence seemed to explain 75% of the variance. (While other things, such as environment and testing errors explained the other 25%.) This however was with a rather low variance in the status of the homes.





Simulacrum said:


> This is proof that environment has a tremendous impact.


Again, what the hell?!
It actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. I mean yes, their IQ scores went up as kids, but past adolescence, the program might as well not have exist and the people who were in the special program get the same scores as the people who were not.


Simulacrum said:


> If genetics was so important then the test subjects would have a more linear performance rate from childhood to adulthood.


According to who? Some studies? You? Because it's surely not according to common sense that "more linear performance rate" would actually prove anything related to that.


Simulacrum said:


> And on what side of the line do children's test results fall on: higher than their hereditary parents, or lower? And by what percent, and at what ages?


On both sides of course, otherwise it would be just stupid. I don't know about the age, but according to the paper the intelligence explains 35% to 45% of the variance "in the childhood", but 75% in the "late adolescence". Read the thing yourself if you want to know more.


Simulacrum said:


> If you think that socioeconomic variations have no impact on people then you're being stupid.


Actually I *do* think socio-economic status affects people. And to stay on topic, it also affects their intelligence. If you *read* my post again you might notice I didn't say it wouldn't. I just said it won't explain the gap.

Or to be more precise, _I'm_ not saying this. This was also from the report. You're fighting with  on this one. And you'll have to come up with pretty reliable source to be taken seriously.
Here's a straight quote from their official report:


> The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status.





Simulacrum said:


> So, there's no evidential cause for the IQ disparity other than socioeconomic differences, but for some reason that's not the cause? Okay, I think you're done.


I'm tempted to answer just "*READ AGAIN*"... I'm still not quite sure if you're just trying to troll me.
As I said before, according to  socio-economic differences are *not* the only cause. There has been evidence of all sorts of causes, but we don't yet know what really explains the gap. It might be genetic and claiming that it definitely can't be genetic is stupid.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 25, 2007)

Well I hope you guys are happy.  Even though he shamelessly apologized and betrayed his integrity, it wasn't enough.  Now the PC gestapo has made him retire from his lab he's worked at for 40 years, all because he dared to say the glaring, obvious truth that blacks are less intelligent, which we've seen across all space--blacks are the poor in FOUR different continents--and all time--sub-saharan africa though left alone for thousands of years where no one was an evil imperialist or slave snatcher was the most backwards culture on earth aside from australia, and though given civil rights or even affirmative action, they still represent half the criminals in this country with only 13% of the population.  No black has ever won a nobel prize, invented a new technology, or made a scientific discovery that ever reached a scientific almanac, nor have they ever won a chess or bridge tournament, there has never been a genius black who even wrote a decent book according to any ratings system.  Black religion never got beyond the stone age's belief in various spirits and other pagan deities while everyone else has accepted one God and written scripture about him.  And yet if anyone mentions this glaring, obvious statement, that the environment cannot explain a world wide, across all time inferiority with some stupid whiny emo excuse for every single black, whereas genetics can explain it all in one stroke and therefore any scientist who applied occham's razor like they're required to do in EVERY OTHER FIELD would immediately come to the genetic conclusion.  But you've managed to muzzle the public, muzzle science, and witch hunt anyone who tells the truth out of their beloved work, all with your lies.  But let me tell you this--Watson's little finger is worth more than all the politically correct assassins who drove him out, and nobody can change that.  He won the nobel prize.  All they ever won is a whine-shield where people are too scared to mention the giant elephant in the living room.  We've already discovered the smarter jews all have some genes that are typical to jews, that the dumber jews lack, they're easy to find because they commonly are the same genes that cause jewish-only genetic diseases.  It's only a matter of time, enjoy it while it lasts.


----------



## Haze is Dreamin' (Oct 26, 2007)

diamed  said:
			
		

> No black has ever won a nobel prize, invented a new technology, or made a scientific discovery that ever reached a scientific almanac, nor have they ever won a chess or bridge tournament



Have you ever done any of these things? Also, "bridge"? haha, what a stupid game. Who under 30 plays that (besides you)?  You name boring irrelevant things and act like what you consider are _achievements _are important to everybody. 

You are jewish, right? That is the only explanation.


----------



## Hothien (Oct 26, 2007)

> No black has ever won a nobel prize, invented a new technology, or made a scientific discovery that ever reached a scientific almanac, nor have they ever won a chess or bridge tournament, there has never been a genius black who even wrote a decent book according to any ratings system.



...You've gotta be kidding me.

An African American from Detroit, Dr. Ralph J. Bunche was the first black man to receive the distinguished prize for his work as a United Nations mediator; his efforts led to the 1949 Arab-Israeli armistice agreement.

Hmm. First lie refuted.

Small list of black inventors and inventions:

*Spoiler*: __ 



Andrew Beard - Automatic Car Coupling Device (1897)

Henry Blair
- Mechanical Seed Planter (1834)
- Mechanical Corn Harvester (1836)

C. B. Brooks - Street Sweeper (1896)

Mark Dean - Microcomputer system with bus control means for peripheral processing devices (1984)

Dr. Charles Drew - Established Blood Banks all over the world (1940)

W. Johnson - Egg Beater (1884)

Frederick Jones
- Refrigeration for transport trucks (1938)
- Refrigeration for railroad cars (1945)

J. L. Love - Pencil Sharpener (1897)

Elijah McCoy - Automatic Lubrication System for railroads and heavy machinery (1892)

Jan Matzeliger - Automatic Shoe Making Machine that revolutionized the making of shoes (1883)

Alexander Miles - Elevator (1888)

Garrett A. Morgan
- Gas Mask that saved many lives during WWI (1914)
- Automatic Traffic Signal (1923)

Norbett Rillieux - Sugar Refining System that revolutionized the making of sugar (1846)

W. H. Sammons - Hot Comb (1920)

Lewis Temple - Toggle Harpoon (1848)

Dr. Daniel Hale Williams - First Open Heart Surgery (1893)

Granville Woods
- Multiplex Telegraph system, allowing messages to be sent/received from moving trains (1887)
- Railway Air Brakes that provided the first safe method of stopping trains (1903)
- Steam-boiler/radiator (1884)
- Third Rail [subway] (1893)

J. T. White - Lemon Squeezer (1896)




Hmm.. OK, now for the next? Well, I don't feel like refuting that one at the moment, because I don't have any scientific journals in front of me - I strongly suspect that it's a lie as well.

Next one - I don't keep up with chess or bridge tournaments, but, I strongly suspect that it, too, is a lie.

Finally: amazon ... good ratings, eh? Or are you not looking for creative works?


----------



## Diamed (Oct 26, 2007)

I'm talking about credible 'top 100 lists.'  You're missing my point.  There are no blacks in the same league as einstein and newton, or shakespeare and goethe, or beethoven and mozart.  All of the people listed are lightweights.  If you had read what I said closely I said 'that reached an almanac.'  "Cry, the beloved country" is not a book that reaches any serious literature top 100 lists.  None of those inventions approach 'hawking radiation' or 'periodic table of elements' or 'first steam boat.' or things that would actually reach a top 100 list.

As for the nobel peace prize, sorry, that doesn't require intelligence and isn't a real nobel prize.  The nobel peace prize is a piece of shit that yasser arafat can get.  Have they won a nobel prize in a scientific field? no?  It appears it's two in literature and one in economics, and then peace peace peace.  If blacks are so peaceful why are they half the crime rate?  An obvious phony prize just to assuage the PC crowds.  Not a single nobel prize in a hard science.  Which goes to show how unimportant those inventions listed above were thought to be.

It appears the first black reached grandmaster at 1999, Maurice Ashley.  That makes him one of the top 470 players in the world.  That's impressive, but it's still not like they've ever won.  Bobby Fischer and Gary Kasparov have won before.  And fielding just one black in such a large field and only just recently, seems a little disproportionate, hmm.


----------



## Aldrick (Oct 26, 2007)

yo yo yo, cap in yo ass foo

me homies be trippin

mah turf is da shit fo sho man bix nood

But honestly though, that isn't to say that blacks will never become great scientists.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 26, 2007)

also, no black has won the highest honor in mathematics, the fields prize.


----------



## Aldrick (Oct 26, 2007)

glub glub glub

i ams a fishy

i ams also black and i have won the sugar cane fields prize


----------



## Adonis (Oct 26, 2007)

Here's my question, Diamed:

Have _you_ won any awards or composed any symphonies? No? But you're white. I just figured, you know, being of this master race you'd have accomplished such great things. Alas, you're still a nobody. A nobody who happens to be of the master race, granted, but a nobody nonetheless. 

Seems almost tragic to me that you're only validated by the accomplishments of your race, an uncontrollable trait decided by who your parents were, rather than through yourself. But if you based worth on such arbitrary factors as "individual merit" you'd have to admit to being a nonentity, I suppose. Unless you want to claim you've contributed to the accomplishments you tout...

And let me guess, you consider the blacks who _are_ smarter than you statistic anamolies? IT CAN'T BE!!! THEY'RE ^ (use bro)!!! HOW DID A ^ (use bro) PERFORM THE FIRST OPEN HEART SURGERIES!? HOW ARE THERE ^ (use bro) IN HARVARD!? AREN'T THEY TOO BUSY COMMITTING CRIMES!?


----------



## Diamed (Oct 26, 2007)

why do blacks feel so defensive if their race sucks if they only worry about individual accomplishments?  Why are they SO defensive they get people fired who dare to mention the truth?  Watson, who holds more nobel science prizes than the entire black race, gets fired for mentioning this fact, a person whose contribution to science is greater than the entire black race across all time?  It's infuriating.  If the opposing side was honest and just thought the science and facts didn't lead to this conclusion, why can't you speak civilly to your opponents and fight in the field of ideas?

Instead it's come down to assassinations of 79 year old scientists who have contributed to saving millions of lives, and ask in return only that he can speak his mind about what he feels the facts say.  Was it so much to ask to let him continue working at his lab that he's been at for 40 years?  You've ruined a man's peace of mind and happiness because you couldn't argue with him on the field of truth, that is atrocious.  It's evil, and it's an object lesson to everyone else in the scientific world.  "Don't say the truth if it interferes with state propoganda, or we're coming for you next."  This stifling of science will have long-term effects on both progress and freedom in the future.  Watson, meet galileo, we've returned to the dark ages.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 26, 2007)

Diamed said:


> why do blacks feel so defensive if their race sucks if they only worry about individual accomplishments?



Because I realize others aren't as reasonable in that regard and will judge me because "my race sucks." I'm not some doe-eyed idealist; even if I realize how pointless judging someone only by their race is, there will be others who don't realize this.It's as simple as that. 

Plus, it's annoying to go into a situation (i.e. school) and have people automatically possess a fairly negative view on my intelligence and attitude due to my race until I prove otherwise. Why is my academic excellence met with shock while some white kid's excellence is expected? Why am regarded as just another dumb black kid until I show how "well-spoken" I am. 

That's my problem. Other people's view of me is clouded by their preconceived notions of black people and I have to work actively just to be regarded in a positive manner as opposed to a white kid who is given the benefit of the doubt right off the bat. 



> Why are they SO defensive they get people fired who dare to mention the truth?



Here, you assume I agree with the guy's termination. I haven't read enough about it to form a stance but if he was fired solely for the comment, I disagree.



> Watson, who holds more nobel science prizes than the entire black race, gets fired for mentioning this fact, a person whose contribution to science is greater than the entire black race across all time?



If we're basing societal worth on scientific acheivements, aren't you equally worthless for contributing nothing significant to this field? Luckily, though, you get to reap the prestige of whites superior to you simply by being of the same race. You rely on collective renown because you'd be nothing if judged individually. I find that quite sad. 

You: "I may not have accomplished anything in my life but *my people *are the best scientific and mathematical minds in history!" 
Me: "Yet, you've done nothing..."



> It's infuriating.  If the opposing side was honest and just thought the science and facts didn't lead to this conclusion, why can't you speak civilly to your opponents and fight in the field of ideas?



You're molding all of the opposition into a single cohesive group with a singular mindset. True, there are some angered at the mere mention of such a claim regardless of it being true or not (I'm not in this group) but there are others, I'm sure, who like me oppose the claim because it has no practical purpose but can care whether it's true or not. What do we do with this info? Speak to black people more slowly (even if they graduated from a prestigious university with honors)? Reserve all the remedial jobs (i.e. custodial work) for blacks (even those with high IQs)?

The problem is that you and other white supremacists (yes, I'm calling you one) don't understand the concept of a bell curve; even if the black "bell" is lower than the white "bell", there will be those on the far edge who exceed that average to a considerable degree. Should they be viewed as lesser in regards to intelligence for simply being on the wrong bell? Even if they're more intelligent than most on the white "bell"? 

The bottomline is that society should view people on individual merit because anything else would be inane prejudice. Employer: "You meet and exceed all of the requirements for this job and would be excellent for this postion, Billy Blackguy, but statistics show that you're likely to be a low performer. Sorry." Do you see how asinine and utterly flawed that'd be?



> Instead it's come down to assassinations of 79 year old scientists who have contributed to saving millions of lives, and ask in return only that he can speak his mind about what he feels the facts say.



You're lumping me into the group that agrees with his termination despite my not having an opinion one way or the other due to not having heard about the story of his termination until an hour ago. Good job with that. 

On a sidenote, I disagree with censorship even in regard to this issue so more likely than not I'll end up disagreeing with his termination unless there's some extenuating circumstance like he shot a nun in the face. 

Of course, I'm sure him stating his opinion would have gone a lot more smoothly had he had better evidence supporting it. That's the scientific way, no? And no, I don't mean the "Look around!" anecdotal evidence.



> Was it so much to ask to let him continue working at his lab that he's been at for 40 years?  You've ruined a man's peace of mind and happiness because you couldn't argue with him on the field of truth, that is atrocious.



There's no point continuing this accusation because I've never shown to agree with his termination. I'm anti-censorship and would never dream of firing a man solely for "speaking his mind.' That's authoritarianism. Experience has shown that you cant be stopped, however, once you start generalizing, Diamed...



> It's evil, and it's an object lesson to everyone else in the scientific world.  "Don't say the truth if it interferes with state propoganda, or we're coming for you next."  This stifling of science will have long-term effects on both progress and freedom in the future.  Watson, meet galileo, we've returned to the dark ages.



Your myopia in regard to society grows tiring. 

Are you really comparing this "discovery" which had little substantial basis from what I heard to Gallileo?

Face it, Diamed, you're the equivalent of a benchwarmer who rides on the coattails of his football team's success. You may be mediocre but your team is awesome thus making you awesome by association, right? Pathetic.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 26, 2007)

The reason it matters, which I've said like ten times, is until we admit the cause isn't racism, there will continue to be affirmative action, white guilt, foreign aid to impoverished nations (because we must be exploiting them somehow, it's impossible that they're naturally worse), censorship, political correctness, and a swarm of evils.  It sounds innocent: "Why not be polite and not mention it?"  But so long as we assume that everyone is equal, we'll keep instituting policies that enforce equality of results, instead of equality of opportunity.

For instance here's another bombshell.  The average IQ of the arab world is about as low as american blacks.  But we can't discuss that in how we deal with arabs and Islam?  I think it's going to be important to know that these people may not be reasonable, they may never be successful, and they may not be able to even run a democracy, because that requires an intelligent populace.  And yet we're in a war here!  If we can't discuss one of the most important facts on the ground about reality, in the middle of a war where our survival is at stake, we're bound to make lots of bad foreign policy decisions.  Just like currently affirmative action is a bad domestic policy, or foreign aid to Africa (a lost cause from the start because they're too stupid to make use of it.)

The applications of this knowledge are endless.  For instance right now we have hospital rules where we are required to let insane people go and trust they'll take their medicine, or retarded people go and trust they'll take their antibiotics when they get infected.  This has led to lots of drug-resistant strains of diseases that affect all of us, as they take a few pills then quit, or take some anti-pyschotics, then quit, and go kill someone again.  Admitting there are natural differences between people and people aren't equal, allows us to treat people differently.  This goes both ways too.  We can treat people nicer when we don't blame them for the results, but instead blame the cause.  Holding people individually responsible for what they were born with is ridiculous, it's like blaming sick people in the good old dark ages that God is punishing them for their sins.  Blaming the victim is always wrong and knowing reality helps us know not to do that.  Ignorance of disease led to prejudice against disease.  ignorance of intelligence leads to prejudice against stupid people.  See?  Only knowing leads to kindness.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 26, 2007)

This table says it all:

egypt- 83.
equatorial guinea-59 !!!
ethiopia-63.  (ever wondered why ethiopia's always starving and shit?)
Iran--84
Iraq--87
Nigeria--67


----------



## Keile (Oct 26, 2007)

Diamed said:


> why do blacks feel so defensive if their race sucks if they only worry about individual accomplishments?  Why are they SO defensive they get people fired who dare to mention the truth?  Watson, who holds more nobel science prizes than the entire black race, gets fired for mentioning this fact, a person whose contribution to science is greater than the entire black race across all time?  It's infuriating.  If the opposing side was honest and just thought the science and facts didn't lead to this conclusion, why can't you speak civilly to your opponents and fight in the field of ideas?
> 
> Instead it's come down to assassinations of 79 year old scientists who have contributed to saving millions of lives, and ask in return only that he can speak his mind about what he feels the facts say.  Was it so much to ask to let him continue working at his lab that he's been at for 40 years?  You've ruined a man's peace of mind and happiness because you couldn't argue with him on the field of truth, that is atrocious.  It's evil, and it's an object lesson to everyone else in the scientific world.  "Don't say the truth if it interferes with state propoganda, or we're coming for you next."  This stifling of science will have long-term effects on both progress and freedom in the future.  Watson, meet galileo, we've returned to the dark ages.



Excuse me?

One* Wikipedia* study suggests that Africans may be a slight more intellectually gifted than their lighter-skinned peers and another (done by the same group of scientists) suggests that both groups share the same amount of giftedness.

However, the inclusion of genius and prodigy hasn't been taken into account and shouldn't be taken into account. Einstein, Mozart, etc are all examples of what average intelligence isn't and their abilities, discoveries, etc (which may or may not have been typical of their time period) can, in no way or form, be used to belittle the achievements of other scientists (African-American, or otherwise). We are not measuring the aplitude of our beloved doctor, but the non-existent research in which he claims to have based his opinion on (which is NOTHING, as said by the infamous doctor himself) is evidence enough that he IS merely basing his opinion on stigma. He has, repeatedly, made opinionated statements on both race and sex and to take what he has said now as factual would be to take his other controversial opinionated statements as fact as well.

