Race - What Race Really Means

[Millennium]

Hello all! After reading the thread about "Anti White Genocidalists" I realized that there wasn't enough understanding about what race really is to carry on a meaningful discussion. While I am not right wing, I am not really a left winger either, so I thought it would be most respectful to post this imformation here.

Most of what is claimed about race is generally true; race is a social construct, just the same way that families are a social construct. There is also no such thing as a pure race, just as there are no absolute boundaries between one family and another, or between one class and another.

That stated, this does not mean that race is biologically meaningless - it isn't. Nor are those traits which differ from one race to another as a result of normal biological variation just superficial and cosmetic. Research has actually turned up a great deal of information on racial differences, and they give us a lot to consider because often times they are disturbing.

Blacks, or, more specifically, individuals with substantial African heritage, have larger penises than most other races, and usually average around 7 inches in length. The difference is quite large - East Asian populations have penises that average about two inches shorter with comparatively less girth. Individuals within the European racial family tend to fall within these two extremes. Since corresponding differences in testosterone have also been found between these racial groups, and since there are no reasonable theories which can explain this environmentally or culturally, this difference seems to be mostly - if not totally - genetic.

On the other hand, and almost as disturbing, East Asians have about six extra cubic inches of grey matter when compared to individuals of African descent. This results in a vast disparity in the number of neurons, and consequently the intellectual functioning, of these two broad racial groups. Again, whites fall in between.

These and a host of other racial disparities in athleticism, conscientiousness, extroversion, and lifespan make race an uncomfortable issue. What would the Andersons say to the Joneses if the Andersons scored 20 points better on IQ tests and the Jones had, well, two inches more downstairs? Moreover, what would the Joneses say to the Andersons if they were struggling financially?

The reason we see ideas like "Abolish the white race" are not because the "white race" has gobbled up all the cheese and left none for the other races. In fact, East Asians predictably do better economically than whites, but in America the African American and European American communities are the most noticable, so these are the populations which are always compared. And usually, the comparison leaves whites looking like villains and blacks like oppressed victims, because no one looks at anything like musical ability or oratory skills (individuals who identify as black tend to be more spontaneous and extroverted, which allows them to do well here).

Knowing that races are different, it becomes pretty clear that "Abolishing the white race" isn't the solution to distressing economic disparities. Nor is "abolishing the black race" or any other race. The Joneses aren't going to do as well as the Andersons in school or the workplace, and it's not because the Andersons are oppressing them; they're just different. And we shouldn't blame the Andersons for their failure to measure up to the Jones' ability in the athletic field either - individuals who label themselves black make up only about 12% of the American population, but with their higher levels of testosterone, longer legs, and better muscle tone, blow most other ethnicities out of the water when it comes to sports.

No matter what else we may have to say about these racial differences - and I've only scratched the surface, really - we can't expect any sort of racial harmony until we admit what our differences are. Only when we stop thinking that everyone is the same can we stop pointing fingers when it turns out that some people "aren't doing as well as they should be." There are better ways to help the African American community rise out of poverty; blaming evil white men isn't one of them.

--Mark

P.S. For those wondering where I'm getting this information, the following pages are a good place to start looking.

http://www.t-mag.com/html/5speed.html
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html
http://euvolution.com/articles/race/

[Anonymous]

I found this site to be particularly interesting.

http://www.nordish.com

[Millennium]

I've seen that before; personally I considered it pretty bland. The interesting, relevant differences between ethnicities aren't the way their bones are shaped differently. To say that race is only bone deep is like saying that race is only skin deep; if race were just something that had to do with appearance, it wouldn't matter veryt much. As it happens, race has to do with behavior and with outcomes.

Babies who are identified as black have shorter gestation times by about a week when compared to babies identified as white or Asian. They are capable of lifting their heads and looking around after birth, something which takes much more development for white babies to do.

Americans identified as black score 18 points lower on IQ tests than whites, while those identifying themselves as Ashkenazi Jews usually score around 10 points higher than whites. These two groups have strongly different rates of myopia; nearsightedness correlates with IQ at around 25% (the most commonly accepted theory holds that many of the same genes responsible for brain growth are responsible for eye growth) and as we would expect, Jews have much higher rates of myopia than blacks.

These differences go on and on, and they aren't at all subtle. Aboriginal Africans usually test around 65 on culture fair IQ tests (and yes this is a meaningful difference, since it appears that most of them haven't progressed to Piaget's "concrete operational stage," which the typical American completes by around the age of 10) while the Ashkenazim have IQs of around 110. This is a gap of 45 points - the same gap which could be found between individuals claiming Australian Aboriginal affiliation and chimpanzees. No I'm not making this up; think about it - Chimps have the mental maturity (if not the verbal ability) of a three year old, giving them an effective IQ of around 20, and 65-20 is 45, the same IQ difference between Ashkenazim and native Australians. While not very bright, Aboriginal Australians instead have excellent visual memory, and have a larger occipital bunch in the back of their heads which allows them to find their way around better than any other ethnicity of which I am aware.

I must admit, given the intriguing yet disturbing nature of these differences, that I'm a little surprised at the lack of activity in this thread. I only hope that no one else will, after reading this, make the mistake of believing that "the white race needs to be abolished" because of observed economic or social differences between whites and members of any other ethnic group.

--Mark



(Edited by Millennium at 12:10 am on May 31, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 5:42 am on May 30, 2003
Hello all! After reading the thread about "Anti White Genocidalists" I realized that there wasn't enough understanding about what race really is to carry on a meaningful discussion. While I am not right wing, I am not really a left winger either, so I thought it would be most respectful to post this imformation here.

Most of what is claimed about race is generally true; race is a social construct, just the same way that families are a social construct. There is also no such thing as a pure race, just as there are no absolute boundaries between one family and another, or between one class and another.