---
---
Diamed.
You have proved nothing more here than what the United Nations has already well-documented. It is inconcievable to think that the poorest region in the world, where the the population doesn't even have access to running water, can possess higher IQ's than its drastically different, and more developed European counterparts.

 Your ideals, from my point of view, are twisted. The only "truth" here is that a disgraced scientist has once again made a controversial statement about race based on nothing more than racial stigma. He has since retracted his comments and disproved his own points, in which you so feverishly intend to defend. 

Poverty is a global problem and its grasp is firmly placed on regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa. In a region where running water isn't even a staple, how can one hope to ever attend school? (*Ethiopians aren't starving because they are less intelligent. They are seemingly less intelligent because they are starving*). Your refusal to acknowledge that impoverished nations are exactly the type of areas which are exempt from IQ testing is infuriating. Your so quick to pounce on half-baked opinions based on racial superiority that you seemingly forget to recognize that the non-factual statements you are making now are reminiscient of statements disproved a hundred years ago.

---


----------



## Hothien (Oct 26, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I'm talking about credible 'top 100 lists.'  You're missing my point.  There are no blacks in the same league as einstein and newton, or shakespeare and goethe, or beethoven and mozart.  All of the people listed are lightweights.  If you had read what I said closely I said 'that reached an almanac.'  "Cry, the beloved country" is not a book that reaches any serious literature top 100 lists.  None of those inventions approach 'hawking radiation' or 'periodic table of elements' or 'first steam boat.' or things that would actually reach a top 100 list.



I dunno, first heart surgery is quite an achievement. Helping to invent the modern computer is quite an achievement.



> As for the nobel peace prize, sorry, that doesn't require intelligence and isn't a real nobel prize.  The nobel peace prize is a piece of shit that yasser arafat can get.  Have they won a nobel prize in a scientific field? no?  It appears it's two in literature and one in economics, and then peace peace peace.  If blacks are so peaceful why are they half the crime rate?  An obvious phony prize just to assuage the PC crowds.  Not a single nobel prize in a hard science.  Which goes to show how unimportant those inventions listed above were thought to be.



Negotiating peace between two warring countries doesn't require intelligence?  OK.



> It appears the first black reached grandmaster at 1999, Maurice Ashley.  That makes him one of the top 470 players in the world.  That's impressive, but it's still not like they've ever won.  Bobby Fischer and Gary Kasparov have won before.  And fielding just one black in such a large field and only just recently, seems a little disproportionate, hmm.



I don't follow chess.


Oh, and on your little comment about the geniuses (which obviously aren't average, and can't be used to judge the average man), _I_ put George Washington Carver on the same level as Nikola Tesla, Einstein, etc. May have been a different field, but... much more useful.


----------



## Keile (Oct 26, 2007)

*Sure..*



Diamed said:


> This table says it all:
> 
> egypt- 83.
> equatorial guinea-59 !!!
> ...



IQ points of developing countries have been considerably rising every year when compared to their developed counterparts. It is supportive of the belief that impoverished countries are able to develop when given foreign aid. 

It is again, not inconcievable that more developed countries have higher average IQ's. It is predicted and that very well may change with the turn of the century.

African-Americans have made pivotal contributions to human rights. The Nobel Peace Prize is an exceptional example of what can be achieved through non-violent reasoning and should be honored as something only a moderately intelligent person could achieve.


----------



## mislead (Oct 26, 2007)

Y'know Diamed, actually male whites originating from Europe and the US are absolutely dominant when we consider Nobel Prize winners, especially when we throw away the Literature and Peace cathegories you so dislike (more women and non-whites there). I haven't tried yet, but I'm also pretty certain that a great deal of them have spent most of their lives working in countries with an extremely well-developed scientific infrastructure and good funding systems. Shocking, isn' it?

Similarly, a woman has yet to receive the Fields Medal, and I believe, like, 3-4 Asians have managed it. 

So, would that support that Germans are naturally more intelligent and relevant than, say, Australians or the Spanish? Because that's what your methodology seems to suggest.



Diamed said:


> This table says it all:
> 
> egypt- 83.
> equatorial guinea-59 !!!
> ...



Iran and Egypt are pretty successful though, aren't they now? And Egypt used to house one of the prime ancient civilizations too. A mind-boggling achievement, considering their inherent stupidity, don't you think?  So, maybe, just maybe, political systems don't correspond to the average IQ of the populace. Though I have trouble believing someone with extensive knowledge of history would ever seriously subscribe to such a ridiculous view.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 26, 2007)

But why do we have the infrastructure, the universities, and everything else?  Why?  It's not like we're bombing everyone else and stopping them.  Why do we have all these advantages in the first place? Because we were smart enough to see the value in them earlier than anyone else and built all this stuff up.  Even today there's practically zero funding in the arab world for science or university education.  Why? They have all those petro-dollars.  Why aren't they using it to catch up with the West?  Look how quickly Japan and Germany rebuilt their infrastructure after WWII.  Isn't it remarkable?  Look how quickly Japan modernized after Captain Perry landed.  So any argument that complains about physical buildings or material wealth, has to explain how certain people can quickly rebuild/modernize, and others never build or modernize, even though they have centuries of chances.  "germans and japanese are high IQ people" would explain it pretty well though, pretty fast, hmm.

Asians are better at math, women are worse.  The fields medal follows that trend.  Germans are, I believe, smarter than spanish.  As for Australians it's probably even because aussies are just transplanted english who are just transplanted germans. . .but Australia's probably a little less than Germany. . .

actually, egypt wasn't a very successful civilization.  It had high agricultural surpluses due to them just happening to live in the nile river valley, but don't tell me you're going to credit them with that.  Then they took those high surpluses and built some rather simple large buildings/tombs/etc that preserve well because of the desert, and everyone goes ape over them.  Even though the parthenon and the collisseum at around the same time are much more architecturally demanding and pretty.

Egypt did not invent agriculture, domesticate any of the animals they used, conquer anyone outside their borders, explore the seas, set up colonies, or really do anything impressive.  people with far fewer resources, the greeks, phoenicians, romans, etc all quickly surpassed them.  Mesopotamia is the truly great civilization of the ancient past--but you'll see the IQ there isn't so hot either.  So the explanation is early civilization was picking the low-lying fruit of the world's inventions/discoveries.  It didn't take much intelligence to wow people back then.  But as civilization progresses and the human race evolves, it's harder and harder to compete, and the IQ of even normal people is genius compared to the past, and our geniuses are finding out stuff they could never hope to grasp, like the periodic table and the double helix formation of dna.


----------



## Fojos (Oct 26, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> There is no definite method of research for studying that, and since IQ tests are specifically designed to measure a form of intelligence based on a single culture's methodology of the definition of intelligence, you are also claiming that they are valid tools for testing people of all races on an equal ground. This is baseless.



IQ tests are valid tools to test logic intelligence of any human. Most sort of intelligence can be trained quite easily, logic thinking is the part that is extremely hard to train (No, stuff like sudoku does not help, you become better at sudoku, but that's it, you will most likely not have higher results on IQ tests because of it).


----------



## Lullebulle (Oct 26, 2007)

...I misread the title as "Furry at Nobel Prize" and freaked out


----------



## Diamed (Oct 26, 2007)

and keille, it's convenient to believe that IQ is based on education, but it isn't.  It's just that simple.  It's also convenient to believe it's based on 'cultural bias,' but it isn't.  Both of those statements are flat out false and if you take the most cursory, basic, tiny look at the issue, you'll find that all scientists agree that IQ is testing not knowledge, but intelligence, and that the test is not biased.  Nor can increasing your knowledge increase your intelligence, the two are completely unrelated---except that intelligent people can learn faster and remember more, as well as do everything else better in life: for instance get a higher degree, earn more money, live longer, do crime less, and divorce less.  

Intelligence is the cause of everything, while nothing increases intelligence.  You're mixing up cause and effect.  Certain things like malarial fevers and malnutrition (rife in africa) and inbreeding (which is rife in the middle east) decrease intelligence, but not a single environmental factor has been shown to increase it.  At best you get a pitiful 5 point rise in IQ.  No one can learn how to take IQ tests, try all you like, you will not increase your IQ score even if you take it 100 times, or study any subject you want.  Go ahead and try.  It doesn't work that way.  And anyone who continues to insist it works this way, is deliberately remaining ignorant so as to not draw the conclusions the truth would draw.  There is no way an honest person can continue to claim IQ tests are biased, or trivia based, with the amount of links that have been provided them showing the exact opposite.


----------



## mislead (Oct 26, 2007)

Diamed said:


> But why do we have the infrastructure, the universities, and everything else?  Why?  It's not like we're bombing everyone else and stopping them.  Why do we have all these advantages in the first place? Because we were smart enough to see the value in them earlier than anyone else and built all this stuff up.  Even today there's practically zero funding in the arab world for science or university education.  Why? They have all those petro-dollars.  Why aren't they using it to catch up with the West?  Look how quickly Japan and Germany rebuilt their infrastructure after WWII.  Isn't it remarkable?  Look how quickly Japan modernized after Captain Perry landed.  So any argument that complains about physical buildings or material wealth, has to explain how certain people can quickly rebuild/modernize, and others never build or modernize, even though they have centuries of chances.  "germans and japanese are high IQ people" would explain it pretty well though, pretty fast, hmm.



Actually, we have the educational infrastructure *right now*. Around 800 years ago, it's the Arabs who had it. And before them, the Romans (who didn't really excell at science though) and the Greeks, and before them, the Egyptians, and the Mesopotamian civilization. Oh, and not to forget to throw the Chinese and Indian civilizations into this timeline. So I guess they were intelligent back then, and had undergone a fast-forward evolution, degrading their capacity to it's current state, eh?

Similarly, the Japanese, whom you had just declared as intelligent as the Germans, needed contact with the West to throw away their anachronic feudal societal structure.

Finally, all of this doesn't even do anything to my argument. Regardless of how and why a nation obtains good scientific infrastructure, the powerful correlation between such an infrastructure and the amount of Nobel Prizes it's users attain remains factual. Furthermore, the Asians whom you apparently consider highly intelligent, don't seem to dominate the field, which is even more surprising if we consider that there's a lot more of them. Therefore, I propose that the Nobel Prize is a weak indicator of a race's intelligence, or even their IQ (I don't exactly consider these to be the same thing).



Diamed said:


> Asians are better at math, women are worse.  The fields medal follows that trend.  *Germans are, I believe, smarter than spanish*.  As for Australians it's probably even because aussies are just transplanted english who are just transplanted germans. . .but *Australia's probably a little less than Germany*. . .



It's nice that you believe these things; however, don't they contradict your theory on intelligence being genetically predetermined? I think you'd have a lot of trouble pointing out any relevant genetic difference between the Spanish and the Germans. Or, between the Germans and the English, for that matter. Actually, if you were correct, the average scores would have to be near-identical between nations of similar ethnic structure, which doesn't seem to be the case. 

For example, I'd be interested in how you'd explain the pretty significant difference between the reported scores of East and West Germany, which your own source provides.



Diamed said:


> actually, egypt wasn't a very successful civilization.  It had high agricultural surpluses due to them just happening to live in the nile river valley, but don't tell me you're going to credit them with that.  Then they took those high surpluses and built some rather simple large buildings/tombs/etc that preserve well because of the desert, and everyone goes ape over them.  Even though the parthenon and the collisseum at around the same time are much more architecturally demanding and pretty.



I'll ignore this part, since it's basically your opinion, and discussing the merits of ancient civilizations isn't what this thread is all about. I'd just like to remark that the Parthenon and the Coliseum weren't built at the same time as the Great Pyramid, if that's what you wanted to say. I do hope you didn't.



Diamed said:


> Egypt did not invent agriculture, domesticate any of the animals they used, conquer anyone outside their borders, explore the seas, set up colonies, or really do anything impressive.  people with far fewer resources, the greeks, phoenicians, romans, etc all quickly surpassed them.  Mesopotamia is the truly great civilization of the ancient past--but you'll see the IQ there isn't so hot either.  So the explanation is early civilization was picking the low-lying fruit of the world's inventions/discoveries.  It didn't take much intelligence to wow people back then.  *But as civilization progresses and the human race evolves, it's harder and harder to compete, and the IQ of even normal people is genius compared to the past,* and our geniuses are finding out stuff they could never hope to grasp, like the periodic table and the double helix formation of dna.



So, you're admitting that IQ has a cultural basis? Because it's implausible that the human race could physically evolve so much over the short period of, say, 6000 years. Incidentally, aren't all of these, as the Arabs and Persians whom you don't seem to value too much, also Caucasians, just like the majority of Europeans?



Diamed said:


> Intelligence is the cause of everything, while nothing increases intelligence.  You're mixing up cause and effect.  Certain things like malarial fevers and malnutrition (rife in africa) and inbreeding (which is rife in the middle east) decrease intelligence, but not a single environmental factor has been shown to increase it.  At best you get a pitiful 5 point rise in IQ.  No one can learn how to take IQ tests, try all you like, you will not increase your IQ score even if you take it 100 times, or study any subject you want.  Go ahead and try.  It doesn't work that way.  And anyone who continues to insist it works this way, is deliberately remaining ignorant so as to not draw the conclusions the truth would draw.  There is no way an honest person can continue to claim IQ tests are biased, or trivia based, with the amount of links that have been provided them showing the exact opposite.



I'm interested in this, somewhat. Why exactly can't one learn to excell at IQ testing, just like any other activity requiring mental computational power? Humans can learn to play Chess and Go, they can learn to do Calculus and solve problems in quantum physics, but they cannot learn to do a simple pattern-recognition test better by practicing? Why exactly would that be? What's so inherently different about these activities?

You can basically learn to solve simple, local Go problems simply by looking at the solutions, without any conscious thought involved; mainly because the brain works subconsciously for the most part. Why doesn't this apply to these tests?


----------



## Keile (Oct 26, 2007)

*Sure.*



Diamed said:


> and keille, it's convenient to believe that IQ is based on education, but it isn't.


*DISPROVEN.* See below.



Diamed said:


> but not a single environmental factor has been shown to increase it.


*DISPROVEN.* See below.



Diamed said:


> you will not increase your IQ score even if you take it 100 times, or study any subject you want.


*DISPROVEN.* See below.



Diamed said:


> Go ahead and try.  It doesn't work that way.


Why..yes..yes..it..does..=D..

---

Contuary to your entire paragraph.

Wikipedia seems to think otherwise. According to one of its sources, it is *extremely possible* for one to increase their IQ test by *training (environmental factors! HAZAA)* (through strategy or puzzle games such as Chess, and even through practicing music during childhood). If one can increase their IQ score through simple logical games, then what of basic education (which Africa so conspicuously lacks) and basic nutrition (which has a negative effect on IQ)?

How can one do a operation of a complex math problem if one is of average intelligence and was never taught how to do so? I mean, the average European student cannot do what he hasn't been taught, so what makes an average African any different?


For example, one would find it exceedingly difficult to answer a question about a lightbulb if one has never seen a lightbulb. That, in itself, is cultural bias simply because one has a imagine as to what a lightbulb would be like as opposed to already having a vivid image of what it actually is. It is not inconcievable to believe that one cannot becoming better at an IQ test. Infact,.. If one has an IQ of 77 (near retardation) at age 9 (keeping in mind that IQ is suppose to stay constant throughout one's lifetime) and experiences a dramatic change in lifestyle, then is tested a few years later, attaining a higher IQ. That change would be attributed to *environmental factors*. The mere fact that one CAN increase one's IQ through simple, logical games is evidence enough that an adequate education, family, social and ecomonic stability can determine how well one does on an IQ test.

The mere fact that one's IQ score can be higher or lower depending on environmental factors leads us to an inevitable conclusion we already knew was coming. The Flynn effect lists that the IQ of developing countries is climbing whilst the IQ of developed countries is stagnating. That is supportive of the thesis that when Africans have the same luxuries as their European counterparts, and when we stop viewing Africa as another impoverished continent, the IQ test levels will speak for themselves.





Diamed said:


> It's just that simple.  It's also convenient to believe it's based on 'cultural bias,' but it isn't.



It isn't convenient. It is truthful. There are obvious cultural differences between different peoples and those differences have to recognized. Once again, one will find it exceedingly hard to answer a question about a light bulb if one has never seen a lightbulb.


----------



## Thanos (Oct 26, 2007)

Diamed said:


> why do blacks feel so defensive if their *race* *sucks *



Haha, Diamed, you were barely concealing your racism before, but it is getting ridiculous at this point. You were set in your viewpoints even before mister Watson released this statement. You pick and choose arguments that suit your own needs while ignoring the others. Nothing is going to change your mind, because you are set on the fact that Africans are naturally inferior. 

Just a few questions. Have you published a paper? Or even worked in a lab? I'l tell you, its fucking hard to do (the paper publishing part). But even an 8th grade biology student knows that if you make claims without _relevant_ (that little number of the IQ of various countries was not relevant at all. Your claim is that intelligence is hereditary. You have not said why intelligence is not affected by environmental factors, which is what you need to do if you want to prove your point) data, your claim is basically full of shit to anyone but yourself.

In not one post have you proven that IQ is a hereditary trait. See, I happen to be of the belief that you do not have even a cursory knowledge of the genetics and biochemistry required to do as such. Since you were already a racist before you read this article, what does it matter if you do not understand the science behind your statements? This is one place where I will blame the internet. Arguing over the internet is the stupidest shit ever, since people can just use google, find whatever obscure study helps them prove their point, without actually understanding whats behind it, and thus unwilling to learn what is needed to question the study themselves. Infact, I am willing to bet that you are a history or liberal arts major somewhere, who likes to argue science but doesn't really know what the fuck they are talking about. Seriously, I have met alot of these people, they are annoying. 

See, I can make generalizations too. _But until you can prove that intelligence is not affected by environmental factors, such as access to proper food, running water, and vaccinations, that poverty is not correlated to IQ at all_, my generalizations stand.


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 27, 2007)

Hello again. Diamed's blatant racism is starting to annoy me too, so let me discuss possibilities from another point of view for a change. Let's start with a bunch of his most obvious lies.


Diamed said:


> No black has ever won a nobel prize, invented a new technology, or made a scientific discovery that ever reached a scientific almanac, nor have they ever won a chess or bridge tournament, there has never been a genius black who even wrote a decent book according to any ratings system.