That stated, this does not mean that race is biologically meaningless - it isn't. Nor are those traits which differ from one race to another as a result of normal biological variation just superficial and cosmetic. Research has actually turned up a great deal of information on racial differences, and they give us a lot to consider because often times they are disturbing.

Blacks, or, more specifically, individuals with substantial African heritage, have larger penises than most other races, and usually average around 7 inches in length. The difference is quite large - East Asian populations have penises that average about two inches shorter with comparatively less girth. Individuals within the European racial family tend to fall within these two extremes. Since corresponding differences in testosterone have also been found between these racial groups, and since there are no reasonable theories which can explain this environmentally or culturally, this difference seems to be mostly - if not totally - genetic.

On the other hand, and almost as disturbing, East Asians have about six extra cubic inches of grey matter when compared to individuals of African descent. This results in a vast disparity in the number of neurons, and consequently the intellectual functioning, of these two broad racial groups. Again, whites fall in between.

These and a host of other racial disparities in athleticism, conscientiousness, extroversion, and lifespan make race an uncomfortable issue. What would the Andersons say to the Joneses if the Andersons scored 20 points better on IQ tests and the Jones had, well, two inches more downstairs? Moreover, what would the Joneses say to the Andersons if they were struggling financially?

The reason we see ideas like "Abolish the white race" are not because the "white race" has gobbled up all the cheese and left none for the other races. In fact, East Asians predictably do better economically than whites, but in America the African American and European American communities are the most noticable, so these are the populations which are always compared. And usually, the comparison leaves whites looking like villains and blacks like oppressed victims, because no one looks at anything like musical ability or oratory skills (individuals who identify as black tend to be more spontaneous and extroverted, which allows them to do well here).

Knowing that races are different, it becomes pretty clear that "Abolishing the white race" isn't the solution to distressing economic disparities. Nor is "abolishing the black race" or any other race. The Joneses aren't going to do as well as the Andersons in school or the workplace, and it's not because the Andersons are oppressing them; they're just different. And we shouldn't blame the Andersons for their failure to measure up to the Jones' ability in the athletic field either - individuals who label themselves black make up only about 12% of the American population, but with their higher levels of testosterone, longer legs, and better muscle tone, blow most other ethnicities out of the water when it comes to sports.

No matter what else we may have to say about these racial differences - and I've only scratched the surface, really - we can't expect any sort of racial harmony until we admit what our differences are. Only when we stop thinking that everyone is the same can we stop pointing fingers when it turns out that some people "aren't doing as well as they should be." There are better ways to help the African American community rise out of poverty; blaming evil white men isn't one of them.

--Mark

P.S. For those wondering where I'm getting this information, the following pages are a good place to start looking.

http://www.t-mag.com/html/5speed.html
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html
http://euvolution.com/articles/race/



I see someone here read the bell curve, an ovrely racist book.

Black intellegence has nuthing to do with the six of one's brain.

It has to do with the fact that the educational system and enviroment are poorer generally in black and urban areas.

I'm black and I do very well on my standardized test, I always score around 95 and above in every subject.

However I was raised in a home where I was encouraged to read and learn.

I have met other black, white, and asian kids who haven't grown up in families were learning is encouraged.

In fact I've met very few asians who fit the stereotype of super genius

All this shit depends on the individual.

Some guy can be black and have the littlest johnson in the world just like some white guy can

[Millennium]

If you doubt the relationship between brain size and IQ, I hope this will clear up the issue for you:

http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001369/

"The relation of IQ (Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test) to brain size was studied in 103 right- and left-handed men and women at Ataturk University in eastern Turkey. Cerebral areas were measured on a midsagittal section of the brain using MRI. An overall correlation of 40 was found between MRI-measured total area and IQ thereby further supporting the IQ¯brain size hypothesis."

Then of course there is the question about how much schooling and environment can affect IQ. Numerous and costly attempts have been made to raise the IQs of underprivelaged black children through the program called "Head Start," which unfortunately proved to be totally ineffective, as the IQ gains disappeared after a few years. (See www.childrenofmillennium.org --> "Science" --> "Head Start" ) Adoption into upper middle class environments has also been tried; while poor children adopted into middle class families do experience a modest IQ gain of 5 points, this increase was experienced by both black and white children, still leaving the IQ difference between them close to 18 points (16.2 pionts, to be exact; see http://www.euvolution.com/articles/shockley.html for an interesting article on the subject).

Of course, all of this is obviously merely talking about group averages. No one is questioning the fact that, for instance, Thomas Sowell, or George Washington Carver are exceptionally intelligent black individuals. But the average differences do make a big difference; only about one in six black Americans scores better on IQ than the average American. And fewer than 1 in every hundred individuals identifying themselves as East Asian will have a 7-inch long penis. While it's important to understand that there is more variation within racial groups than between racial groups, that doesn't mean that there is no difference between racial groups, or that the differences aren't meaningful. Many times, the differences are quite large.

As a final note, I don't appreciate being called a racist. I do not advocate the superiority of any one race; my posts here clearly indicate that no one race could be considered better than any other race at everything. Nor do I consider my own ethnicity, white, to be particularly special. As I've said elsewhere, individuals identifying themselves as white typically fall in between East Asians and blacks. In the future, I would appreciate it if you treated me with a little more dignity. If you have any disagreements with my statements, I would prefer that you backed them up with facts and research, as I have.

--Mark

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 12:42 am on May 31, 2003
If you doubt the relationship between brain size and IQ, I hope this will clear up the issue for you:

http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001369/

"The relation of IQ (Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test) to brain size was studied in 103 right- and left-handed men and women at Ataturk University in eastern Turkey. Cerebral areas were measured on a midsagittal section of the brain using MRI. An overall correlation of 40 was found between MRI-measured total area and IQ thereby further supporting the IQ¯brain size hypothesis."