You know, statements like these just make you look stupid, nothing else. These are the statements that are easy to check, yet you fail to do so. This leads me to believe your treat your other facts similarly. What you keep doing is throwing shitty ejaculations from your ass. I know you'd want people to leave these comments alone, but... nah, life's not so convenient.

First of all, this whole thing has little to do with the genetic hypothesis and none of those are impossible with a low IQ score.

You didn't say anything about _which_ Nobel prize you were talking about. And you didn't even bother to check this "no scientific discovery" theory of yours. Where did you get it anyways? The same place where all your proofs come from? A dark place between your buttocks? I'm not even going to bother with that weird chess/bridge claim about black people never apparently about winning _any_ tournament, but since you bothered to defend your claim about books, I'll talk about that a bit. You said "decent book according to any ratings system", so already jnec000's link trashes your laughable claim completely. Then you took back what you said and suddenly started talking about top 100 lists. I'm in no way an expert in this field, but even I could effortlessly find the name of 

(Ranked 20th)

(Ranked 13th, and amusingly enough, James Watson has a book ranked 7th.)
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the_complete_list.html
(No ranks.)

(Ranked 17th)

So all in all, you were throwing lies as facts here, which would lead me to believe you have done so in your other arguments too, they just might not be so blatantly trivial to disprove.


Diamed said:


> Black religion never got beyond the stone age's belief in various spirits and other pagan deities while everyone else has accepted one God and written scripture about him.


As unrelated as your comment was to this subject, I would actually like to use religion for explaining loads of stuff about inhibiting science. It happened to the western world in the middle ages, so it's very conceivable "black religion" might've caused similar effects. I'd also like to note there is no "black religion", I'm pretty sure there's plethora of religions in Africa, some of which are probably monotheistic.


Diamed said:


> genetics can explain it all in one stroke and therefore any scientist who applied occham's razor like they're required to do in EVERY OTHER FIELD would immediately come to the genetic conclusion.


I saw *Occam's* razor mentioned already earlier today, but it was used a lot better there. First of all, scientist are certainly not "required" to apply Occam's razor on any field, and it doesn't really prove anything either. The usual text is "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity," often paraphrased "All things being *equal*, the simplest solution *tends* to be the right one." So you are already assuming the educational explanation and the genetic explanation are equal? And which one is simpler? The genetic hypothesis would have to explain why intelligence changed between the groups in such a short time.

I personally happen to dislike Occam's razor. It tries to say that simplicity is a virtue in itself, misleading lots of people. It's from the 14th century and it shows.  "Prior to the 20th century, it was a commonly-held belief that nature itself was simple and that simpler theories about nature were thus more likely to be true"
Look at the modern physics for example. Can you say it's simple?


Diamed said:


> why do blacks feel so defensive if their race sucks


If everything before you said before could in theory be in the name of science, this is clear racism. Even if the genetic hypothesis is true, it only means they're a few points away from white people in the terms of western definition of intelligence. It sure as hell doesn't mean "their race sucks".


TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Plus, it's annoying to go into a situation (i.e. school) and have people automatically possess a fairly negative view on my intelligence and attitude due to my race until I prove otherwise.


Yes, this is the problem. As I've said many times before, *the whole thing is not such a big deal.* It's just statistics, ultimately with little value in every day life. Judging individual people based on it is a true subset of the definition of stupidity.
Fun fact of the day. The co-writer of that thing is actually the father of the prime minister of my country. (Finland) He raised lots of controversy here too and got scientists disagreeing with him. He also had police investigate if there was public incitement against a national group, but there was no charges.

Now I ask you the same thing I mentioned earlier. If genetics are the only factor in intelligence, why are black North American IQ scores so much higher than black African IQ scores? I saw mentioned that the people who are descendants of slaves actually have higher scores than other North American black people, which weakens the "smart people left Africa for America"-theory.


Diamed said:


> But why do we have the infrastructure, the universities, and everything else?  Why?  It's not like we're bombing everyone else and stopping them.  Why do we have all these advantages in the first place? Because we were smart enough to see the value in them earlier than anyone else and built all this stuff up.  Even today there's practically zero funding in the arab world for science or university education.  Why? They have all those petro-dollars.  Why aren't they using it to catch up with the West?


So there must be something genetically wrong with the arabs? Funny thing you chose to mention arabs, because they were scientifically far ahead of the West in the Middle Ages. They calculated the earth's diameter when western people were trying to figure out how to spread Christianity and suppress science as well as possible. Ok, they were 60 km wrong, but it took the West 500 years to get a result as accurate. Check this list:

Then there's this guy... Among loads of other stuff, this guy created the first mechanical clock, combination clock and _programmable humanoid robot_. He also invented stuff like valve, piston and crankshaft, "which is considered the most important mechanical invention in history after the wheel."


If environment has nothing to do with IQ scores, how are arabs with significantly lower IQ scores capable of all this?

The fact is, no one knows why sophisticated civilizations pop up at seemingly random places at random times.


Diamed said:


> and keille, it's convenient to believe that IQ is based on education, but it isn't. [...] if you take the most cursory, basic, tiny look at the issue, you'll find that all scientists agree that IQ is testing not knowledge, but intelligence
> [...]
> No one can learn how to take IQ tests, try all you like, you will not increase your IQ score even if you take it 100 times, or study any subject you want.


If *you* had taken taken the most cursory, basic, tiny look at the issue, you wouldn't come across as a total retard. "All scientists" most certainly *don't* agree on that.


Then the genetics vs. environment... Hee hee hee...
If my memory doesn't completely fail me, it was *YOU* who linked to the study that says *70%* of intelligence is hereditary, meaning the rest is environmental. The report I linked took an average of multiple twin studies and said 75%, but you have to remember in those twin studies the variance of the households people were adopted into wasn't too big, potentially having a huge decreasing effect even in that number. (Naturally children are only adopted into good families.) It is widely accepted fact that *both* environment and genetics affect intelligence.

Then... you speak of education, but that's not the only environmental factor. Things like family environment and occupation might as well be just as important.

Then... you say it's impossible to train for IQ tests, adding to your huge list of "stuff I didn't bother to check, but still thought I'd claim as obvious facts". How about this : "It is well known that it is possible to increase one's IQ score by training"


Diamed said:


> intelligent people can learn faster and remember more, as well as do everything else better in life: for instance get a higher degree, earn more money, live longer, do crime less, and divorce less.


And have less sex and if I remember correctly, the more money thing goes down too at one point. Too much knowledge hurts. Intelligent people have more knowledge. So are they really having a better life?


----------



## Kuukunen (Oct 27, 2007)

Went over 10000 characters again, but maybe it was a good thing, this way this post might get more attention, because now I move to the real bomb for Diamed. Here's a quote from the same report from the  I've been linking to over and over again, because at least from the response in Wikipedia, it seems to be rather widely accepted and careful study in the matter of intelligence.


> It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. Once piece of evidence comes from a study of the children of American soldiers stationed in Germany after the Second World War (Eyferth, 1961): there was no mean difference between the test scores of those children whose fathers were White and those whose fathers were Black. (For a discussion of possible confounds in this study, see Flynn, 1980.) Moreover, several studies have used blood-group methods to estimate the degree of African ancestry of American Blacks; there were no significant correlations between those estimates and IQ scores (Loehlin et al, 1973; Scarr et al, 1977).


As far as I'm concerned, Diamed has lost all his credibility he migth've gotten in his first posts and he'd have to come up with some pretty damn plausible evidence to regain it. While I agree with him in some things, especially the ones involving Watson, do remember that I'm talking about science and the existence of possibilities while he's talking about "doh, everyone knows black people are genetically dumber since their race sucks". His claims are so unfounded I'd simply dismiss him as a troll if he hadn't referenced to books he apparently owns and hadn't tried to actually defend his view. Now I only see him as a poor guy who's the victim of some dickwads' propaganda and is desperately trying to defend his preconceived opinions by improvising fake facts.


----------



## TH4N4T0S (Oct 27, 2007)

I never thought that Africans were less intelligent than Westerners. I can't believe it.


----------



## Dreikoo (Oct 27, 2007)

I read the first page...and i dunno it makes sense evolution in different places to require different parts of the brain to be evolved...maybe they gave up a bit more IQ to be able to jump and run better so they'd survive the lions...i don't see the big controversy lmao.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 27, 2007)

Wow kuukunnen, way to distort what I said.  I said bias and education do not account for IQ scores. I never said the environment doesn't affect IQ scores.  In fact if you read any of my previous posts, you'll see that I mention tons of stuff that affects IQ environmentally.  Disease, malnutrition, sensory deprivation, breast feeding, alcohol/drug intake while pregnant, etc.  Way to lie in order to score points.  Everyone knows you can negatively impact your IQ score with the environment.  However the studies have also shown that you  cannot positively impact IQ scores with the environment.  You and I have both posted the studies showing no matter how enriched the environment, the IQ will not go up.  I don't know what's worse, the actually ignorant people on this thread, or your hypocrisy and backtracking.

Also, when people generalize, they are saying 'more or less' or 'in most cases.'  All is of course a literary device meant to stress how overwhelming the situation is.  Defeating arguments by saying 'not necessarily' is so childish, how does that in any way affect the overwhelming mountain of disproportion between white and black achievements?  I get my lists of scientific and literary accomplishment from:  Great Books of the Western World, Human Accomplishment, The 100, Understanding Human History, and Kauffman's world history almanac.  These all lack any black authors.  If you quote some dubious website that, with no historical backing, wants to claim there are all these great black authors, go ahead, but it's meaningless.

Arab civilization was based entirely on the greeks, persians, and jews living inside their borders, they accomplished practically nothing by actual arabs.  Furthermore, even at their apex, they were nothing compared to the previous civilizations of Greece or Rome, or India, or China, who accomplished far more than whatever dubious claims they have.  By the way, Greece calculated the size of the world and knew it was round AND revolving around the sun almost a thousand years before the arabs, try again.

I was only responding in the same language DarkAdonis was using against me.  He kept stressing how we should only care about individuals, but that goes both ways.  Why are people so hyper to defend the black race if we all only care about individuals?  It's hypocritical.

Denying the facts about the nobel prizes, chess grandmasters, fields medals, and lists of inventions does not dissipate it.  Nor can you simply ignore the fact that sub saharan africa was the most beknighted, backwards continent other than australia for all time, and still remains so today.

The study of black kids in Germany I already know about and already accounted for--the blacks chosen by german women were exceptionally bright, and therefore worthy.  The blacks who were not bright did not win the esteem of german women and therefore did not reproduce.  It has also been shown that blacks with lighter skin, ie more white blood, on average have higher IQ, so your study about blood groups falls apart.



The relation between skin color and intelligence was examined in a representative sample of 430 adult African Americans. A statistically significant positive correlation of 0.17 was obtained between light skin color and intelligence. It is proposed that the result supports the hypothesis that the level of intelligence in African Americans is significantly determined by the proportion of Caucasian genes.

I don't even know where to start with you.  Your shifting stances based on trying to 'worm up' to the politically correct side by betraying the truth is even more despicable than them.


----------



## Banhammer (Oct 27, 2007)

You know, there used to be this one guy, about 60-70 years ago, tall, handsome, nice paintor and all, that had a great variant on this theory.
He discovered for what at the time they considered some reasonable proccess that one kind of human beings had genetic superiority over another one.
Then, so they could find ways to improove their people even better, they split their people into the one preeselected breed and the other volunteers were politley invited to form their own haaappy comunity in  some govermental supplied "camps".
I wonder how did that go....


----------



## Diamed (Oct 27, 2007)

Thanos---twin studies and adoption studies previously in this very thread proved conclusively that intelligence is inherited.  All I can say is go back and look at the identical twin studies.

However it bothers me that anyone would say intelligence isn't inherited, when EVERY OTHER TRAIT IS inherited.  Let's look at things that are still politically correct to mention:  athletic ability/height/bod type is inherited.  Looks are inherited.  Diseases are inherited.  But omg there's no proof intelligence is inherited.  Give me a break.  Just look around you.  Look at the smart people in your class, and then look at their parents.  Look at the smart people among your friends, and then look at their parents.  Or if you yourself are smart, look at the smart kids in your extended family, and their parents.  If you see that the parents are on average smarter, just like the kids, lo and behold, intelligence is being passed down, just like every other trait in life.  "he has his father's eyes", "but his mother's nose!"  Have you heard of this conversation before?  Do you think genes are only skin deep?  That somehow, after you get to the bones of someone, they no longer correspond to sexual reproduction, and instead God just imports a blank, exactly equal slate for everyone the moment you get to internal organs?  The leap of faith this requires is astounding.  Are you really telling me that, even though everything else is obviously inherited and even though our genes are composed entirely of the genes of our mother and father, and even though this has been proven to give us all our physical traits, somehow these genes magically stop at the door to the brain and then God steps in and makes the brain exactly as good for everyone?  That genes don't build brains, only the rest of the body, and God builds the brain?  ugh.

* We can't avoid the truth just because it can lead to bad effects.  Saying truth should be whatever is politically/religiously/morally convenient is 1984.

* If intelligence is environmental, why don't we arrest the parents of all retards as obvious child abusers? After all, if they would just raise their kids right, they would be geniuses.  Why don't they try hard enough?  Clearly they must be poisoning them or not feeding them.  The result of unequal intelligence in retards, even retards so retarded they can't even eat or talk on their own---well that just shows we aren't educating them well enough, or providing them enough pretty music.  If someone would just try they could be the next einstein, after all, intelligence is environmental.  Why don't we go to all the retard clinics and free them and instead put them in college, they're JUST AS GOOD AS YOU, WHY AREN'T YOU GIVING THEM THE ENVIRONMENT THEY NEED? OMG!!! ONE. 1.


----------



## mislead (Oct 27, 2007)

But Diamed, what you claim is not that intelligence can be inherited, but that it is genetically linked to the set of features that define a human race, or even ethnicity. You have failed to demonstrate that. Numerous counterexamples have been brought up, a lot of them by you yourself, amusingly enough. This recent bit about Jews and Persians being the deciding factor in the emergence of the medieval Arabic culture, assuming it is true (which I doubt, taking your record of being somewhat lenient with the facts), only serves to disprove your point even further. Incidentally, the genetic distance between the Arabs and the Jews is fairly minuscule, and modern population genetics considers them to have common ancestry; hence they're classified under the Semitic ethnic group. 

Either way, in order to prove your claims, you NEED to present an "intelligence gene" of sorts, and then show how it differs among different ethnic groups. Unless you do that, you're just spewing out incoherent, weak speculation.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 27, 2007)

I'd say the burden of proof is on environmentalists, to explain why intelligence, unlike all other traits, is not genetic.  And why races, even though they have sizable differences in all other fields, like looks, diseases, physical abilities, blood types---suddenly don't have any difference when it comes to intelligence.  It seems to me that you should prove this astounding exception from the norm.  It should be assumed until proven otherwise it's just like the rest.


----------



## mislead (Oct 27, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I'd say the burden of proof is on environmentalists, to explain why intelligence, unlike all other traits, is not genetic.  And why races, even though they have sizable differences in all other fields, like looks, diseases, physical abilities, blood types---suddenly don't have any difference when it comes to intelligence.  It seems to me that you should prove this astounding exception from the norm.  It should be assumed until proven otherwise it's just like the rest.



Actually, intelligence isn't a physical trait. Which makes your analogy flawed. Unless you can prove that it directly corresponds to some physical trait, you still haven't demonstrated anything.

Furthermore, to put it simply, it is you who is making the initial claim; hence, you should provide the necessary evidence. You could as well demand that I prove how the ability to cook isn't genetically based.

I also like how you ignore my argument, again. Jews aren't inherently physically stronger than Arabs. Why should they be inherently more intelligent?


----------



## Diamed (Oct 27, 2007)

That there are inherent racial differences in every other field of the human body, implies there will be inherent racial differences in the brain as well, which is a part of the human body.  Intelligence like everything else is based on physical existing things.  Brain size has correlated highly to intelligence in all species, including mankind, and, what do you know, blacks have slightly smaller brains.  That seems like striking proof to me.

jews in general aren't more intelligent than arabs, but the ashkhenazi jews are the most intelligent people on earth.  They were isolated in europe from breeding with anyone else and were forced to work at only intellect-focused jobs, like banking and trading.  They weren't allowed to farm, serve in the military, interbreed, or anything.  This, combined with all the pogroms in europe that kept killing anyone not nimble and smart enough to get away---created a fierce selective pressure for intelligence, and the result is a small portion of jews are smarter than everyone else in the world by far.  If we had been trying a eugenics program I doubt we could have done any better.  Just one of those twists of fate.


----------



## Keile (Oct 27, 2007)

Dreikoo said:


> I read the first page...and i dunno it makes sense evolution in different places to require different parts of the brain to be evolved...maybe they gave up a bit more IQ to be able to jump and run better so they'd survive the lions...i don't see the big controversy lmao.



No African has ever or will ever be able to outrun or outjump a lion.

.


----------



## mislead (Oct 27, 2007)

Diamed said:


> That there are inherent racial differences in every other field of the human body, implies there will be inherent racial differences in the brain as well, which is a part of the human body.  Intelligence like everything else is based on physical existing things.  Brain size has correlated highly to intelligence in all species, including mankind, and, what do you know, blacks have slightly smaller brains.  That seems like striking proof to me.



So now it's brain size, eh? Ok, let's see some proof of these assertions then.

Hint: You might want to try using the Encephalization Quotient instead of pure brain mass, the correlation might benefit from that. Then again, it might interfere with the prime goal od proving the black inferiority.



Diamed said:


> jews in general aren't more intelligent than arabs, but the ashkhenazi jews are the most intelligent people on earth.  They were isolated in europe from breeding with anyone else and were forced to work at only intellect-focused jobs, like banking and trading.  They weren't allowed to farm, serve in the military, interbreed, or anything.  This, combined with all the pogroms in europe that kept killing anyone not nimble and smart enough to get away---created a fierce selective pressure for intelligence, and the result is a small portion of jews are smarter than everyone else in the world by far.  If we had been trying a eugenics program I doubt we could have done any better.  Just one of those twists of fate.



So, those are the same Jews that made Arabic culture? Or are you admitting defeat on the "Cultural and political development correlated to average intelligence" field?


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 27, 2007)

I think it just occurred to me where the confusion lies in this thread.  There are certain genetic traits that are race related and then there are those that are not race related.