Then of course there is the question about how much schooling and environment can affect IQ. Numerous and costly attempts have been made to raise the IQs of underprivelaged black children through the program called "Head Start," which unfortunately proved to be totally ineffective, as the IQ gains disappeared after a few years. (See www.childrenofmillennium.org --> "Science" --> "Head Start" ) Adoption into upper middle class environments has also been tried; while poor children adopted into middle class families do experience a modest IQ gain of 5 points, this increase was experienced by both black and white children, still leaving the IQ difference between them close to 18 points (16.2 pionts, to be exact; see http://www.euvolution.com/articles/shockley.html for an interesting article on the subject).

Of course, all of this is obviously merely talking about group averages. No one is questioning the fact that, for instance, Thomas Sowell, or George Washington Carver are exceptionally intelligent black individuals. But the average differences do make a big difference; only about one in six black Americans scores better on IQ than the average American. And fewer than 1 in every hundred individuals identifying themselves as East Asian will have a 7-inch long penis. While it's important to understand that there is more variation within racial groups than between racial groups, that doesn't mean that there is no difference between racial groups, or that the differences aren't meaningful. Many times, the differences are quite large.

As a final note, I don't appreciate being called a racist. I do not advocate the superiority of any one race; my posts here clearly indicate that no one race could be considered better than any other race at everything. Nor do I consider my own ethnicity, white, to be particularly special. As I've said elsewhere, individuals identifying themselves as white typically fall in between East Asians and blacks. In the future, I would appreciate it if you treated me with a little more dignity. If you have any disagreements with my statements, I would prefer that you backed them up with facts and research, as I have.

--Mark


Now you've pissed me off.....you know why? Cuz I never called you a racist.

It was a joke, I was making a refference to the book the bell curve which is a racist book.

No one called you racist.

Also you can twist facts to make it say anything you want.

My family is black and I've met very few of my relatives that aren't intellegent.

So I don't care what yor facts say you can't prove to me that blacks are stupider than all other races.

Tell me if you grow up in a neighborhood where no one around you enjoys to learn, your family doesn't read, doesn't have intellectual disscussions, and your school is poor and underfunded with inadequate materials do you expect that person to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Intellegence is based on genetics, but your intellegence can be enhanced through exercising your mind.

The majority of what you know is based on enviroment.


How do you take into account Huey Newton? He didn't know how to read until he was damn near twenty and in a matter of month's he's reading Nietzche.

it's all conditioning.

No one called you a racist, I apologize if I offended you, but I find this entire race thing bogus.

It's the same as saying all Hispanics live in one room apartments with 20 other people.

My dad is puerto rican and that doesn't happen in his family.

So these stereotypes are bogus.


By the way "white" is a race not an ethnicity

[Millennium]

> I never called you a racist.
> It was a joke

I'm sorry, but I didn't find it funny.


> Also you can twist facts to make it say anything you want.

How have I twisted facts? Everything I have said is backed up by research.


> My family is black and I've met very few of my relatives that aren't intellegent.

I'm not questioning this. But that doesn't mean that average black Americans score well on IQ tests. The fact is that they do not. Nor do they excell in schools or the workplace; they do, however, dominate the American sporting arena.


> So I don't care what yor facts say you can't prove to
> me that blacks are stupider than all other races.

They aren't; American blacks score 15 points higher on IQ than African blacks, and Australian Aboriginals seem to be the least intelligent at 65. I appreciate that it may be difficult to accept, but it's a well known fact; again, you can find this information in any basic psychology textbook.


> Tell me if you grow up in a neighborhood where no
> one around you enjoys to learn, your family doesn't
> read, doesn't have intellectual disscussions, and your
> school is poor and underfunded with inadequate
> materials do you expect that person to be the
> sharpest tool in the shed.

Contrary to what you may have been told, IQ isn't a function of schooling. IQ does tell how well you will do in school, but academics really won't make you smarter. I'm sorry, but that's what the research says. Again, when blacks were adopted into white households and attended white schools, they still scored more than 15 points lower on IQ tests. So you tell me, why do you think it's the schools?


> Intellegence is based on genetics, but your
> intellegence can be enhanced
> through exercising your mind.

This, too, is largely a myth. At least, every environmental program designed to exercise the brain like a muscle has failed to improve IQ at all, with only one exception, which submitted children to a very rigorous environment at incredible financial expenditures and managed to increase their IQs by 5 points. Honestly, that's not very much.


> The majority of what you know is based
> on enviroment.

Well, IQ isn't what you know, is it? It's how well you think.


> How do you take into account Huey Newton?
> He didn't know how to read until he was damn
> near twenty and in a matter of month's he's
> reading Nietzche.

A better question would be how do you account for him?


> it's all conditioning.

Please provide a single shred of evidence before making sweeping claims. It is not all conditioning; in fact the evidence shows that conditioning accounts for almost none of the variance in intelligence from person to person or race to race.


> No one called you a racist, I apologize
> if I offended you, but I find this entire
> race thing bogus.

I appreciate your apology, and respect your opinion. However, I don't think that you have considered the issue very carefully. Science doesn't confirm any of the things you are saying.


> By the way "white" is a race not an ethnicity

Ethnicity is generally considered the more correct, general term. "Caucasian" is a racial group, while "white" is usually considered an ethnicity. It makes little difference to me; would you feel happier if I reffered to whites as a race?

--Mark

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 1:13 am on May 31, 2003
> I never called you a racist.
> It was a joke

I'm sorry, but I didn't find it funny.


> Also you can twist facts to make it say anything you want.