Just because a trait can be or even is genetic doesn't mean it is related to race.  Mendelian traits typically occur within a race and that is what Diamed seems to be focused on.  However, intelligence has not been shown to be a Mendelian trait despite attempts to determine it as such.  On the contrary, any genetic links to intelligence have been shown to be polygenic traits or multifactoral traits, meaning they rely on a lot of different genes _and_ environmental factors.  These types of genetic traits most often can not decisively be related to race and the more genes that contribute to the trait the less there is any link to race.

So, yes, intelligence can have some genetic link, but that does not mean that it is genetically related to race.

  The study found no such link and further evidences that any intelligence genes are polygenic.

  Note this quote:


> the vast majority of human traits, diseases or otherwise, are multifactorial.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 27, 2007)

this thread already includes proof in earlier posts about brain size measurement studies.  You'll have to dig a ways back.  This thread already includes everything. >.<.

And no, I believe high IQ is necessary in a populace, for a genius with yet higher IQ to appear amongst them, and thus the rate of geniuses in a population correlates to the average IQ.  It seems common sense to me.  Where there's smoke there's fire---or where there's fire (in the terms of brilliant accomplishments) there's smoke.  I don't have to explain every single genius everywhere, what matters is on average the geniuses are centered among whites, asians, and askhenazic jews.


----------



## Thanos (Oct 28, 2007)

mislead said:


> Either way, in order to prove your claims, you NEED to present an "intelligence gene" of sorts, and then show how it differs among different ethnic groups. Unless you do that, you're just spewing out incoherent, weak speculation.



He cant do this, because *he doesnt even have a cursory knowledge of college level biology*. Or he does, but is simply ignoring it for the sake of proving his point. Take your pick.

"If intelligence is environmental, why don't we arrest the parents of all retards as obvious child abusers? After all, if they would just raise their kids right, they would be geniuses. Why don't they try hard enough? Clearly they must be poisoning them or not feeding them. The result of unequal intelligence in retards, even retards so retarded they can't even eat or talk on their own---well that just shows we aren't educating them well enough, or providing them enough pretty music. If someone would just try they could be the next einstein, after all, intelligence is environmental. Why don't we go to all the retard clinics and free them and instead put them in college, they're JUST AS GOOD AS YOU, WHY AREN'T YOU GIVING THEM THE ENVIRONMENT THEY NEED? OMG!!! ONE. 1."

I _hate_ when people who dont know the slightest thing about biology try to argue about it. _Mental Retardation is not simply a lack of IQ points. *IQ is the measure only sometimes; NOT THE CAUSE.* It is a developmental disorder, caused by abnormalities of chromosomes (Downs Syndrome for example). You mention people not being able to talk. You mean like Cerebral Palsy? A disorder which has nothing to fucking do with intelligence, but is in fact the inability for the motor tract in your brain to make the proper connections. Being born mentally retarded is the same as being born without an arm or a leg. *Its a neurological disorder not a lack of an "intelligence trait".*_ Jesus buddy, the least you can do is take a fucking introductory biology course before spouting such nonsense.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 28, 2007)

retards are by definition people with low IQ.  and no, I didn't mean cerebral palsy, I meant people too stupid to ever learn how to talk.  Call it a developmental disorder, a neurological disorder, or what have you, it's traits they're born with due to their genes, so you're using semantics to avoid saying "retards are retards because of their genes."  All I can see is you're willing to admit genetics impacts intelligence on the lower end but then it magically stops having an impact at exactly 71+ IQ.


----------



## maximilyan (Oct 28, 2007)

heard about thislast week i think.. england isnt buying into this losers bullshit.. he was meant to speak at the science museum and got banned from speaking their when they investigated his baseless claims.


----------



## Thanos (Oct 28, 2007)

Diamed said:


> retards are by definition people with low IQ.  and no, I didn't mean cerebral palsy, I meant people too stupid to ever learn how to talk.  Call it a developmental disorder, a neurological disorder, or what have you, it's traits they're born with due to their genes, so you're using semantics to avoid saying "retards are retards because of their genes."  All I can see is you're willing to admit genetics impacts intelligence on the lower end but then it magically stops having an impact at exactly 71+ IQ.



No, im saying that IQ is the measure not the cause. For example Downs Syndrome is caused by having part of or all of an extra 21st chromosome. Not a lack of "intellect genes" or whatever you are trying to spout. Most people who are "too stupid to learn how to talk", are afflicted by another complication that causes it, a _neurological disorder_, like any other genetic disease, such as hemophilia. Stop making such stupid blanket statements. You are not talking like a scientist, but i suppose I shouldn't blame you. It affects intelligence on the lower end because lower IQ's (below 70) are caused by neurological abnormalities. 

I will use Downs Syndrome as an example, since when most people think of Retarded kids, they think of downs syndrome.

Do you know why families with completely normal and intelligence people can have children with Downs Syndrome? Because its a chromosomal abnormality. If what you say is true, then the only retards on earth would belong to families of retards. That isnt the case. *Retarded children are born to perfectly normal families all the time*. Does it have to do with genetics? YES. Does it have to do with the lack of or dysfunction of an hereditary "intelligence gene"? NO. If it did, then retarded children wouldn't be born to normal families, now would they? Its not semantics you halfwit, its _widely recognized science._ You could find this out by watching the health channel for 45 minutes.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 28, 2007)

well then how do you explain geniuses?  Take a huge sample of people, all with high class lifestyle, but only a few will have 150 or 200 IQ.  What's your explanation?  if it's that easy to environementally raise IQ 100 points above the norm, why don't we do it for everyone?  Genetics explains retards, it explains geniuses, but it doesn't explain the people inbetween?


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 28, 2007)

1.  Intelligence is a multifactoral trait.
2.  Multifactoral traits are defined by both genetic _and_ environmental factors.
3.  Focusing only on the genetic qualities of intelligence, it is a polygenic trait, not a Mendelian trait.
4.  The more polygenic a trait, the less likely any link can be made to race (ie, the more genetic material contributing to the trait, the less likely it can be race related - intelligence relies on about 40% of all genes).

Therefore: 
Is IQ genetic?  Partially.
Is IQ environmental?  Partially.
Is IQ genetically race related? No.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 29, 2007)

The fact that some people here are agreeing with this makes me wonder if we should do an IQ test on NF, then come to the conclusion that the majority of people that visit (yes, even YOU.) are intellectually inferior.

Because a man who says "But anyone who has had to deal with a black employee" is basing this off of scientific research.  

His breakthrough discoveries were quite a while back, and they were with a partner.  Now, his sexist, homophobic, classist, elitist, and racist remarks have no base or ground to them.  No sound argument other than "dealing with black employees" and what's happening in Africa.  Well, white people had the Dark Ages for quite a while, societies all develop depending on opportunity and land advancement (wars, economy, etc.).

This man is pretty notorious in his department, actually, for stealing this woman's (  ) theory and making fun of her and slandering her name after she died : )   He's not that special.  Just as even the greatest scientists of 50 years ago have had their theories debunked, his word is not infallible.

"_Contribution to the model of DNA

Rosalind Franklin's contributions to the Crick and Watson model include an X-ray photograph of B-DNA (called photograph 51),[73] that was briefly shown to James Watson by Maurice Wilkins in January 1953,[74][75] and a report written for an MRC biophysics committee visit to King's in December 1952. The report contained data from the King's group, including some of Rosalind Franklin's work, and was given to Francis Crick by his thesis supervisor Max Perutz, a member of the visiting committee.[76][77] Maurice Wilkins had been given photograph 51 by Rosalind Franklin's PhD student Raymond Gosling, because she was leaving King's to work at Birkbeck, there was nothing untoward in this,[78][79] though it has been implied, incorrectly, that Maurice Wilkins had taken the photograph out of Rosalind Franklin's drawer.[80] Likewise Max Perutz saw no harm in showing the MRC report to Crick as it had not been marked as confidential. Much of the important material contained in the report had been presented by Franklin in a talk she had given in November 1951, which Watson had attended.[81][82] The upshot of all this was that when Crick and Watson started to build their model in February 1953 they were working with very similar data to those available at King's. Rosalind Franklin was probably never aware that her work had been used during construction of the model.[_"

Amazing man, isn't he?  Rofl, what a doucheface.  He's a sexist retard and got famous for a woman's work.   I guess because I was a microbiology major for quite a while I heard about this all of the time, I just am shocked that no one's mentioned it in these threads about him (unless I missed it).


----------



## idc lol (Oct 29, 2007)

*more gems*



			
				Retard Science Man said:
			
		

> "if she did something with her hair I might be able to tolerate her", on Rosalind Franklin;
> 
> "I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said."
> 
> "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_sc/controversial_scientist

His apology for his statements right here, or rather, him noticing that what he said was just not only racist (not that he cares), but BAD SCIENCE in general.  He's a senile moron and should croak. NEXT~


----------



## Aldrick (Oct 29, 2007)

There's still room for evolution.

Not that we need it.

EDIT:

Hey, isn't being a retard when you're brain has damage and inhibits some bits such as palsy and Down Syndrome when the thing includes lower cognitive abilities (which may also be considered to be stupid) and poor muscle tone. Stupid is when you're simply a dumbass, whether you have Down's Syndrome or not.

amirite?


----------



## Diamed (Oct 29, 2007)

how can you say there's no evidence when this thread is absolutely chock full of evidence?

Anaiya I'd agree with you that it will be hard to impossible to find all genes that affect intelligence, but we don't need to find all of them, if we find just one of them in one race, not in others, wouldn't that do?  And we've done that.  Jews suffer a particularly jewish disease, tay-sachs disease.  It is a recessive gene where if you get one copy, you're dramatically smarter than people with no copies, but if you get two, you get the disease.  It's about as risky an intelligence upper as you get, but there it is.  A known gene that improves intelligence, in only askhenazic jews.




Most of the dozen or so disease genes that are common in them belong to one of two types: they are involved either in the storage in nerve cells of special fats called sphingolipids, which form part of the insulating outer sheaths that allow nerve cells to transmit electrical signals, or in DNA repair. The former genes cause neurological diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's and Niemann-Pick. The latter cause cancer.

That does not look random. And what is even less random is that in several cases the genes for particular diseases come in different varieties, each the result of an independent original mutation. This really does suggest the mutated genes are being preserved by natural selection. But it does not answer the question of how evolution can favour genetic diseases. However, in certain circumstances, evolution can. 

More generally, if this is what I think it is, all these Ashkenazi neurological diseases are hints of ways in which one could supercharge intelligence. One, by increasing dendrite growth: two, by fooling with myelin: three, something else, whatever is happening in torsion dystonia.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 29, 2007)

Aldrick said:


> There's still room for evolution.
> 
> Not that we need it.
> 
> ...



Retard: Slow.  To slow down.  Flame-retardant clothing.  Retarded IQ.

He is behind the times and has proven that he is slow in some areas.  I'm not saying in the literal sense, he is the new definition of retarded. Obviously he wouldn't be able to comprehend something as complex as DNA so thoroughly.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 29, 2007)

Diamed said:


> how can you say there's no evidence when this thread is absolutely chock full of evidence?
> 
> Anaiya I'd agree with you that it will be hard to impossible to find all genes that affect intelligence, but we don't need to find all of them, if we find just one of them in one race, not in others, wouldn't that do?  And we've done that.  Jews suffer a particularly jewish disease, tay-sachs disease.  It is a recessive gene where if you get one copy, you're dramatically smarter than people with no copies, but if you get two, you get the disease.  It's about as risky an intelligence upper as you get, but there it is.  A known gene that improves intelligence, in only askhenazic jews.
> 
> ...





Since this is my area of study, I'd like to point out that race in general is a highly debated anthropological subject in the scientific community.  Throughout cultures and societies, people evolve to have different things effect them (I'm trying to put this into simplistic terms).  In the same 'race', there will be different diseases effecting.  We have many different combinations our bodies can produce from our 46 chromosomes; if we didn't, then one race could be easily killed out by one disease.  There will be a disease that is more prevalant in one race simply for societal reasons.   Caucasian people living in Japan have had longer life expectancies than ones that live in America(US) simply because their diet has evolved and changed.  

Read up on feral children.  Read up on what depression actually does to your brain (okay, if you can't find reliable sources on your mad 'google' skills I could rec some actual research on the subject, not just websites  ).  Read various factors that can alter and either retard or propel intelligence in your lifetime that have nothing to do with what you were born with.  

_Heritability says nothing about the extent to which a trait is inherited by an individual. Rather it is a measure of the extent to which genotype (the genetic basis of a trait) matches phenotype (the actual expression of that trait) in a given population. If eye color were uniquely determined by one gene, then genotype would always match phenotype, and heritability would be 1.0. Speaking English (as opposed to some other language) has a heritability of 0. There are no genes for English-it is entirely environment-dependant. Traits that psychologists, geneticists and others study have heritabilities between 0 and 1. But because the distribution of genes as well as the interaction between genetic composition and environmental influences varies from one population to another, heritability does also. So to claim that any one number can represent the heritability of IQ for all populations is nonsense. Applying that number to individuals (as in 60% of a person's IQ is inherited) constitutes a complete departure from reality. _

Society has everything to do with it.  What is your concept or 'race'?  Do you know it's debated to even exist (on the level we know it as)?  Americans score lower than a shitload of countries worldwide in almost every area, and you think that has nothing to do with societal constructs and education?  So Americans are born dumb?  Born retarded?  Let's make that deduction, then.  

And since he's talking about 'employees' as a valid argument (Did you even read about Rosalind Franklin?  The man's entire credibility for what he became FAMOUS for and won a NOBEL prize for is pretty much a sham.  Yes, he's a scientist and yes, he knows lots about genetics.  But he's not any more exceptional than any other colleague that had something explained to him and came to understand it), then I can make inductions that every westerner I've ever met is a rude and moronic person.  Because I have a ph.D, so dubious authority arguments are obviously going to win this.

Does race exist?
 If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no. But  researchers can use some genetic information to group individuals into clusters with medical relevance.

Most studies have demonstrated that roughly 90 percent of human genetic variation occurs within a population living on a given continent, whereas  about 10 percent of the variation distinguishes continental populations.

To determine the degree of relatedness (an variety) among groups, geneticists rely on tiny variations, or polymorphisms, in the DNA--specifically in the sequence of base pairs, the building blocks of DNA. Most of these polymorphisms do not occur within genes, the stretches of DNA that encode the information for making proteins (the molecules that constitute much of our bodies and carry out the chemical reactions of life). Accordingly, these common variations are neutral, in that they do not directly affect a particular trait.  Some polymorphisms do occur in genes, however; these can contribute to individual variation in traits and to genetic diseases.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 29, 2007)

Anyways, did you know you most likely have more individual gene variants with people of your OWN race than you do of people from another 'race'?  Yes, that's right, you most likely have more genetic differences with someone that has your skin color (an expressive phenotype LE GASP), than you do with someone on the other side of the globe.

I could get into explaining polymorphisms and DNA with you, and on the actual concept of 'race' and why it's not even very scientific to use the term anyways.  Watson was involved in the Bell Curve and in genetic projects to try and find if there is a way to breed out people such as 'dumb' people, or 'gay' people, and was in support of the government's moronic concept of a 'gay' bomb.  Guess what?  None of it ever worked.  He's using old science that has proven to have too many fallacies to count.

Your example of the Jewish 'disease' is just...baffling.  A known gene to 'improve' intelligence?  Did you know autism(Certain types) can improve performance in certain subjects drastically in individuals that have it compared to idividuals that don't have it?   With the disease that improves 'intelligence', it is inherited in an autosomal recessive trait.  It is fatal in its most common variant, and do you know where this tay-sachs disease was found?

In a small, SMALL population of Eastern European Jews.  In the 50s.  If a tribe or a people are a minority and are going to constantly breed with each other (and probably inbreed), this is usually the result of little resources elsewhere.  Their beliefs culturally separated them from those around them (especially half a century ago?  Anti-semitism was huge), there will be a shorter variant amongst individuals, and thus one disease getting into a couple of family members will eventually effect a small group.  It's NOT been noted in Jews worldwide, jews with strong 'pure' ancestory.

On chromosome 15, a mutation on the HEXA gene has been noted not just in Jews, but in other places with small populations that have interbred with each other in its ancestory.  Cajuns, French Canadians, Eastern Romanian groups, and many others carry mutations on the HEXA gene from minimal exposure to outside groups, they just carry different mutations.  Furthermore, the disease you mentioned is rare.  Very rare.  One of the rarest forms of this particular HEXA gene mutation.  It was only shown in ONE population of Jewish people (to be common; people get it worldwide, it was just prevalant in that group, and if you know basic biology I'm sure you can deduct why..it's not rocket science).

Things like these happen when the a population grows rapidly from a small founder group, and remains isolated from surrounding populations because of geographic, cultural, and language barriers. But it is not ubiqituous to every individual in that group, things like these are rare, and can rarely be applicable to groups that are concentrate in a small area.

Entire continents and the ancestory that comes from there is not a 'small' area.  

It does not make people with the disease more intelligent.  It heightens certain lobes of the brain that can increase spatial logic, but so do some forms of autism.  This can make people 'smarter' in many areas.  But it's so rare, and it's a mutation.  If it were a definitive trait occuring and was the 'key' to intelligence, you'd get a sensational review for what you just reported worldwide.  It's a rare mutation.   

Studies have shown that racial differences between population groups are small, much smaller than variations within the groups themselves.  This would make sense as it would be imperative to our evolutionary survival.  Race exists, but on a much smaller level than you'd think and it has a very different biological reality to what the societal construct has led people to believe.


I'd get into this more but I am not willing to argue if someone will just state "this article says this, so this equals this!"


My original statement stands: Watson's professionalism and statement is considered only his opinion (and trust me, there are smarter people in the scientific community today that would argue with him.  Just because he won a Nobel Prize for someone else's work doesn't mean we should claim dubious authority and say his word is law), and that should have been obvious the moment he used a remark as retarded as "If you've had to deal with a black employee..." 

He is lacking substantial evidence.  Maybe he should steal someone else's work if he wants to prove a valid argument :amazed

One can 'supercharge' just about any trait with expiremental interference.  We are just a bunch of chemicals and neurons reacting to each other, after all.  But modifying what already IS and trying to find out if something like intelligence is not favoured in an ENTIRE RACE of people are completely different things.  There is no reason for any race to not have favored an 'intelligence' gene, if it were there.  It would be necessary to almost anyone's survival. 