How have I twisted facts? Everything I have said is backed up by research.


> My family is black and I've met very few of my relatives that aren't intellegent.

I'm not questioning this. But that doesn't mean that average black Americans score well on IQ tests. The fact is that they do not. Nor do they excell in schools or the workplace; they do, however, dominate the American sporting arena.


> So I don't care what yor facts say you can't prove to
> me that blacks are stupider than all other races.

They aren't; American blacks score 15 points higher on IQ than African blacks, and Australian Aboriginals seem to be the least intelligent at 65. I appreciate that it may be difficult to accept, but it's a well known fact; again, you can find this information in any basic psychology textbook.


> Tell me if you grow up in a neighborhood where no
> one around you enjoys to learn, your family doesn't
> read, doesn't have intellectual disscussions, and your
> school is poor and underfunded with inadequate
> materials do you expect that person to be the
> sharpest tool in the shed.

Contrary to what you may have been told, IQ isn't a function of schooling. IQ does tell how well you will do in school, but academics really won't make you smarter. I'm sorry, but that's what the research says. Again, when blacks were adopted into white households and attended white schools, they still scored more than 15 points lower on IQ tests. So you tell me, why do you think it's the schools?


> Intellegence is based on genetics, but your
> intellegence can be enhanced
> through exercising your mind.

This, too, is largely a myth. At least, every environmental program designed to exercise the brain like a muscle has failed to improve IQ at all, with only one exception, which submitted children to a very rigorous environment at incredible financial expenditures and managed to increase their IQs by 5 points. Honestly, that's not very much.


> The majority of what you know is based
> on enviroment.

Well, IQ isn't what you know, is it? It's how well you think.


> How do you take into account Huey Newton?
> He didn't know how to read until he was damn
> near twenty and in a matter of month's he's
> reading Nietzche.

A better question would be how do you account for him?


> it's all conditioning.

Please provide a single shred of evidence before making sweeping claims. It is not all conditioning; in fact the evidence shows that conditioning accounts for almost none of the variance in intelligence from person to person or race to race.


> No one called you a racist, I apologize
> if I offended you, but I find this entire
> race thing bogus.

I appreciate your apology, and respect your opinion. However, I don't think that you have considered the issue very carefully. Science doesn't confirm any of the things you are saying.


> By the way "white" is a race not an ethnicity

Ethnicity is generally considered the more correct, general term. "Caucasian" is a racial group, while "white" is usually considered an ethnicity. It makes little difference to me; would you feel happier if I reffered to whites as a race?

--Mark


Actually now I'm starting to question whether or not your are a racist.

Once again I'm not calling you one but it seems obvious that you honestly think that the color of someone's skin is what determines their intellegence.

When i say twisted facts I mean you can find a way to make numbers prove anything you want.

Lets say in a certain year 400 Italians are struck by Lightning in philidelphia...while teh other ethnicities total were only 12.

Does that mean that Italians are less safe to be around because they got struck by lightning more?

All I'm saying is research can be distorted, just look at the bible.

We dominate the sports arena? Well thank you for throwing us that measly crumb. I can't become a doctor if I want to but I sure as hell can dunk a basketball.

Geez what does it amtter that because I'm black I won't be able to function in a workplace but I sure as hell can average 100 yards in a football game.

They don't excell in schools? Look at teh schools they go to.

If my school's history book only goes up to Reagan do you think ym school has the necassary funds to support educating minors?

If you don't get a good education you can't get a good job, it's a cycle thats based on economics and enviroment not intellegence.

>>>They aren't; American blacks score 15 points higher on IQ than African blacks, and Australian Aboriginals seem to be the least intelligent at 65. I appreciate that it may be difficult to accept, but it's a well known fact; again, you can find this information in any basic psychology textbook. <<<


You have a real problem distinguishing ethnicity from race. All those people you mentioned are black, they differ ethnically.

So in essence you are saying that I am stupider because I'm black than some guy from asia.

>>>Contrary to what you may have been told, IQ isn't a function of schooling. IQ does tell how well you will do in school, but academics really won't make you smarter. I'm sorry, but that's what the research says. Again, when blacks were adopted into white households and attended white schools, they still scored more than 15 points lower on IQ tests. So you tell me, why do you think it's the schools? <<<

I never said Intellegence Quotiant was a function of school. I said intellegence was. Intellegence being taken in the form of how smart you are.

Also Education has an effect on the genetics, if you do not learn rnough to be considered "intellegent" and you raise your children in the same neighborhood they wont be any smarter(more or less) and their children and so on and so on.

So it boils down to genetics which in my opinion is a reflection of enviroment.



>>>This, too, is largely a myth. At least, every environmental program designed to exercise the brain like a muscle has failed to improve IQ at all, with only one exception, which submitted children to a very rigorous environment at incredible financial expenditures and managed to increase their IQs by 5 points. Honestly, that's not very much. <<<

How long did this experiment go on? A few years? Lets say 5 years? Multiply that by generations and you've made a difference.

IF you have been institutionalized to the point where your people arent as intellegence but a change in enviroment brings about a raise in five IQ points then think about what that change will have over generations.

Don't think small term my friend.

So you just proved it yourself Enviroment can make a difference, it just takes a while.


>>>A better question would be how do you account for him?<<<

Conditioning is how I account for him


>>>Please provide a single shred of evidence before making sweeping claims. It is not all conditioning; in fact the evidence shows that conditioning accounts for almost none of the variance in intelligence from person to person or race to race.<<<


Your right, but enviroment makes for a difference you proved it yourself.

The difference is that enviroment takes a while to make a large scale difference. I'm willing to wait.