Really, this entire debate boils down to much bigger things that have yet to be proven on either side.  What 'race' is, and how much education really does affect our intelligence.  There is evidence either way.  There have been studies that show strong indications of intelligence being purely inherited, and strong indications with control groups that show environment is a heavy factor.  

And I'm not going to claim I am 'right' on that, BECAUSE it hasn't been proven. It's all speculation and debate.

And because for every amount of evidence you find to support your cause, there is an equal amount of evidence countering it (on this subject, at least, and the same goes for my stance), there is no truth to either side of our entire debate. 

What troubles me is the amount of idiocy in this thread.  People saying "HA!! You can't argue with TRUTH and SCIENCE and FACTS!!"

These people aren't even questioning what they hear, because it suits their personal belief and bias.   You should always question such things.    Science is so important _because_ it leaves room for growth; theories that were considered brilliant and infallible in the 70s are now being debunked or heavily debated today. 

Watson does not have the modesty to admit this (only later does he in his apology that I posted).  Watson was purely stating his personal bias, beliefs, and opinions.  And anyone who takes that as law needs to turn their brain in since there's obviously no use for it if you're going to let another person control your opinion in such a way.


----------



## Edo (Oct 29, 2007)

LOL, the funny thing about all this thread and all these posts is that nobody questions the IQ test itself....it seems for some stupid reason, people just accept the fact that the IQ test does really measure intelligence and that it is accurate at that....again LOLZ.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 29, 2007)

Diamed said:


> how can you say there's no evidence when this thread is absolutely chock full of evidence?
> 
> Anaiya I'd agree with you that it will be hard to impossible to find all genes that affect intelligence, but we don't need to find all of them, if we find just one of them in one race, not in others, wouldn't that do?  And we've done that.  Jews suffer a particularly jewish disease, tay-sachs disease.  It is a recessive gene where if you get one copy, you're dramatically smarter than people with no copies, but if you get two, you get the disease.  It's about as risky an intelligence upper as you get, but there it is.  A known gene that improves intelligence, in only askhenazic jews.
> 
> ...



When did I say anything about finding all genes relating to intelligence?  It is already known that intelligence is polygenetic rather than Mendelian and your example does not link an intelligence related gene to any particular race.  

Tay-sachs is an extremely rare condition even among populations in which it is more prevalent.  It is also not limited to or even related to a specific race nor is it limited to Jews.  The specific mutation you refer to is also found in Cajuns of southern Louisiana who are not Ashkenazi Jews or any type of Jews, but rather are typically Roman Catholic.

Jew is not a race, but an ethnoreligious group.  The Ashkenazi Jews were a specific group of people defined by their place and time in history and those  defined appropriately as such today are decedents of those that were distinctly separated during Medieval times.  Any time a group interbreeds, genetic mutations occur.  The genetic mutation that you are referring to is a result of strictly limited breeding within a strictly ethnic group rather than a racial trait.

You are clearly confusing ethnicity with race.  You might be enlightened by this statement from "United nations Economic and Security Council Statement by Experts on Problems of Race" (1950):


> National, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups do not necessarily coincide with racial groups: and the cultural traits of such groups have no demonstrated genetic connection with racial traits.



In any case, the documentation you posted claims that the heterozygote advantage of higher intelligence is a genetic mutation resulting from the environmental factors suffered by the group in question, not resulting from any racial trait.

Again, intelligence is not genetically racial.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 29, 2007)

umm. . .so the environment makes certain genes more 'fit' and then are passed down, so it's environmental?  That's. . .yes of course all genetic adaptions are due to their environment, but then they are PASSED DOWN genetically. . .generally in a race that only interbreeds with itself, creating isolated racial genes.

    And even though you can find tay-sachs elsewhere, it's mainly in jews, as are the other diseases listed.  I consider the jews a race, they're a group of people who haven't interbred with others for tens of thousands of years.  That's plenty of time for them to diverge from our common ancestors and form a separate race.  There's plenty of ways to identify jews genetically.  In fact we found some black jews in africa who looked like their neighbors but genetically were distinctly related more to jews than blacks.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 29, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> When did I say anything about finding all genes relating to intelligence?  It is already known that intelligence is polygenetic rather than Mendelian and your example does not link an intelligence related gene to any particular race.
> 
> Tay-sachs is an extremely rare condition even among populations in which it is more prevalent.  It is also not limited to or even related to a specific race nor is it limited to Jews.  The specific mutation you refer to is also found in Cajuns of southern Louisiana who are not Ashkenazi Jews or any type of Jews, but rather are typically Roman Catholic.
> 
> ...




  Thank you for saying what I said, but so much more concise and to the point.  Really, I was baffled at that person's article as evidence. I couldn't see the correlation.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 29, 2007)

Diamed said:


> umm. . .so the environment makes certain genes more 'fit' and then are passed down, so it's environmental?  That's. . .yes of course all genetic adaptions are due to their environment, but then they are PASSED DOWN genetically. . .generally in a race that only interbreeds with itself, creating isolated racial genes.
> 
> And even though you can find tay-sachs elsewhere, it's mainly in jews, as are the other diseases listed.  I consider the jews a race, they're a group of people who haven't interbred with others for tens of thousands of years.  That's plenty of time for them to diverge from our common ancestors and form a separate race.  There's plenty of ways to identify jews genetically.  In fact we found some black jews in africa who looked like their neighbors but genetically were distinctly related more to jews than blacks.



It's in a small group of jews.  Just like other certain HEXA mutations are in a small group of French Canadians.  But not all.

Your article was impertinent.  The Jews have moved all around the freakin' world.  Their heritage is mixed, there's no 'race' of jews.

It...highly sounds like you don't know what you're talking about so I'll leave it at that.  Your article in which you linked findings of a small group of jewish people in ONE area that have been interbreeding with each other bears no universal truth on races that have been widespread over large amounts of land.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 29, 2007)

Diamed said:


> umm. . .so the environment makes certain genes more 'fit' and then are passed down, so it's environmental?  That's. . .yes of course all genetic adaptions are due to their environment, but then they are PASSED DOWN genetically. . .generally in a race that only interbreeds with itself, creating isolated racial genes.
> 
> And even though you can find tay-sachs elsewhere, it's mainly in jews, as are the other diseases listed.  I consider the jews a race, they're a group of people who haven't interbred with others for tens of thousands of years.  That's plenty of time for them to diverge from our common ancestors and form a separate race.  There's plenty of ways to identify jews genetically.  In fact we found some black jews in africa who looked like their neighbors but genetically were distinctly related more to jews than blacks.



Jews are defined as an ethnoreligious group, not as a race.  

Ethnoreligious =/= race

Making up your own definitions does not support your claims.



idc lol said:


> Thank you for saying what I said, but so much more concise and to the point.  Really, I was baffled at that person's article as evidence. I couldn't see the correlation.



LOL

I just realized you had said it before me.  We were posting about the same time.  I'm just slower.  

Haha, we did it again.


----------



## Rice Ball (Oct 29, 2007)

I heard about this on the news.
Genetic screening is pretty scary stuff, i doubt less than 10% of us would be here if they implimented it.
As for what he said, <polically correct comment> followed by the only people who can really stand against what he said are other geneticist, if they do disprove him, he can kiss his careea/reputation goodbye.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 29, 2007)

They've already fired him.  I'm sure the firebombs and knife wielding anarchist murderers will follow, though he might just get away by dying of old age, since he's 79.  I've also seen people trying to dismiss his contribution to science and claim he's a fraud, as though Newton were a fraud because Leibniz was also working on calculus, or Darwin is a fraud because wallace was also proposing the existence of evolution.

Stalin would be proud.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 29, 2007)

Diamed said:


> They've already fired him.  I'm sure the firebombs and knife wielding anarchist murderers will follow, though he might just get away by dying of old age, since he's 79.  I've also seen people trying to dismiss his contribution to science and claim he's a fraud, as though Newton were a fraud because Leibniz was also working on calculus, or Darwin is a fraud because wallace was also proposing the existence of evolution.
> 
> Stalin would be proud.



You just said "Stalin would be proud."

You just compared something that has nothing to do with this and related it to a man saying stupid shit and then apologizing for it.  Wow.  How does that...

Who gives a crap if he was fired?  He hasn't contributed anything to science in a long time, other than stupid remarks and books about breeding out stupid people.  There are better minds out there.  Too bad for him.  It wasn't just this statement, people have been wanting him out of the scientific community for a LONG time.  He's an ass that rode his success out and used fuck-you money to say whatever he wanted, and passed his prejudice off as science. 

You really think people will attack him outside of quite a few people getting pissed off?  You're turning him into some christ-complex victim?  He SAID he had no SCIENTIFIC BASIS in his apology for what he mentioned.  He was talking out of his ass, like he does MANY times.

A fraud?  You never even responded to the Rosalind Franklin thing.  First of all, Watson worked with a partner, and Watson and Crick both got the MODEL for DNA from Franklin's partner, who gave it to them without her permission or knowledge after she had died.  After she left King's, the last paper she gave on the double helic model, Watson was there.  And he pretty much didn't even credit her at all, he credited her partner, and insulted her.  

When you take someone's work and don't credit them, and only admit you took the model once you are confronted years later, you are a fraud.  He just  finished what she had already put together, but died before she could complete.  Yet you're treating him as an infallible God whose word must not be criticized because HES A SCIENTIST!!1

Again, I reiterate: Working on similar projects and agreeing on a theory does not mean you are a fraud.  Actually taking someone's model without her permission, basing your entire work off of it, not crediting her and insulting her after her death....well, if that doesn't make you a fraud it at least makes you a giant douchebag.  He got all of the credit all because they can't award Nobel Prizes to dead people.

I'm not dismissing his contribution, though any person working on the research at the time could have stolen Franklin's work and finished it up and put their name on it.  But he's talked about breeding 'stupidity' out.  He's said sexist and racist remarks.  He .  Is.  A.  Douchebag.  And he had no scientific proof for what he's said.  Watson can talk about the structure of DNA.  I trust that he knows what he's talking about there because he worked on it for a long time, and based his entire work off of a very astute and trusted source, an intelligent and hard working woman.  But outside of this, I am free to say what I want about his stupid remarks, and people are free to get pissed off and annoyed.  He's KNOWN in the scientific community by many people to make senile and hateful remarks, and just be an all around asshole.

Stalin would be proud?  Yeah, Stalin would be proud that a man thinks it's a good idea to breed out 'stupid' people and only leave people with through-the-roof IQs, that wouldn't mind breeding out women who weren't 'attractive' in his eyes and engineering them all to be pretty (yet of course, women don't need pretty men in return!), and probably couldn't care less if the entire continent of Africa was wiped out.  

Stalin WOULD be proud.

And if he had his way, you probably would have been bred out of the gene pool long ago, unless you are an upper class white male with a high IQ.  And if you are, good job on being born into privelage! 

His statements were stupid, and a LARGE part of what he got a NOBEL PRIZE for was stolen.  His entire work was based off of that woman's work, and he couldn't even give her a drop of credit.  Why?  Because she was a woman, and probably wasn't hot and/or sleeping with him.

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW I said stupidass shit to a large community and now people are getting mad at me, WAAAHHH. 

Seeing as how you were trying to prove 'evidence' for his case up there, that actually had nothing to do with the subject at hand or prove intelligence is a racial thing, I don't think you really know what you're talking about.  You ignored what Anaiya and I said and then tried to fallacy your way around this by bringing in Stalin and anarchists with knives and comparing Watson's situation to other people's (when it's completely different, Leibniz worked on much of what we know of math is today, then Newton.  Newton worked off of an already established grounding for math.  Watson based his entire work off of a colleague who wanted nothing to do with him, didn't inform her about it, waited until she died and won a nobel prize for it without even mentioning her, THEN bad mouthing her.).

It's like you find this joy...not even in comparing apples and oranges, this is more like comparing oranges with a mountain.  You keep bringing up stuff that is entirely impertinent.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 29, 2007)

You realize he's not actually apologetic and still believes with every fiber of his being what he said, surely?  Galileo also apologized for saying the earth revolved around the sun, but only under inquisition.  You shouldn't take his apology seriously.

I'm not going to restart the debate with you when all the evidence has already crushingly proved inherited intelligence that differs between races and even between nationalities.  ((arabs are whites but 15 IQ lower than europeon whites.))  Basically any breeding-isolated group will have its own unique IQ, due to its own unique mutations, and own unique environmental challenges, and almost every people on earth was isolated, so until the last couple centuries every single interbreeding group developed its own average IQ.  We're still living with the aftereffects of that reality, a reality all the data supports.  The average IQ of people around the world is vastly different.  Ashkhenazic jews have an average IQ of 115.  Equatorial Guineans have an average IQ of 59.

If the environment were the cause, we could adopt equatorial guineans and raise them in high IQ families, say with parents with 120 IQ, and they'd be just as high right?  Oh wait we already did that study, and the adopted babies had just as low IQ as ever, despite having every environmental advantage we could conceive of.  The minnesota trans-racial adoption program conclusively crushes the environmental explanation, as do all the twin studies.  Racial differences are also clear by the fact that the mixed race adopted babies were halfway between the black and the white, even though all three had the same environment.  The same with the study on lighter skinned blacks (as in more white genetically) having a correlation to higher IQ.  It's all already in this thread.  Until you dismantle the evidence of the IQ table, the minnesota adoption, and identical twin studies, you have no argument.  Science is science.  I only have so many sources I can throw at you, all I can do is repeat, these studies prove differing IQ among races, and that environment has little advantage and little impact, leaving only one remaining explanation, a genetic variation between races---which would strangely enough match the genetic variation we see in physical features, athletic ability, disease resistance, fertility, and tons of other traits.  It makes so much sense I want to cry that this argument is still ongoing.  We accept every other obvious racial difference as genetic, but not this one.  This is the sacred cow.  Farewell reason, hello thought police.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 29, 2007)

Diamed said:


> You realize he's not actually apologetic and still believes with every fiber of his being what he said, surely?  Galileo also apologized for saying the earth revolved around the sun, but only under inquisition.  You shouldn't take his apology seriously.




I don't really take it seriously, and for that we can agree. 

but anyways. Another poster and I have already proven the information you provided to be irrelevant to the argument, and I could also show you studies showing cases of when environment has clearly effected intelligence more than heridity has, but you wouldn't believe it.  I don't really believe in the modern concept of race, so we're already at a disagreement there.

You do know those studies where they've tried to take babies from other nations and raise them with parents that have an high IQ have been flawed because the babies were malnourished in the womb and the months after their birth?

Because studies where babies from other heritages were raised in wealthy families from birth, or even where the Mother has been properly nourished throughout her entire term and has shown to have a baby with only a -/+9 difference than the average American IQ (and these have been taken from 'poor' and uneducated nations in africa and south america) exist to counter the studies you've spoken of?  And it's still a highly biological thing, but it shows how imperative it is for proper nutrition to occur in the womb and right outside of it, which people in poor nations and poor situations in general do not receive.

 Like I said, I'm not the one comparing things in ridiculous slippery slope fallacies to Stalin, the thought police, all of that.

Equatorial Guinea?  Do you know it's only made of 60-70 clans ?  Do you know how small that nation is?  ANYWHERE you get a lot of inbreeding, you will get more genetic mutations and lower 'IQ'.  Light-skinned blacks having a higher IQ?  You think that has nothing to do with how they get treated differently than dark-skinned ones in society and how they score on tests?  You are going to ignore all of the societal factors that have been proven to effect testing?  Proven TIME and time again?

Just drop the psuedo-science and admit you don't like dark people.

Equatorial Guinea not only is such a small nation, but it also is a very poor and uneducated nation.  Americans start off higher than other countries in testing when it comes to their younger years, then drop to much lower compared to other nations.  Do you really think the deduction can be made that all Americans are therefore intellectually inferior and are born that way?  Or does the education system create them that way?

You got this 'IQ of 54" result from the book "IQ and the wealth of nations", obviously, since that is where the statistic originally comes from.  Let's take a look at how they arrived at this:

"Central to the book's thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies (a potentially massive project), the authors average and adjust existing studies.

For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.
"

Wow, what a reliable way to come to a conclusion!! We should always take the word of one book's statistics as law :amazed Ethiopia having such a low IQ has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the nation is severely malnourished and has been since they were children, I'm sure!! Same with most African nations!

So you're going to come in and give me ONE book's reportings based upon layers of arbitrary and untrue conclusions from the result of selective methods of data manipulation and say that that's fact, evidence, and that MUST be the real IQ average, and it's all racial and has nothing to do with the malnourishment of the people and the violence that disrupts their education?

"The figures were obtained by taking unweighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[22] The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available.

Many nations are very heterogeneous ethnically. This is true for many developing countries. It is very doubtful that an often limited number of participants from one or a few areas are representative for the population as whole."

You're going to use such dubious data as actual 'proof'?  That is ridiculous.  That's absurd, you can't expect to have me respect that as actual evidence, and that's EXACTLY where the original IQ data you just pulled from the Equitoral Guineans comes from (Lynn's so-called 'research').

He is a grantee for a biased organization.  You can find 'studies' linking soy milk to causing gay babies.  You can find 'studies' linking lesbian parents with healthier and happier children.  You can find 'studies' to prove just about anything, but they are not fact.  You think that just because something is a scientific study it is fact?  I hope you are not in the science field because I'd be ashamed.  

"There are also errors in the raw data presented by authors. The results from Vinko Buj's 1981 study of 21 European cities and the Ghanaian capital Accra used different scaling from Lynn and Vanhanen's. A comparison of the reported to actual data from only a single study found 5 errors in 19 reported IQ scores"

There is debate amongst scholars and scientists alike on what exactly IQ is and how reliable the tests are.  In some countries and nations their education simply is just not heavily reliant on test-taking.  You think that if America stopped taking tests the citizens would all start being born stupid, or do you think they'd just be uneducated?

Anyways, your evidence is not real evidence, every article you've linked has been dubious and either unrelated to what you were trying to prove (the article about the HEXA mutation in a small group of eastern jewish people), or comes from a horribly biased and inaccurate study (That IQ score comes from the book "IQ and the wealth of nations", and it's already a book known highly for its data manipulation). 

Because all you can do is give links to these types of articles, and then cross your arms and say SCIENCE. FACTS. CAN'T ARGUE 'EM, NOPE, I will let this entire thing go.

I'd be able to take you more seriously if you weren't crying about free speech and Stalin.  You do know the Bell Curve and the entire concept of heriditary intelligence is based off of Nazi Doctors testing, right?  You don't see me comparing you or him to a nazi.  So get off the cross.  I know the couch is taken, but being a martyr doesn't really suit you.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 29, 2007)

Watson has been martyred to the pc police.  If that's not obvious I don't know what is.

I agree with you that the studies on IQ are shoddy and not nearly enough.  This is because liberals have refused to allow IQ tests and have hounded all attempts at IQ testing as racist and bigoted etc.  We should take an IQ test for everyone every five years in the entire world and learn the real facts.  The people suppressing the facts are not genetic believers though, they are environmental believers.  Liberals have passed laws against IQ tests, for instance, done by companies when looking to hire employees.  They have also chased IQ tests out of all the schools.  If we're fans of the truth, why don't we take IQ tests every five years for everyone until they're 20 or so, and see what the truth reveals?  IQ tests have nothing to do with education---how many times must I repeat myself?  Education has NOTHING to do with IQ.  What education, exactly, do you need to push the button that flashes red as soon as possible?  Chimpanzees can do it.  Are you saying humans just can't figure it out, it's not fair?  As for malnutrition you're right, the same is true for malaria.  That's why american blacks are much, much smarter.  85 IQ in fact.  But not as smart as whites, who are 100.  The gap remains, and it has steadily remained for the past 100 years.

By the way soy milk does do that.  It's full of estrogen, which in turn changes the baby's sexual development.  Soy milk is vile stuff, I suggest pregnant women don't drink it, unless they want boys with shrunken testicles and a fondness for dolls.  <3

Oh, and the idea of differing IQ between the races is much older than the nazis.  In fact there's never been a time in history or literature blacks weren't disparaged as animals and beastly.  Arabian Nights is incredibly racist against blacks, always posing them as the animal rutting beasts, monkeys who hid in trees, that steal their wives into hedonistic orgies.  Darwin called blacks the missing link between apes and men, and guessed that the striking primitiveness of blacks made them the likely candidate for the origin of mankind---turns out he was right.  Whites in the south called them helpless idiots who if not enslaved would just drink and laze about until they died, and early anthropology textbooks described the races as clearly divided between good whites and degenerate blacks.  Christians called blacks a race cursed by God.  Why use nazis?  That's such a boring example.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 30, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Watson has been martyred to the pc police.  If that's not obvious I don't know what is.
> 
> I agree with you that the studies on IQ are shoddy and not nearly enough.  This is because liberals have refused to allow IQ tests and have hounded all attempts at IQ testing as racist and bigoted etc.  We should take an IQ test for everyone every five years in the entire world and learn the real facts.  The people suppressing the facts are not genetic believers though, they are environmental believers.  Liberals have passed laws against IQ tests, for instance, done by companies when looking to hire employees.  They have also chased IQ tests out of all the schools.  If we're fans of the truth, why don't we take IQ tests every five years for everyone until they're 20 or so, and see what the truth reveals?  IQ tests have nothing to do with education---how many times must I repeat myself?  Education has NOTHING to do with IQ.  What education, exactly, do you need to push the button that flashes red as soon as possible?  Chimpanzees can do it.  Are you saying humans just can't figure it out, it's not fair?  As for malnutrition you're right, the same is true for malaria.  That's why american blacks are much, much smarter.  85 IQ in fact.  But not as smart as whites, who are 100.  The gap remains, and it has steadily remained for the past 100 years.
> 
> ...





...You know that soy milk--

..Do you even know who carried that study out?  You know that study is ...considered ridiculous by most scientists?

Like, geez.  You're bringing liberals into it now?  I'm not even liberal, why are you bringing politics into this?  This is science.  Oh, that's right.   You're taking one or two studies and keeping them safe in your heart as 'truth' and 'fact' because they suit your bias.

I used nazis because it's equally as retarded as you using Stalin as a comparision.  Eugenics wasn't proposed before the Bell Curve and before nazi geneticism, actually, but racism has always existed.  You telling me that doesn't prove anything that has been said about black people or jews or whatever as true.  It just means you're a moron if you believe it.

I've gotten to the bottom it appears of your 'evidence'.  You're completely biased and you're trying to bring politics into this.

Stop, would you please STOP pulling these IQ statistics out of your ass.  I see a pattern. EVERY time I pull up just how questionable the source you got something from is, you skip it and rant about politics and Stalin.  

So honestly, you can admit the other side (the 'liberal, PC' side) is biased against information, but you can't admit that perhaps YOUR side, the side that is completely convinced of these racial differences in IQ and that they are valid and real and proven, can't be biased?  Are you that lacking in modesty?  Or are you just that blind? <3333333

Let's take an even closer look at the man who came up with those global statistics on IQ and how he came to the conclusion of Africa's IQ.

He came to the conclusion of the Guineans IQ being so low from taking the estimate of Ethopia's and lowering it.  How did he come across the data for Ethopia's IQ?  A malnourished, starved country?  Around 1989, data for a sample of 250 15-year old Ethopian immigrants to Israel (they were jewish) tested with the Standard Progressive Matrices and were reported by Kaniel and Fisherman in 1991.  In relation to the 1097 British standardization sample, their mean IQ was 65.  Because of the 10 year interval between the two collections of data, it was reduced to 63 by estimation.  

These 15 year olds came from a region called Gonder.  They lived most of their lives in the countryside with rudimentary knowledge of school-related tasks that industrialized societies value.  They all had been unattended, solitary children in their youth.  Malnourishment, family disintergration, trauma, dislocation, and culture shock had NOTHING to do with their performance?  It's all because they had dark skin?


Not only that, but  These scholars are totally oblivious to the fact that at a certain period in history their countries were far, far behind the world at large in terms of the development of “civilised nations.” There is ample evidence that members of certain societies would have performed better or worse at a whole range of skills (“intelligence”) tests at different points of their history. One would expect that in Roman times the Britons and Germans would have been put to shame on most “intelligence tests” devised by the Greeks and Romans and that in the 8th or 9th centuries most western Europeans would have lagged badly behind citizens of the Islamic world where literature, science, and arts then flourished.


"In US society there are still many jokes about the “stupid Poles and Irish” which, no doubt, reflect the fact that, at the time, these immigrant groups lacked some skills that were considered valuable in America at the time."

Wait, why am I arguing with someone who actually believes soy milk could make you gay?  Never mind.  Have fun, kiddo!!  Go compare arbitrary shit to Stalin and the thought police, you sound like a true progressive hero!! Like Rush Limbaugh or someone even cooler!! <3333 You'll get far in life believing everything you read that suits your bias.

Me?  I don't claim to have the 'truth' or answer when it comes to this subject.  but I'm not retarded enough to draw ridiculous inductions from individual articles that have been proven to have shady backgrounds, inconsistent data, or have no soundness or validity.  Even if tomorrow an article was published that said things such as "Intelligence isn't a racial thing at all!! the IQ test is a sham!! Watson was a fucking moron!! Mushrooms on Pizza is a disgusting mix!!"  I'd check the source and still be dubious.  I wouldn't be as arrogant to argue it as fact.

And using IQ tests to measure a person's self worth is highly discouraged by most people because, well, the IQ test has been proven to be full of errors, i'm sorry to say.  Not only that, but I've met people with average IQ scores that do much better in academics than so-called 'gifted' kids.  A lot of people have had that experience. It's a deterministic outlook and if someone is getting a job done right, and then you find out they have an average or perhaps slightly below average IQ, you fire them?  That's moronic.

Funny how you are speaking as if these PC 'liberals' censoring poor poor Watson are so horrible, but the implications of these IQ tests and what you are supporting are incredibly more dangerous.  But you know, since you're probably privelaged in some aspect, whether it comes to gender or race, you of course are for it.

I am sad for you.  You actually believe everything you read that makes you grin and say "That's more like it".  Wow.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 30, 2007)

And I will say one more thing, Diamed.  I've read a few other threads of yours.  We have differing opinions on this, but I've agreed with quite a few other things you've said,  then I read about how you speak of how every slight to a fellow man and disrespectful behaviour hurts YOU also and should hurt everyone.  It isn't apparent here, where you're not even admitting that it's not a proven truth that you are fighting for, yet you're stating it as fact, and basically perpetuating the system that will always keep racism ripe and alive.  

Believing in IQ tests as if they were the modern Bible for a person's worth and place in society is just baffling.  I'm merely arguing against your standpoint, not arguing that mine is the ultimate truth.  And thus, not arguing that what I say cannot be argued against because it is 'fact' because it is science.

My definition of science is not so loose, I suppose.

Double post is double post.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 30, 2007)

well I'm glad you care so much about me!  But really, soy is full of estrogen.  It's like chowing down on birth control pills for breakfast lunch and dinner.  It's poison for men.

there is no cultural bias in IQ tests.  Almost all psychologists agree with this.  IQ relates to real life success measures, like education levels, income, length of life, marital stability, and lack of crime.  (how can there be culture bias on a flashing light test? the light flashes and you click it!)

A person's self worth is a bit more tricky than his raw power.  Power misused is worse than weakness.  I particularly despise smart rich privileged white kids who take drugs and rant against the Man.  That just makes me want to kill.  They're certainly not worth a fucking dime.

The environment explains why ethiopians are so dumb, but it doesn't explain the minnesota transracial adoption study.  Or the persistent gap even between children of blacks and whites at the same socioeconomic level.  ((this is because genes tend to return to the mean in later generations, if they're exceptions.  So a genius black parent will tend to have much less intelligent kids, while a genius white parent, say, will have only a slightly dumber kid.  It sucks but that's science.))


----------



## idc lol (Oct 30, 2007)

Diamed said:


> well I'm glad you care so much about me!  But really, soy is full of estrogen.  It's like chowing down on birth control pills for breakfast lunch and dinner.  It's poison for men.
> 
> there is no cultural bias in IQ tests.  Almost all psychologists agree with this.  IQ relates to real life success measures, like education levels, income, length of life, marital stability, and lack of crime.  (how can there be culture bias on a flashing light test? the light flashes and you click it!)
> 
> ...




I do care for you.  In fact, I'm secretly gay for you because I've had a ton of soy milk.

Um, you have a lot of anger if that makes you want to kill.  But then again you were ranting about affirmative action and white guilt and all of that so I see where your beliefs lay  

So Environment can explain how someone can be dumb, but you have said that there's no real way to make intelligence higher?   Are you certain? Has this been tested time and time again, or have there only been a few studies?  Are there studies on the other side proving the same thing with twins and adopted children and control groups?  Yes, they are.  So it's not proven.

You can't just keep saying 'that's science'.   Why are you still saying nothing about the debunking of the sources you've cited?

What you're saying hasn't been proven to be empirically true.  I'm sorry to say.  So when you talk about how a black genius parent will have a dumber kid than a white genius parent, I need to see results coming from a completely unbiased source, neurological scans to back this all up, controlled groups, etc.   Oh also, I'd argue that a black and a white on equal socioeconomic status are still not 'equal' by society's considerations but that's an entirely different debate.  Anyways, you still haven't proven what you've said to be entirely true.  Really, you just seem like someone who is fed up with other parts of the world, you think they are behind and there's little hope for them to catch up with the industrialized and more 'intelligent' nations and they are fated to that because of their race.  There hasn't been exploitation and you believe in holding them completely accountable for their failure as a nation to rise up and become just like us, and people are poor because they are dumb, people are not dumb because they are poor.

Cause and correlation is not the same in this case?  Or are they the same, or is one leading to another, or the other leading to one?

There are so many holes in this logic, so many things to question, but I see your viewpoint now, it's pretty obvious.  You don't want this part of the world to be responsible for other parts of the world, and you are of the belief that nations are poor and in bad shape not because of exploitation or natural cycle, but because they are genetically inferior intellect-wise.

And you will agree with any article that supports your viewpoint and call it fact.  But disagree with any article that counters it and call it biased or overly liberal.

Okay.


----------



## Cirus (Oct 30, 2007)

Well at least the guy is trying to base it on something rather then saying just random racist BS.  Still I hope he is wrong, but then againg I wonder how close he will be when science gets that far.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 30, 2007)

Cirus said:


> Well at least the guy is trying to base it on something rather then saying just random racist BS.  Still I hope he is wrong, but then againg I wonder how close he will be when science gets that far.



Honestly, science will get so far that I think it's hard for us to even accurately comprehend it, depending on if religion dies out at all and how our government changes/evolves/implodes/whatever.

I don't think Watson should have apologized if he truly believed what he's saying.  Even if I don't agree with it, that was even douchier.  He is just full of douchey surprises.

"Shortly after publication of the interview, Watson back-tracked, saying he was "mortified about what has happened" and that "there is no scientific basis for such a belief"."

I don't understand that.  I can understand him acknowledging that it's not proven, because his reference to black employees showed how professional he was when making his statement, but why would he back-track right away?  It's dumb.  And yes, I can comprehend and appreciate that Watson arranged 3-5% of the US expenditure on the human genome project and was a very devoted and brilliant geneticist and still think he's said some douchey things, because I do not follow the dubious authority fallacy.  Just like Watson can take Franklin's work and call her names afterward.

He even said in a recent interview that he never regretted any of his words that have been published before, even when he got blasted for saying mothers should be able to abort homosexual children.

So why this, now?  What a coward.


But to think the answer has been found either way is ridiculous.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 30, 2007)

Fine, fine.  The science is not in.  History still makes sense only if some races are better than others.  That's why you see whites and asians (native americans are asians and created vast empires too) creating vast empires while blacks and oceanics stayed in little tribes.  It's why the entire world was colonized by whites---except for east asians.  It's why India was conquered by whites and east asians over and over.  First by aryans, then by alexander the great, then by afghans, arabs, babar the turk/mongol, then by the Portuguese,french, and british.  And yet India never conquered anyone.  How can you explain such a lopsided situation?  It explains why no public monuments were built in Africa, whereas tiny little EASTER ISLAND managed to build a very large and pretty ring of statues.  How do you lose to an island in the middle of nowhere?  It explains why madagascar, just off the coast of africa, was settled by pacific islanders who sailed three thousand miles to find and settle it.  You can't tell me these islands have more resources, a larger population, more access to eurasian technology, etc.  In fact they're worse in all environmental fields.  The one thing they had is more smarts.


----------



## HyperKnuckles22 (Oct 30, 2007)

it seems strange how all of a sudden this rascist shit like this is exploding onto society.



> He even said in a recent interview that he never regretted any of his words that have been published before, even when he got blasted for saying mothers should be able to abort homosexual children.



that coward should be grateful that i dont know where he lives.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 30, 2007)

he is a coward.  He angers me too.  Charles Murray has unapologetically continued his career and ideals ever since the bell curve, but in just a week, watson apologizes and resigns.  he's a coward through and through.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 30, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Fine, fine.  The science is not in.  History still makes sense only if some races are better than others.  That's why you see whites and asians (native americans are asians and created vast empires too) creating vast empires while blacks and oceanics stayed in little tribes.  It's why the entire world was colonized by whites---except for east asians.  It's why India was conquered by whites and east asians over and over.  First by aryans, then by alexander the great, then by afghans, arabs, babar the turk/mongol, then by the Portuguese,french, and british.  And yet India never conquered anyone.  How can you explain such a lopsided situation?  It explains why no public monuments were built in Africa, whereas tiny little EASTER ISLAND managed to build a very large and pretty ring of statues.  How do you lose to an island in the middle of nowhere?  It explains why madagascar, just off the coast of africa, was settled by pacific islanders who sailed three thousand miles to find and settle it.  You can't tell me these islands have more resources, a larger population, more access to eurasian technology, etc.  In fact they're worse in all environmental fields.  The one thing they had is more smarts.




Honestly?  I have my own theories for why this has occurred, but because they are unproven and I don't even have enough evidence other than history itself, I can't really give you an answer there.  So while I will debate with you on the actual authority involved in various reports on IQ worldwide, I cannot give you an honest answer from my side of the fence explaining these things.  I could conclude that it was racism and exploitation, and that certain civilizations gained cultural and technological advancements from neighboring civilizations, invaded, and advanced much further while leaving other civilizations in the dust, and I could chalk that up to whatever I'd like, but it would just be a theory.  History is a fact, and history is something I cannot argue with.  I can try and theorize on why it has come to be like that, but I'd probably be way off, or would have no way to prove what I say is right.


As for Watson apologizing, yes.  That was betraying his integrity.  I can't really respect that.  The projects he has worked on, even if I disagree with them, he has put a lot of passion into.  He has stated only months previous to this that he's never been regretful of his words.  Why would he make such an insincere apology?  If he truly believes in what he says, he should have stood by it.   Unless he really meant the apology, which I doubt, because like I said he poured years of his time and energy into the Bell Curve and other projects similar to it.


----------



## Edo (Oct 30, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Fine, fine.  The science is not in.  History still makes sense only if some races are better than others.  That's why you see whites and asians (native americans are asians and created vast empires too) creating vast empires while blacks and oceanics stayed in little tribes.  It's why the entire world was colonized by whites---except for east asians.  It's why India was conquered by whites and east asians over and over.  First by aryans, then by alexander the great, then by afghans, arabs, babar the turk/mongol, then by the Portuguese,french, and british.  And yet India never conquered anyone.  How can you explain such a lopsided situation?  *It explains why no public monuments were built in Africa*, whereas tiny little EASTER ISLAND managed to build a very large and pretty ring of statues.  How do you lose to an island in the middle of nowhere?  It explains why madagascar, just off the coast of africa, was settled by pacific islanders who sailed three thousand miles to find and settle it.  You can't tell me these islands have more resources, a larger population, more access to eurasian technology, etc.  In fact they're worse in all environmental fields.  The one thing they had is more smarts.




lol...ignorance at its  best......do you know anything about the Ethiopian culture?? Do you know what the pyramids are and do you know where they are located???


Hey even a "dumb" person can rule the world....cough*Bush*cough....


PS: what is your IQ score Diamed???


----------



## Diamed (Oct 30, 2007)

egypt was caucasian.  I of course mean black, sub-saharan africa since I'm trying to show a black cognitive gap.  I know of no public monuments in ethiopia predating modern times.  however the incas have machu picchu, cambodia has angkor wat, britain has stonehenge, and easter island has a bunch of faces.  That seems like a startling fact to me.  Easter Island, middle of nowhere, so few resources they even ran out of trees--more public monuments than all of sub-saharan africa.