>>>I appreciate your apology, and respect your opinion. However, I don't think that you have considered the issue very carefully. Science doesn't confirm any of the things you are saying. <<<

You proved it yourself that enviroment has an affect. It's simple as that, when put in an enviroment that requires them to "try harder" gaines are made. Over time that 5 points will increase, granted this is done on a larger scale.


No see you are wrong about teh etnicity thing


Main Entry: [2]ethnic
Function: noun
Date: 1941
: a member of an ethnic group; especially : a member of a minority group who retains the customs, language, or social views of the group


White people do not all share the same customs


Italians and White Americans do not share a culture.


Ethnicity has to do with your culture.

Italian, Jamaican, French, Czech


those are ethnicties not white, black, or asian

[Nobody]

Millennium, I'm calling you a racist. The reason often times blacks have trouble is becasue they often live in the inner city where schooling is poorer. Brain size = intelligence? Um, no. Some people have bigger heads, it happens. Thirdly, the only reason race is a problem with some people, (like you) is that the upper class in order to divided the working class has through up another barrier we needed to break through to crush the bourongise pig dogs. Congrats into falling into their trap.

[Millennium]

> it seems obvious that you honestly think that the
> color of someone's skin is what determines their
> intellegence.

I now realize that you aren't understanding me. If you look back over this thread you will see that I stated on more than one occasion that East Asians tend to score better on IQ tests than whites, who are fairer of skin. So obviously I don't think that skin color "determines" intelligence.

While I'm sympathetic to your reaction, it seems to me that most of the rest of your comments were motivated by fear of inadequacy. Although you may consider it small comfort, I can say that none of this will change your intelligence, or the intelligence of anyone else you know, one whit. But otherwise I'm sorry; black people are, on the average, less intelligent than whites, even when they are raised in the same households and go to the same schools. A similar disparity exists between whites and Ashkenazi Jews, although this has not been as well researched.

It is also a hard fact the face that blacks are more athletic and have have larger penises than whites. Do you think this doesn't bother me? I didn't know about it until I started investigating differences in racial intelligence, but once I found it I realized that there wasn't anything to do but accept it. I don't try to come up with excuses about how blacks are socialized to have larger penises or how genetics is somehow a "reflection of environment." That's a non sequitur, and on some level I think you realize that.

I reiterate: For fifty years we have tried to boost black intelligence through environmental intervention. Literally billions of dollars were spent in an effort to rectify what was seen as a "problem." We poured money into their schools, we gave them better nutrition, we adopted them into upper middle class neighborhoods, we did everything imaginable to address the disparity. Nothing worked. I'm sorry; those are the facts.

If you feel sure that these facts are somehow "twisted," or require some sort of "special interpretation," then I'd like to ask you a question. Please read http://www.t-mag.com/html/5speed.html. After reading it, tell we whether you believe

1. The athletic differences cited are just a spurious twisting of data and are not real (in which case, please explain why you think this)

2. The differences are real, but they are the result of socialization and environment (if so, I'd like you to explain what environmental agent is responsible for the B/W athletic disparity)

3. The differences are real, and partially genetic (if so, explain why you don't think the intelligence disparities could also be genetic)


> Millennium, I'm calling you a racist.

I'd like to say that I don't appreciate your comment, and wish you would be more careful before passing judgment.


> Brain size = intelligence? Um, no.
> Some people have bigger heads, it happens.
> ...Congrats into falling into their trap.

Congrats on reading none of my posts and checking none of my backup data.

I honestly don't know how you could have failed to notice when I provided a source which stated, in bold text, that brain size and IQ are correlated. I am not going to repost it; if you are too lazy to read what I have written than clearly for me to write more to you will be a waste of my time. I will not respond to any more of your posts until you have demonstrated that you have read what I posted on this thread, as LardLad has.

--Mark

[Umoja]

And wasn't it shown that blacks actually have larger brains because they have larger skulls? Does that really prove anything?

Damn, we got a Eugenisist here.

Oh wait, I'm still pissed. This guy seems to be saying that black people are just sex machines without brains..... Right that makes plenty of sense, Eugenics was right..... *Sarcasm*

(Edited by Umoja at 4:11 am on May 31, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Umoja on 4:10 am on May 31, 2003
And wasn't it shown that blacks actually have larger brains because they have larger skulls? Does that really prove anything?

Damn, we got a Eugenisist here.

Oh wait, I'm still pissed. This guy seems to be saying that black people are just sex machines without brains..... Right that makes plenty of sense, Eugenics was right..... *Sarcasm*

(Edited by Umoja at 4:11 am on May 31, 2003)


DOn't worry the NAture vs. nurture debate is still going on

i have some evidence for nurture but I want to see what he says to your "sex machines without brains" arguement

I mean granted I'm a panther in the sack but I'm also smart

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 4:08 am on May 31, 2003
> it seems obvious that you honestly think that the
> color of someone's skin is what determines their
> intellegence.

I now realize that you aren't understanding me. If you look back over this thread you will see that I stated on more than one occasion that East Asians tend to score better on IQ tests than whites, who are fairer of skin. So obviously I don't think that skin color "determines" intelligence.

While I'm sympathetic to your reaction, it seems to me that most of the rest of your comments were motivated by fear of inadequacy. Although you may consider it small comfort, I can say that none of this will change your intelligence, or the intelligence of anyone else you know, one whit. But otherwise I'm sorry; black people are, on the average, less intelligent than whites, even when they are raised in the same households and go to the same schools. A similar disparity exists between whites and Ashkenazi Jews, although this has not been as well researched.

It is also a hard fact the face that blacks are more athletic and have have larger penises than whites. Do you think this doesn't bother me? I didn't know about it until I started investigating differences in racial intelligence, but once I found it I realized that there wasn't anything to do but accept it. I don't try to come up with excuses about how blacks are socialized to have larger penises or how genetics is somehow a "reflection of environment." That's a non sequitur, and on some level I think you realize that.