140.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 30, 2007)

Diamed said:


> 140.



Under which method?


----------



## Edo (Oct 30, 2007)

Diamed said:


> egypt was caucasian.  I of course mean black, sub-saharan africa since I'm trying to show a black cognitive gap.  I know of no public monuments in ethiopia predating modern times.  however the incas have machu picchu, cambodia has angkor wat, britain has stonehenge, and easter island has a bunch of faces.  That seems like a startling fact to me.  Easter Island, middle of nowhere, so few resources they even ran out of trees--more public monuments than all of sub-saharan africa.
> 
> 140.



140....who are you kidding, one look at your posts and that makes it impossible for anyone to believe that you have a 140 IQ...but what the hell....

here read this smarty-pants.....


----------



## idc lol (Oct 30, 2007)

Why, oh why..did anyone bring in IQ scores into this?  The subject either must be dropped now or it will turn into a pissing contest fast.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 30, 2007)

idc lol said:


> Why, oh why..did anyone bring in IQ scores into this?  The subject either must be dropped now or it will turn into a pissing contest fast.



Too late.  

Considering Diamed's reputation on the forums and the nature of this thread, I'm surprised he wasn't asked sooner.


----------



## The Sentry (Oct 30, 2007)

This is why i dont believe in evolution. It was based on racism and thoerised by RACISTS. All Scientists base thier research and thoerys on thier beliefs and form thier viewpoints.


----------



## Byakkö (Oct 31, 2007)

I know for a fact Asians are smarter than white people, now am I in trouble for racisim?                     This whole thing is bs.


----------



## Aldrick (Oct 31, 2007)

HAY GUYZ IZ JUST A COINCIDENCE

After all Dark Adonis is not like that 

EDIT: If blacks do have lower IQ's on average, then that doesn't mean we should treat them badly or re-enslave them or anything.

I mean, we don't do that to Down Syndrome peoples.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Oct 31, 2007)

idc lol said:


> The fact that some people here are agreeing with this makes me wonder if we should do an IQ test on NF, then come to the conclusion that the majority of people that visit (yes, even YOU.) are intellectually inferior.
> 
> Because a man who says "But anyone who has had to deal with a black employee" is basing this off of scientific research.
> 
> ...


QFT



idc lol said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_sc/controversial_scientist
> 
> His apology for his statements right here, or rather, him noticing that what he said was just not only racist (not that he cares), but BAD SCIENCE in general.  He's a senile moron and should croak. NEXT~


Nice reference, but I doubt that the *supremacists* would take notice of the debunking of the statements that they've based their entire argument on. Even if it is by the same man who made those statements, in the first place.
*They're too intelligent for that.*



TheFourthNin said:


> You know, there used to be this one guy, about 60-70 years ago, tall, handsome, nice paintor and all, that had a great variant on this theory.
> He discovered for what at the time they considered some reasonable proccess that one kind of human beings had genetic superiority over another one.
> Then, so they could find ways to improove their people even better, they split their people into the one preeselected breed and the other volunteers were politley invited to form their own haaappy comunity in  some govermental supplied "camps".
> I wonder how did that go....


Great comparison and great post. Except you misspelled painter (and about 5 other words), but that's cool. Still, a great post.


Keile said:


> Your ideals, from my point of view, are twisted. The only "truth" here is that a disgraced scientist has once again made a controversial statement about race based on nothing more than racial stigma. *He has since retracted his comments and disproved his own points, in which you so feverishly intend to defend*.---


You have to understand that a White Supremacist has a very selective memory and selective logic.
*Unfortunately, this means your post falls on death ears. *


Mr.Despair said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great post.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Oct 31, 2007)

Juubi said:


> I know how you feel, lol. It seems that every few years or so, someone's trying to "prove" the inferiority of black people--as if they don't catch enough hell already everywhere they live.


QFT


Robotkiller said:


> He may be one of the worlds most renowned geneticists, but he doesn't have a consensus agreement from his contemparies, meaning his views or findings aren't accepted science yet. These articles also mention he has previous history of negative views on race, gender and sexuality issues.
> 
> To me, it sounds like he is simply saying this because he thinks it, with his position as a foremost geneticist taking it from relatively innocuous racist remarks to shocking and weighted racist remarks.


QFT


0Fear said:


> Tell that to the Africans in Europe who are constantly out preforming EVERYONE academically ...not just whites. If Africa had better educational systems would this old man even want to think how well they would do? No, he'd probably make up some stupid thory about how melanin dampens brainwaves. BS, old man, BS.
> 
> 
> This old coot also fails to accomodate living conditions. Is it a coindidence that richer people have higher "IQs"?
> ...


QFT

Very good points.


TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Could it have anything to do with lackluster education? No, of course not. We can never appeal to a reason that doesn't imply racial superiority on your end. Stupidity is just in their blood.
> 
> Whenever it's suggested people have a predisposition towards criminal behavior, people are repulsed at the notion and claim everyone is equaly responsible for their crimes. Yet when the same logic is used in the context of race to deem a race inferior, everyone jumps on board and become determinists.


Nicely put.




Anaiya said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is one of the best posts in this thread, if not THE BEST.




Aldrick said:


> EDIT: *If blacks do have lower IQ's on average, then that doesn't mean we should treat them badly or re-enslave them or anything.*
> 
> I mean, we don't do that to Down Syndrome peoples.


*This post is a prime example of NF-tardation.* That such thoughts could be stimulated by such subtle and indirect suggestions, speaks very negatively of the mental capacity of those who are so easily manipulated.
Must be in NF's genetic e-code. 
Thanks to the Bell Curve, we aren't all as hopeless as this.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 31, 2007)

congrats xbox, you can add absolutely nothing to the debate while reposting already debunked studies.

Nothing is stopping individual blacks from being geniuses.  Unfortunately it's like a salmon swimming upstream because of regression towards the mean.  If you take a non-representative sample, it's likely the next generation will be more representative, a return to 'normalcy.'  This also helps especially dumb people have smarter children.  And short people have taller children, and tall people shorter children, etc, etc.



An example is from the heritability of IQ (or height or weight) or any other symmetric, bell curved measure depending on multiple factors, some of which are inherited. If 80% of the measure's variation is due to heredity, an individual's estimated, expected value as a percentile is .8(average of the parents' percentiles) + .2(population mean percentile) or

    .4(father's percentile) + .4(mother's percentile) + 10.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 31, 2007)

Diamed said:


> congrats xbox, you can add absolutely nothing to the debate while reposting already debunked studies.



Are you referring again to the Milwaukee Project as debunked, because you never actually debunked it.  All you did was quote a book written by a self proclaimed white supremacist with absolutely no backing to his claim, to which I responded:


Anaiya said:


> Explain to me how the Milwaukee Project failed.



Unless I missed something, you never did.


----------



## mislead (Oct 31, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Fine, fine.  The science is not in.  History still makes sense only if some races are better than others.  That's why you see whites and asians (native americans are asians and created vast empires too) creating vast empires while blacks and oceanics stayed in little tribes.  It's why the entire world was colonized by whites---except for east asians.  It's why India was conquered by whites and east asians over and over.  First by aryans, then by alexander the great, then by afghans, arabs, babar the turk/mongol, then by the Portuguese,french, and british.  And yet India never conquered anyone.  How can you explain such a lopsided situation?  It explains why no public monuments were built in Africa, whereas tiny little EASTER ISLAND managed to build a very large and pretty ring of statues.  How do you lose to an island in the middle of nowhere?  It explains why madagascar, just off the coast of africa, was settled by pacific islanders who sailed three thousand miles to find and settle it.  You can't tell me these islands have more resources, a larger population, more access to eurasian technology, etc.  In fact they're worse in all environmental fields.  The one thing they had is more smarts.



Say Diamed, are you perhaps suggesting that India is inhabited by Africans? <3

Besides, your point about the far eastern civilizations not being conquered by the Europeans is pretty weak. Nothing would have stopped Great Britain from conquering Japan before (or during) the Meiji Revolution; it's just that Japan was worth more as a trade partner. A similar situation arose with China, which was completely dominated during the opium wars, and was consequently forced into an economically unfavorable trade model.

They may not have been conquered in an all-out military conflict, but they were clearly inferior to the European civilization at that time.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 31, 2007)

Kuukunnen posted the exact same response I did, supposedly from a different source.  The scores went up dramatically during childhood but it did not raise their adult IQ, or at best it raised the IQ 5 points.  It was all in vain and a disaster for the environmental side.  And now you're going to ignore any source that doesn't share your opinion? Because it's very likely people who share your opinion, won't do studies or publish studies that are in direct contradiction to their own bias.  So if you aren't even willing to listen to the hard science of the other side, then you're just as bad as a brainwashed bible thumper.

Oh and mislead, no doubt europe could have conquered asia, and asia at certain points in europeon history could've conquered europe.  But it's remarkable that europe had the least edge on asia--unless you take into account IQ scores, in which case it was obvious.  As for India, the dravidians of southern India score much lower than the whites who have invaded over the centuries.  But then the whites after conquering interbreed with the dravidians, and are far less numerous,  ((just imagine sticking all of afghanistan's population into India, it would be like a drop of water in an ocean)) meaning their race is virtually exterminated by dissolution---paving the way for another smart small white group to conquer, and then dissolve into the giant population of India, etc.  The same was done in China by the way.  The history of china is northerners conquering and being absorbed by the teeming masses, losing their genetic advantage, and then losing power.  Manchus used to be a separate race to the north of china that conquered china, but via interbreeding, they're now indistinguishable from other chinese, and china controls manchuria instead.  The same with the mongols.  Inner mongolia is now part of china, and their mongol conquerors are all basically vanished into the gene pool.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 31, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Kuukunnen posted the exact same response I did, supposedly from a different source.  The scores went up dramatically during childhood but it did not raise their adult IQ, or at best it raised the IQ 5 points.  It was all in vain and a disaster for the environmental side.  And now you're going to ignore any source that doesn't share your opinion? Because it's very likely people who share your opinion, won't do studies or publish studies that are in direct contradiction to their own bias.  So if you aren't even willing to listen to the hard science of the other side, then you're just as bad as a brainwashed bible thumper.



According to the project's long term testing, project subjects maintained an average IQ 20 points above the control group (105 compared to 85).  The project itself lasted only up to age six, at which point the children were returned to the general environment complete with significant environmental factors hindering any further progress (including poor nutrition, ignorant parents, and a school system designed to nurture students of lower intelligence).  The purpose of the project was to study these effects, which it did, so it was not a failure.

Where did I say that I didn't agree with anything that didn't share my opinion?  I'm posting facts here - an actual study complete with results and numbers.  You quoted the _opinion_ of a man who admits a bias that significantly decreases his credibility on the matter.

As for Kuukunen's response, I admit I missed it the first time around.  Regardless, even that supports the long-term effect of the Milwaukee Project:


> Only the Milwaukee Project found any long-term effect on IQ.



These projects were designed as early intervention projects with the notion that improving the education of children at the preschool level would better prepare them for school, and that is precisely what they did.  So where did the failure these individuals claim come from?  They came from what happened after the program; from the poor educational system, which only further supports that environment has an impact on intelligence.  

Blaming an early intervention program that improved the children's preparation for the educational system for the failures of the educational system itself is more than a little silly and the mere fact that the long term IQ of these students remained even slightly higher than their fellow students lends a bit of credence to the program designed to prepare them for school in the first place.  Do you really think that improving the education system itself will not effect the children positively?

Kuukunen's other link further supports just what I've said here:
The SasuIno one is here. :3



> In a recent Joint Center for Poverty Research working paper, "Early Childhood Intervention Programs: What Do We Know?" Janet Currie reviews the evaluations of several early childhood intervention programs. The programs she examines are predominantly center-based programs that emphasize school readiness. She finds that well-designed, well-funded early interventions can have large and significant effects on school readiness and subsequent child outcomes.



Seriously, drop the rhetoric.  The _opinion_ you responded to me with is in no way "hard science".  I'm one of the few people here who has not called you a bigot or a racist.  I have not posted personal attacks against you and I would appreciate if you do the same for me.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 31, 2007)

She finds that well-designed, well-funded early interventions can have large and significant effects on school readiness and subsequent *child outcomes.*

they have no effect, or at best a 5 IQ effect on* adult* outcomes.  Though you're right, again we're met with a lack of science and a lack of studies.  Why haven't they tried a continuous all the way to adulthood environmentally rich learning environment?  It's so frustrating because there's always a dodge.

And yes you've had a lot more polite tone, but calling a guy a white supremacist when he's the first to say asians and jews have a higher IQ than whites, to me it was very rude and dismissive.  No IQ test has ever shown white superiority.  If anything it should teach us to be modest.  Furthermore there's a great range of intellect across whites.  American blacks are commonly smarter than arab and Indian whites.  This is not about white supremacy, nor do any facts support that.  If anything it's about asian supremacy!


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 31, 2007)

Diamed said:


> She finds that well-designed, well-funded early interventions can have large and significant effects on school readiness and subsequent *child outcomes.*
> 
> they have no effect, or at best a 5 IQ effect on* adult* outcomes.  Though you're right, again we're met with a lack of science and a lack of studies.  Why haven't they tried a continuous all the way to adulthood environmentally rich learning environment?  It's so frustrating because there's always a dodge.



I made no claims to adult outcome.  You made two claims I chose this study to refute:

1.  "Environment doesn't matter"
2.  "That IQ can be raised by increasing your test taking scores is a myth, provide one source where scientists actually did an experiment and managed to raise the IQ scores of someone by 15 points."

The Milwaukee Project shows that environment does matter and it is a prime example of an experiment that managed to raise IQ scores significantly.



Diamed said:


> And yes you've had a lot more polite tone, but calling a guy a white supremacist when he's the first to say asians and jews have a higher IQ than whites, to me it was very rude and dismissive.  No IQ test has ever shown white superiority.  If anything it should teach us to be modest.  Furthermore there's a great range of intellect across whites.  American blacks are commonly smarter than arab and Indian whites.  This is not about white supremacy, nor do any facts support that.  If anything it's about asian supremacy!



I didn't call him a white supremacist.  I said he called himself a white supremacist.  Did you miss "self proclaimed"?


----------



## Diamed (Oct 31, 2007)

mind linking that self proclamation?  His book doesn't say a single word about that.  His book condemns hitler and says his theories were completely unscientific.


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 31, 2007)

Diamed said:


> mind linking that self proclamation?  His book doesn't say a single word about that.  His book condemns hitler and says his theories were completely unscientific.



Source:
Interview with Michael H. Hart by Russell K. Neili, April 14, 2000. _Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America_, edited by Carol M. Swain and Russ Nieli, Cambridge University Press, 2003. 

His self-proclamation is on page 201.

Also, from pages 184-185: Hart delivered a paper at a 1996 conference describing his proposal to partition the United States into four states: a white state, a black state, a Hispanic state, and an integrated mixed-race state.


----------



## Diamed (Oct 31, 2007)

I'm sorry but can you actually provide a link to the quote?  I've tried and tried to find it, and I suspect you're taking it horribly out of context.  For instance he could've said he's a white nationalist and thinks homogeneous nations with a single ethnicity and ethic are best.  Or believes europeons have the best culture.  Or anything.  I can't find the quote myself, even with those instructions.  Do you want me to go buy the book and read it?



Hart, who describes himself as a white separatist[1], 

t a 1994 conference, he had a public confrontation with former Klansman and former Louisiana politician David Duke over Duke's anti-Semitic remarks during a speech

White SEPARATIST.  not SUPREMACIST


----------



## Anaiya (Oct 31, 2007)

Forgive me, I thought I had originally said separatist.  I have a few distractions here today.

The point remains that he fully discloses his own bias.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 31, 2007)

Diamed said:


> White SEPARATIST.  not SUPREMACIST



Thank Heavens! Here I was thinking he was a racist bigot but that's clearly not the case. He doesn't find other races inferior, he merely finds them so intolerable as to want to separate his entire race from them. Huge difference. 

Sarcasm aside, the distinction is so minimal it wasn't worth clarifying. Both mindsets have an identical root; or rather, white supremacy tends to be the root of separatism.


----------



## idc lol (Oct 31, 2007)

Diamed said:


> White SEPARATIST.  not SUPREMACIST



I rofl'd.  

No one should be debating this anymore.  Diamed, most of what you've shown has also been debunked, the sources have been shown to be biased and the data has been manipulated (concerning the IQ scores/averages across the world; not the twin studies or any o fthat. there is a good amount of evidence on both the nature and the nurture side.), so anything you say is not any more valid or sound than those you are arguing against.

The answer has not been found in the entire nature vs. nurture debate.  There are those of us who think it is racist and also horribly deluded to find an entire race of people are inborn less intelligent than others, and there are those who believe or have concluded it to be true for whatever reasons they have.

There is no real evidence to convince me otherwise of my opinion.  Environment, neurological scans, a clear history on the nourishment and childhood of each subject, equal status in a non-racist nation, all of these are factors that I have yet to see evident in each argument.  Not only that, but the biased sources and manipulated data on the side that wrote the book about "IQ and the wealth of nations" (estimating IQ using faulty methods? taking malnourished and traumatized teenagers and using them as a representative of an entire continent's IQ?  ) are not enough to wipe off the skeptic frown on my face.

Just as I'm sure everything we show Diamed won't convince them that blacks are not born with lower IQs than whites and other races.  BTW the jews still aren't a race.


----------



## Diamed (Nov 1, 2007)

It's amazing that 10,000 years of human history are not enough to convince you that it wasn't just coincidence that blacks have always underperformed.

I presume that another 100, or even 1,000, or even another 10,000 years of blacks still underperforming, would also change no one's mind.  It would still be a coincidence, with a new excuse for every thirty years or so replacing the old, invalidated one.  I suppose this juggling game could go on forever, but I propose ten thousand years is long enough and excuses are just that, excuses.

I keep seeing these excuses.  "Blacks aren't educated enough."  Why aren't they educated enough?  Everyone else can do it.  They're getting educated enough.  So why are only blacks not educated?  Don't complain about natural resources, they have some of the best in the world.

Blacks are starving.  Why are they starving?  Singapore isn't starving, even though it barely has an inch of farmland.  And yet Africa has plenty of farmland.  Why is it so unproductive it can't even afford food, which is cheaper in the modern world than ever?

Blacks have lots of corrupt warlords.  But why do they have so many corrupt warlords?  Why are they the single worst governed people on earth?  They were all free to put whoever they wanted in power, why was it always bad people?