I reiterate: For fifty years we have tried to boost black intelligence through environmental intervention. Literally billions of dollars were spent in an effort to rectify what was seen as a "problem." We poured money into their schools, we gave them better nutrition, we adopted them into upper middle class neighborhoods, we did everything imaginable to address the disparity. Nothing worked. I'm sorry; those are the facts.

If you feel sure that these facts are somehow "twisted," or require some sort of "special interpretation," then I'd like to ask you a question. Please read http://www.t-mag.com/html/5speed.html. After reading it, tell we whether you believe

1. The athletic differences cited are just a spurious twisting of data and are not real (in which case, please explain why you think this)

2. The differences are real, but they are the result of socialization and environment (if so, I'd like you to explain what environmental agent is responsible for the B/W athletic disparity)

3. The differences are real, and partially genetic (if so, explain why you don't think the intelligence disparities could also be genetic)


> Millennium, I'm calling you a racist.

I'd like to say that I don't appreciate your comment, and wish you would be more careful before passing judgment.


> Brain size = intelligence? Um, no.
> Some people have bigger heads, it happens.
> ...Congrats into falling into their trap.

Congrats on reading none of my posts and checking none of my backup data.

I honestly don't know how you could have failed to notice when I provided a source which stated, in bold text, that brain size and IQ are correlated. I am not going to repost it; if you are too lazy to read what I have written than clearly for me to write more to you will be a waste of my time. I will not respond to any more of your posts until you have demonstrated that you have read what I posted on this thread, as LardLad has.

--Mark


First of all you are still saying that skin color determines intellegence.

I never specified tone of skin, I just said skin color. So by saying that East Asians score better than whites and whites are lighter still doesn't say that you aren't saying that skin color determines intellegence

That arguement made no sense what so ever.

>>>Although you may consider it small comfort, I can say that none of this will change your intelligence, or the intelligence of anyone else you know, one whit<<<

PLease tell I'm reading too much into this and you aren't trying to call me dumb on the sly

>>>I'd like to say that I don't appreciate your comment, and wish you would be more careful before passing judgment. <<<


In response to me you said that basically if you are black you will be dumber than a white person....that isn't racist?

You are passing judgement on an individual because of an arbitrary trait. You are saying one race is better than another. That is racism, you may not be a racist but that is racism.


Now for the evidence which you have been asking me for.

"The development of a fetus has been shown to correlate to intelligence also. While this can be argued to be biology, in fact, it is environment. Conditions in which the fetus develops, such as drug use or poor nutrition by the mother can be shown to have a direct effect on intelligence. For example, intellectual impairment is much more frequent in the infants whose birth weight is less than 2,000 grams (Caputo & Mandell, 1970).



Environmental differences in how children are raised also play a significant role on intelligence. Socio-economic status (SES) has been shown to play an important part of development. One study indicated that children from a home with a low SES, upon being transferred to a home with high SES, improved their test scores as much as 16 points (Wahlsten, 1995). Another study shows that home environment also plays a significant role. This study, conducted by R.A. Hanson, indicated that Stanford-Binet IQ scores were greatly associated to many environmental factors that remain stable, in the home. These variables associated to intelligence in each age period are: ‘freedom to engage in verbal expression, language teaching, parental involvement, and provision of language development models’ (Hanson, 1975). Cognitive development appears to be stimulated by the development of language. Such home variables as quality of language models available to the child, opportunities for enlarging vocabulary through appropriate language usage, and opportunities for language practice were also found to be important factors showing a ‘.69 correlation between total ratings of the home environment and general intelligence’ (Hanson). "



"Do you inherit intelligence, or is your brainpower affected by your environment?

The nature vs. nurture debate is an old one. Is intelligence inherited or learned? Now researchers in Washington, D.C. have an answer. According to their study, it's both. Genetics has a lot to do with how intelligent a person is, but environment has a lot to do with how that intelligence develops. What's more surprising is that intelligence, as measured in an I-Q score, can change based on changes in environment. If you once took an I-Q test and got a high score, you may not be able to rest on your laurels.

For example, a challenging environment may boost your I-Q, but your score could drop again when your environment changes. The researchers say this effect means that small genetic differences could ultimately have a big effect. People who are naturally a bit smarter may seek more challenging situations, which make them even smarter.

One factor that could affect intelligence is nurturing from parents during childhood. Researchers in Canada found that baby rats whose mothers gave them more attention learned more easily. "
-South Western university

"The Controversy of Nature and Nurture
by
Kirsten Siebach







Are we the way we are because of our genes? How much of our personality and characteristics are because of the way we were brought up, and our experiences, and how much is because of the way we were wired when we were born? The argument of nature, our genetics, and nurture, our upbringing, has been going on for years, and scientists are still struggling to find out why we are who we are.


If you asked 100 randomly selected genetic scientists their view on the controversy of nature vs. nurture, you would get 100 entirely different answers, and almost every one would make perfect sense with the evidence that supports it. As Kenneth Rothman said, "It is easy to show that 100 percent of any disease is environmentally caused, and 100 percent is inherited as well." Thus, it is a heated debate that has been going on for decades, one that may never stop. (N vs. N; an Unnecessary Debate)


In February 1999, we completed the Human Genome project. Since then, scientists have been looking for new clues in our DNA, trying to find hints of certain genes and what they mean, and what that means for human society.


Most scientists base their conclusions about nature and nurture by studying identical twins that were separated at birth. These twin sets tell us many things about nature vs. nurture. We can compare how they acted in different environments, see how many things they did that were surprisingly alike, how they score on IQ tests, if they answer many of the questions the same way, and how similar their health records are. (Farber, 4)


One living example of the idea that your genes say much about who you are the Lewis and Springer Twins. When they were born, they were both adopted into different families. They first met when they were forty years old, and they then found that the similarities between them were extraordinary. Both were named Jim, both got dogs and named them "Toy," they had the same hobbies, jobs, handwriting, weight, appearance, and test results. Because of this, and other similar cases, some scientists believe that genes are the dominant force in creating who we are. (Farber, 33)


Some scientists however, think that our genes have very little to do with the specific things that we do. Scientists started thinking this more when we first finished the human genome and discovered that we only had 30,000 genes. Until we finished the genome, we thought there could be genes for nearly all of our characteristics, but when we learned we only had 30,000 genes we decided that was not enough genes to have that many different genetic characteristics. (Clark, 102)


One of the main questions that has been asked is, "Does Genetics influence intelligence?" Could social Darwinism, the belief that some people are farther along in evolution than others and thus have social advantages, be alive in our society today? Some scientists say yes, while others say no way.


Francis Galton says, "Men who are gifted with high abilities... easily rise through all the obstacles caused by inferiority of social rank." He believes that genetics has a great deal to do with intelligence. He argues that social advantages are not enough to make an average man great; however, social inferiorities are not enough to make a smart man "average."(Roleff, 25)


Walter Lippman said, "Children of favored classes test higher on the whole than other children." He argues that a child of a prominent person has a 1 out of 4 chance of becoming just as prominent, while an ordinary child has a 1 in 4,000 chance at becoming just as distinguished.(Roleff, 49)


The controversy between nature and nurture could affect each of us in many ways. One of the main ways it could change our lives would be if scientists found what triggers diseases like cancer. They could find cures easier if they knew exactly what caused illnesses. Also, from what scientists know now, we can say that many diseases like cancer are a mix of nature and nurture, and that if while we were still infants, we could take out the "nurture," then we would no longer be affected by those diseases. Such research could potentially have an incredibly large impact on our health and lifespan. (Clark, 35)


I became interested in this subject last year when my class watched some videos on genetics and one of them mentioned this controversy. I chose it because it is a controversy that will rage on, and which we will no doubt continue to investigate.


Bibliography


Clark, William R. and Michael Grunstein. Are we Hardwired?. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.


Farber, Susan. Identical Twins Reared Apart. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981


"Nature vs. Nurture: An Unnecessary Debate." A Public Health Perspective. ;July. 2000. 20 Nov. 2001. http://www.cdc.gov/genetics/info/files/text/nvsn.pdf


Roleff, Tamara L. Genetics and Intelligence. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 1996"




The point is that Nature vs. nuture is an ongoing debate.

THis doesn't mean either of us is right however.

Personally I'm agreeing with Enviroment, you with genetics.


Genetic Scientists across the globe have come up with proof for both sides so the debate goes on.

[Xvall]

I would noromally write a rebuttal to this sort of thing; but seeing as I am extremely tired and inebriated at the monent, I will refrain from doing so. I suppose I could just adress your statement with a few of my opinions. First of all, I don't believe that any of the people here advocate the elimination of the 'white race'. This is because we do not acknowledge race at all. We do not see it as any factor in plans. I would not say you are a racist, but rather a racialist. Even you should be able to agree with that. I do not beleive that there is any significant diffirence between race; and you can rest assured that if it did exist, it would be among are priorities to abolish it immediately. This would not mean genocide, or elimination; but rather completely ignoting the concept of 'race' in entirity. I shall just state a few reasons I don't believe in this 'race' concept.

1) I believe that the average IQ tests are inacurate. First of all; there is the cultural aspect. Although you do not believe that culture has anything to do with 'race', I am under the impression that it is the sole reason for such results on those 'statistics'. It seems to me as though people do not get certain scores on their IQ tests because of predesposition from their anscestors, but rather to do with the way they were brought up. Many Asian cultures are very strict. The schools in various Asian countries are oftentime complex and see education as something extremely special. This, to me, is why the 'racial statistics' towards Asians indicate that they have high IQs. Compare most modern Asian cultures to African lifestyle. Most of the African population if proverty-striken, poor, and hungry. I am under the impression that much of the African population is far too busy trying to find out how they can obtain their next meal; they most likey have no interest in taking IQ tests, let alone doing good at them. You may, then, ask why scores are so much lower for Africans in the United States. I believe that the reason for this is because a lot of African Americans are lower class, and usually do not have the benifit of going to the more 'prestigious' schools in the country. Like before, they most likely don't see taking an IQ test as a priority. Also keep in mind that from my personal experience; if a certain person gets a low score and an IQ test, then it usually because they are lazy, apathetic, careless, and so fourth. I have never meet a person who had lower intelligence simply because their brains were incapable of understanding something. It is usually done ouy of their own lack of conscern.

2) I am conscerned about those stastistics. Where did they come from? Who took them? How many people were polled? Much of the African population can not read, let alone take a test. How were these statistics gathered then? How long ago were these IQ polls taken? I don't see it as a reliable source. I did not take part in the poll. They did not ask me. I am fairly sure they didn't ask Umoja or Lardlad either. Additionally, an average is most certainly not an effective way of gathering these 'racial statistics'. I could give three people tests. Two of them could do well and get 100%, and one of them might do horribly and get 60%; from this I could claim that the 'average score' of this group of people is roughly 87%. That would most certainly not be the case. It only takes one lower score to make the enire thing seem like what it is not. These statistics seem innacurate and out of date.

3) Hispanics. What about them? According to your 'racial science', they would esentially be half-white (Spanish European) and half-asian (Incans, Mayans, Etc.). With your 'race logic', they should be smarter than the average white, but not as smart as the average asian. More athletic than the average asian but less athletic than the average white. Is that so according to your statistics? Many statistics show that the IQ scores of hispanic individuals usually aren't much highet then the IQ scores of of the average African. Many people also believe that many hispanic individuals are athletic as well. How do you explain this?