Blacks got slaves snatched.  But why were slaves taken from Africa? Why was it so easy?  Why did europeons, arabs, and blacks all enslave blacks and not some other race?  Why were blacks always the weakest military on earth?

Blacks suffer from racism.  But why do they suffer from racism?  Did the world wake up one day and say, "you know what, I think we can all agree to hate black people." and from there on a secret conspiracy has been passed down a thousand generations, so that almost all negative stereotypes center around blacks?  Did the rest of the world roll a die and then decide 'alright then, from here on we'll despise only blacks and make their life as hard as possible, hohoho, that'll teach 'em.'

Blacks are poor.  But why are they poor?  Is someone snatching their money in the night?  What is stopping them from getting a degree, start their own business, invest wisely, save frugally, etc, etc?  If you say racism, what is stopping blacks from funding blacks if they're just as good--surely if there's a wide pool of qualified blacks out there being unused, you would have a competitive advantage hiring blacks instead of whites, and quickly have tons of quality goods and services.  But in fact affirmative action is making sure blacks get more positions than they merit.

Blacks have broken homes.  But why are their homes broken? Why don't they have the self discipline to stay together?  Why are they so feckless that up to 90% of the children are born without any father figure?  Do whites come in the night and snatch all the men away?

Blacks have bad neighborhoods.  But why are they bad neighborhoods?  Isn't it just neighborhoods full of other wonderful blacks, that only racism is holding back, but who are actually as qualified and good as anyone else?  What's so bad about living around other blacks that it's considered a 'ghetto.'  When a bunch of whites cluster together they don't form a ghetto, they form a suburb.  So what's the difference?

Blacks are more often victims of crime, or arrested as criminals.  But why?  Is it because they live near other blacks, who keep attacking them?  Is it because they are more criminal minded and therefore keep getting put in jail?  Or do whites dress up as blacks and go on crime sprees in black neighborhoods, while the cops look the other way?  And are cops just rounding up perfectly good church-goers and doctors and lawyers and sticking them in prison without any trial or appeals?

Every single environmental factor listed is a proximate cause.  the ultimate cause is always one, overarching theme.  Blacks as a whole have a lower IQ, and are therefore incapable of accomplishing the same levels of success at anything that involves thinking, which is almost everything except athletics.  This means they get lower level educations, because higher levels are too hard for them to understand.  They then get lower paying jobs, because higher jobs are too hard to understand.  They get worse rulers, because democracy is too hard for them to understand/perform.  They have less stable families, because maintaining a stable relationship is too hard for them to understand.  They perform crime, because figuring out why crime is wrong is too hard for them to understand.  They spread AIDS, because thinking ahead to the consequences of casual promiscuous sex is too hard for them to understand.  ((indeed much of africa is still claiming it's a white plot, because they don't get all this mumbo jumbo about viruses))  People are racist towards them, because they've encountered so many obnoxious, dumb or criminal blacks that they give up on them as a whole.  It's ridiculous to say "they have low IQ because of X," when it's clearly, "they have X because they have low IQ."  It's putting the cart before the horse.  Stop and ask why their environments are the way they are.  Can you really blame coincidences for every single factor?  Every one of them?


----------



## idc lol (Nov 1, 2007)

Diamed said:


> It's amazing that 10,000 years of human history are not enough to convince you that it wasn't just coincidence that blacks have always underperformed.
> 
> I presume that another 100, or even 1,000, or even another 10,000 years of blacks still underperforming, would also change no one's mind.  It would still be a coincidence, with a new excuse for every thirty years or so replacing the old, invalidated one.  I suppose this juggling game could go on forever, but I propose ten thousand years is long enough and excuses are just that, excuses.
> 
> I keep seeing these excuses.  "Blacks aren't educated enough."  Why aren't they educated enough?  Everyone else can do it.  They're getting educated enough.  So why are only blacks not educated?  Don't complain about natural resources, they have some of the best in the world.



Why do Americans have lower testing scores than the rest of the industralized world, considerably?  Are they born stupid?  We score higher in our childhoods, then stop once we hit teenage years and decline, while others progress and improve in other nations.  

Blacks in this country (given that they've only been 'equal' citizens for little over 50-60 years now, you don't think that if one social group is constantly oppressing and enslaving another it won't evolve into their mindset?  Men used women for currency and property exchange and as spoils of war for a long time, and look at how women still get treated by men in so many parts of the world) do not usually get the same education.  Our public school education system is crap, and many black families cannot afford private schooling.  However, blacks in charter schools and in white districts score better than with inner city schools on tests.  Education is a factor.  

Considering Africa, it is evolution.  The entire continent was taken over by various groups of people and was the forefront of apartheid and separatist institutes for a long while; racism is still embedded in the nation, even against each other, hence all of the civil wars.  There are only 7 continents.  One happens to have had the world shit on it through various times.  North America had genocide to take care of most of its original people.  Asia had a couple of vast empires overtaking the other parts of the world (which would explain why the IQ estimation of that book is faulty: nations neighboring each other in asia have vastly different IQ scores, yet in Africa it was assumed to all be the same once they just got it from a few poor nations), but outside of those empires most nations in asia are also behind in widespread education.  Field work is more admired than test scores, it's a cultural thing.



Diamed said:


> Blacks are starving.  Why are they starving?  Singapore isn't starving, even though it barely has an inch of farmland.  And yet Africa has plenty of farmland.  Why is it so unproductive it can't even afford food, which is cheaper in the modern world than ever?



Why are the sociological differences so vastly apparent in many nations around the world, even ones that neighbor each other?  You can't compare.  Africa had the rape of many of its nations followed by colonialization in the 1800s by France and a few other european countries.  Governments that were being established had been toppled, religion spread, education was segregated and only the religious schooling and caucasions would have good funding.  Healthcare is horrible in the continent, with an estimated 185 deaths (it usually varies between 175-185 throughout the past few decades) per 1000 births (NOT including babies born with AIDS).  Fresh water is lacking in many areas, actually.  Poverty poverty poverty.  And a lot of it had to do with exploitation, I am sorry to say.  This isn't to say that Africa should not rise up and help themselves, also, but people cannot ignore the western world's parttaking in the rape of it throughout the last couple of centuries.  

Places like Darfur, Rwanda, etc it wasn't just tribes.  These were people with cell phones and highways and housings and communities, and all because of a conflict started originally by the west and because of horrendous hate speech, one of the most disgusting civil wars and atrocoties have taken place and reduced it to a worst nightmare.  



Diamed said:


> Blacks have lots of corrupt warlords.  But why do they have so many corrupt warlords?  Why are they the single worst governed people on earth?  They were all free to put whoever they wanted in power, why was it always bad people?



Military occupation by western (more 'civilized' nations?  Yeah fucken right) nations actually contributed a lot to this, and prevented them from truly electing anyone who would act in their best interests up until occupation fully left :\  and this is in the parts of Africa that were considered progressive.  Even europe had its Dark Ages.  If left to their own devices, after horros and horros the people will eventually weed out what doesn't work and fix up what they can, I have faith in it.



Diamed said:


> Blacks got slaves snatched.  But why were slaves taken from Africa? Why was it so easy?  Why did europeons, arabs, and blacks all enslave blacks and not some other race?  Why were blacks always the weakest military on earth?



Jews, a 'smart' race as you say, have also been easily enslaved and subject to violence and exploitation throughout their entire existence.  Of course, since most of them have light skin like white people, they got a helpling hand (not to say it was easy for them, anti-semitism was rampant and ripe up until the last century, and of course still exists in many parts of the world) that the blacks never really could have.  When one civilization advances (and it often is through, especially in the past, borrowing from other civilization's cultures, ideologies, traditions, etc. until we've become economically united as we are today), it is up to them whether they want to actually try to help their fellow human beings out and truly educate them, or you know, exploit them and take over and segregate and spread make people second-class citizens in their own homeland   Of course, the further someone looks from you, the less likely you are to help them.  It is an outdated in-group/out-group survival tactic that is no longer needed and quite frankly is still rampant among every race, it's just that the white race has used it in the worst ways possible in recent history.  Every nation has its atrocoties, though.  

The Jews had a weak military until America provided them with the techonology.   You speak of the high IQ of them but they've had to be helped to get where they are, despite it.  And they faced a ton of religious-racism and could do little about it.


----------



## idc lol (Nov 1, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Blacks are poor.  But why are they poor?  Is someone snatching their money in the night?  What is stopping them from getting a degree, start their own business, invest wisely, save frugally, etc, etc?  If you say racism, what is stopping blacks from funding blacks if they're just as good--surely if there's a wide pool of qualified blacks out there being unused, you would have a competitive advantage hiring blacks instead of whites, and quickly have tons of quality goods and services.  But in fact affirmative action is making sure blacks get more positions than they merit.
> 
> Blacks have broken homes.  But why are their homes broken? Why don't they have the self discipline to stay together?  Why are they so feckless that up to 90% of the children are born without any father figure?  Do whites come in the night and snatch all the men away?



  You're not black, so you wouldn't really know.  Nothing is stopping them.  In fact, black women don't have as much of a problem with going to college , statistically, as black men do.  But are there reports flying out the wazoo of black women being smarter than black men?  I'd conclude that it has to do with the exploitation of ghetto culture on TV.  Lord knows how white people would end up if all we ever showed on TV about them was how to be an uneducated hillbilly.  There are social hinderances that they grow up with that you probably would not understand.  But the black people that can escape it do much better.  This is evident across the globe with many social classes; the larger the gap their is between economic classes, the lower the education is, health is, life expectancy is, and happiness in general is.  America is very divided.  In many nations there is always a minority that does not do as well as the majority and thus fundamental attribution error is born and people perceive stereotypes as the truth; when you are a social creature whatever you see people constantly perceiving you as is sometimes what you resign yourself to, like an inborn caste system.

Not saying that's smart at all   And it just makes me respect the people that can get out of their bad neighborhoods and actually dare to dream to go to a wonderful college all the more.  That's not really seen on TV or encouraged, though.

Look at how much society can change you.  Look at what started being shown on TV in the 80s concerning women and black culture, and look at what slowly evolved:  Girls Gone Wild, women wearing less and less, higher STD rates paired with the glorification of thug and ghetto culture.  It was like a counter-culture against the women's rights movement and the civil rights movement.  But in many cases people become what they perceive, constantly.  A black child does not grow up dreaming or having ambitions to go to an Ivy League school or be rich and a doctor one day usually because all they see on TV is the exact opposite, and we are beings that categorize.  We associate ourselves with what resembles us, and if what resembles us on TV is a negative image, chances are we won't have many big dreams.

It's so much of a cultural thing, too.  Environment effects your genetics, and genetics effect the environment.  Evolution is all about genetics being suited to the environment, and this is probably constantly happening.

It's just very different for a privelaged member of society to see it this way.  They have a hard time comprehending what it would be like to see nothing but bad images of people you associate with yourself on television, getting called derogatory names that people were called while they were lynched, being looked at differently as you walked down the street, etc.



As for the crime rate, most crimes African Americans commit are against each other, and this has to do with them being in the lower economic class.  The statistic changes drastically concerning African americans in middle class.  EVERYWHERE all around the globe people in poor situations are going to be more violent against each other.  White people in russia are horribly violent against each other, especially in the poor parts.


This could go on forever, seriously.    When will we drop it?  I think this is coming down to different subscribed theories and ideologies about humankind and what exactly effects our performance as individuals and as a group, and I don't know how to convince someone of my argument any more than I know how to think someone else is right in theirs.  Which pretty much boils down to idc lol.


----------



## AbnormallyNormal (Nov 1, 2007)

you guys need to read that book "Guns germs and steel" it totally debunks diamed's asinine claims about "superior races"


----------



## idc lol (Nov 1, 2007)

AbnormallyNormal said:


> you guys need to read that book "Guns germs and steel" it totally debunks diamed's asinine claims about "superior races"



I *love* that book.  Most books I would rec are in French  but that is a birlliant book.

However, I'm afraid diamed could just say "Read IQ and the wealth of nations, it debunks everything you guys say" or a christian could say "Read the bible, it debunks everything atheists say."  In the end, it's still not concrete proof.  

That is a brilliant book though, AbnormallyNormal.

Honestly, when I find myself thinking of the entire race and 'civilized vs. uncivilized' issue, I always revert back to thinking of Cannibal Holocaust   Sure, the acting wasn't superb on all accounts, it had disgusting animal cruelty in the film, and it's just hard to watch all-around, but it says an important message about humans as a whole and our ability to look at things only from the outside, especially another group of people.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Nov 1, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> Are you referring again to the Milwaukee Project as debunked, because you never actually debunked it.  All you did was quote a book written by a self proclaimed white supremacist with absolutely no backing to his claim.


Yes, he is saying that the project has been debunked. Never mind the fact that this isn't true. 

You see, with a White Supremacist, there are no such things as indisputable facts, just OPINIONS. However, in their world, the only opinions that matter, are their own.

So, whatever a White Supremacist believes or speaks, is right. They believe this to be true, in spite of any FACTS to the contrary, because all facts, that disagree with their beliefs, are disputable. And, it is only their own opinions, how ever flawed they may be, that remain indisputable.

Thus, asking a White Supremacist to acknowledge any flaws in their beliefs is tantamount to demanding that they, themselves, unhinge the core *logic* behind the mechanisms of their reality.
This also means that any attempt, by a rational human being, to have a White Supremacist enlightened by rational reasoning, is very illogical.

Finally, no matter how many damnable facts you present to a White Supremacist, no matter how many undisputed studies you cite, no matter how many of their own leaders discredit themselves, no matter how many of their theories you disprove, no matter how many times history has seen the fall of White Supremacist movements and groups; you can't even hope to scratch the foundation of what a White Supremacist perceives to be reality, without first accomplishing one goal....
*You must convince them to completely abandon their ideology, or in other words, give up on White Supremacy.* The very nature of White Supremacy (which I believe to be a common anomaly, resulting from a cultural narcissism) demands that one exhibits an unmoving commitment to a certain ideology. There is no room for gray in White Supremacy.

*Persuading a supremacist to let go of even a fraction of one of their warped beliefs can be a battle as difficult as achieving world peace. 
However, convincing them to abandon such ridiculous ideology can be a task a simple as helping a toddler to realize that the world does NOT end at the corner of the block that their house sits on.* 





P.S. ^This is psychology. Which, obviously, is something that this bigoted scientist, James Watson, has never had an understanding of.


----------



## AbnormallyNormal (Nov 1, 2007)

yeah white supremacy probably is what people whose lives suck want to try to make themselves feel better "lol i'm white so i rule" something like that. i think it'll just take time for more interracial marriages so race differences break down gradually, plus time for other parts of the world to develop economically like japan has. people dont make fun of japan anymore since they're just like USA/europe now


----------



## Diamed (Nov 1, 2007)

You should read IQ and the Wealth of Nations, it totally debunks. . .^^.

But anyway I have read Guns, Germs, and Steel.  He has some points, but his explanation is missing a few things I've already pointed out.  Say what you like about Africa, it clearly has a better environment, with more access to domesticable plants and animals and eurasian technology, a wider west-east axis, etc, than an island in the pacific, or the civilizations in America.  It also had a huge head start, whereas both pacific islanders and native americans spent half of history just reaching their homelands.  There is no environmental explanation why Africa would turn out to be the furthest lagging region.  By every single measure he mentioned, mesoamerica suffers worse than Africa, but mesoamerica meanwhile had invented a calender, writing, built macchu picchu, established wide empires with giant cities, maybe the biggest in the world---and the africans. . .

Guns Germs and Steel also conveniently doesn't attempt to explain what happened after 1500, where supposedly all these technological gains would no longer matter because everyone eventually had access to them.  It doesn't explain why some people adapt to modernity quicker than others.  Like Japan in the 1800's transforming and winning against Russia only 50 years later.  It doesn't explain why IQ tests correlate so well with every success measure, income, education, marital length, length of life, non-criminal minded.  It in fact just dismisses IQ tests like they don't even exist, which is just fraud.  IQ tests are real and they're really testing something.  It's the same thing that succeeds at other thought-based activities.  Any psychologist could have informed him of this, but he finds it too inconvenient to accept.

Idc lol --  I have to say your wish to argue your side even in the worst conundrums I throw at you, where I swear I've tied it all up as impossible to deny genetics---but you find a way!  It's brave and kind of you.  However, colonialism occurred all over the world, not just Africa.  In fact America, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Canada, Argentina, and in short most of the world was colonized.  But the outcomes were drastically different.  Do you think the colonials who went to Africa were particularly vicious and murderous?  That they said to themselves, "I know what I'll do, instead of create cash crops or factories like they're doing in India, I'll just whip some black people today and maybe steal some gold."  From looking at every other colonial movement, it was a combination of people wanting new land, more money, and to help the savages of the world with Christianity and the enlightenment.  I doubt it was any different in Africa.  The impact of almost every other colonial movement was to create a great nation after it left, but not Africa.  Furthermore Ethiopia was never colonized, and most of Africa was colonized for only a short time, in comparison to India, Indonesia, the americas, etc.  It seems odd that the greatest impact would be on the countries held for the shortest time.

I agree there are probably a lot of intelligent blacks pissing away their lives as gangstas and rappas and hos.  But why did blacks decide on that culture?  It's not like we were forcing rap down their throats.  Before civil rights, we'd imported our values into blacks, english suits and dresses, church, family, work hard and fulfill the american dream.  Even in the south they couldn't eliminate their last spark of conscience and taught blacks about christianity and the equality of mankind before God.  The incredible break down of all the culture we had given blacks the moment they were free, matches the incredible breakdown of african colonies left with the best government and infrastructure they ever knew.  Whites tried, people died.  I guess would be the catch phrase.  Say what you like, colonial governments were infinitely juster and kinder than the rulers in africa today.  Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of africa, now under mugabe they're starving.

Poverty doesn't cause crime.  Even though mexicans are coming across the border without a dollar to their name, they quickly find a job and carve out a middle class lifestyle.  Sure they're more criminal than whites, but they're less criminal than blacks who have every modern convenience you could ask for.  Houses, cars, gold jewelry, it doesn't seem to matter.  Even rap stars are murdering each other, even OJ a multi-millionaire, murders and armed robberies.  ((btw blacks by acquitting him and publicly defending his innocence basically told america that they didn't consider it murder if you killed a white or a jew.  I'm still mad about that.))


----------