4) I am of mixed ethnicities. I know many people of many diffirent ethnicities. None of them seem to have had their actions and goals hindered by these alleged 'race barriers'.

I'm sorry, but I think that most of this 'race' nonsense is a joke.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 5:18 am on May 31, 2003)

[Millennium]

> wasn't it shown that blacks actually have larger
> brains because they have larger skulls?

No.

Blacks have smaller endocranial volume on average; see http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugeni...nics/index.html (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/index.html) --> Race


> First of all you are still saying that skin color
> determines intellegence.
> I never specified tone of skin, I just said skin color.

But I don't believe that. Look, if skin color somehow "determined" intelligence (and that would be amazing, but just for the sake of argument) we would expect to see that, within races or between races, smart people were always of a certain color. That's not true; you can look at a lineup of smart people and see that they all have different color skin. I think you may be sufferring from the misconception that race is (or that I believe race to be) skin color. It isn't. If anything, skin color is the least meaningful of any racial trait.

(Also, just to be sure we're on the same page, East Asians don't really have a different color from dark skinned whites. They aren't really "yellow," they just tend to have more mellanin.)

> I want to see what he says to your "sex
> machines without brains" arguement

Actually I wasn't going to dignify that with a response; it would be a straw man, if it actually argued anything, but it doesn't. It's just a caricature of the facts and a silly attempt to make light of my statements without actually arguing with them at all.

> PLease tell I'm reading too much into this and
> you aren't trying to call me dumb on the sly

You're reading too much into it. I appreciate your comments, which are in stark contrast to those made by my other opponents in this thread who have thus far failed to demonstrate any real maturity or understanding.

> Now for the evidence which you have been asking me for.

In the future, please provide links so that I can investigate your sources more thoroughly.

...Having read over your sources, I found thart I had little problem agreeing with everything there. The only statements which needed qualification were:

One study indicated that children from a home with a low SES, upon being transferred to a home with high SES, improved their test scores as much as 16 points (Wahlsten, 1995).

These gains were only temporary, and disappeared by adulthood. This makes sense in consideration with:

For example, a challenging environment may boost your I-Q, but your score could drop again when your environment changes. The researchers say this effect means that small genetic differences could ultimately have a big effect. People who are naturally a bit smarter may seek more challenging situations, which make them even smarter.

This is an interesting theory, and seems borne out by research, but I think whoever wrote that article was overblowing the effects of genetics iun the way he phrased it. Nevertheless, most twin studies find that IQ is about 70% genetic and 30% environmental.

If you asked 100 randomly selected genetic scientists their view on the controversy of nature vs. nurture, you would get 100 entirely different answers, and almost every one would make perfect sense with the evidence that supports it.

This is sheer silliness, and additionally, in a poll given by Snyderman & Rothman to over 1000 experts in the field of intelligence, the number of respondents who answered that racial differences in IQ were entirely due to the environment were outnumbered three to one by those who said the differences were partially genetic.

See that's the poinbt I'm arguing. It's not nature or nuture, it's nature and nurture. It's both. To say that genes has nothing to do with racial disparities in intelligence is really pretty hard to defend. Almost nothing has been found to be 100% environmental or 100% genetic - and I say "almost" just to hege my bet. I don't know of any trait which has ever been shown to have a 0% heritability. If racial differences in gestation times, impulsivity, reflex speed, pain sensetivity, extroversion, reasoning ability, metabolism, and anything else turns out to be even 1% genetic, then what I'm saying to you is correct, and they are partially genetic. That's all I'm really saying; racial differences are partly inborn.

--Mark

[Hampton]

Millennium:There are better ways to help the African American community rise out of poverty; blaming evil white men isn't one of them.

Name them.

Millennium: I reiterate: For fifty years we have tried to boost black intelligence through environmental intervention. Literally billions of dollars were spent in an effort to rectify what was seen as a "problem." We poured money into their schools, we gave them better nutrition, we adopted them into upper middle class neighborhoods, we did everything imaginable to address the disparity. Nothing worked. I'm sorry; those are the facts.

Is this your "proof" that blacks are just dumber than other races? The money that went to the schools never got there, crack is not "better nutrition", your use of the word adopted is rather curious. So you let a few black families move into the holy land of the middle class neighborhood and you think that you're helping someone, like the school system in a middle class suburb, which you make it seem likes it's a white area since they let the blacks "adopt" a house, is any better than the one which they left, not saying that the problem might be the ones who run or teach at the school, you just blame the guy or gal because they can't learn right? You say that's everything imaginable? I laugh at the idea or that's all you can do to help the poor black man who can't help himself right?

Why stay in school when you can make easy money selling drugs and make more money than your racist teacher does?

> How do you take into account Huey Newton?
> He didn't know how to read until he was damn
> near twenty and in a matter of month's he's
> reading Nietzche.
A better question would be how do you account for him?

If I understand this right, which I may not because I'm a dumb black guy with big penis who can jump high[/sarcasm], to use Huey as an example you said how would I account for this brilliant black man right? So then would you ask the same question about every black man or woman who had above average intelligence? How would I account for Malcolm X who grew up poor and never went far in school, or Fredrick Douglass who was a slave then wrote a few amazing books and had his own newspaper? Just lucky? Do I have to name the plethora of black man and women who ignited the minds of the poor for you to demean them and say how would I account for the black when most of them are dumb who can't be helped.

Should I ask how would you account for every white person who rises out of shit and becomes educated? Oh wait, no you don't have to, because whites usually smarter than those blacks.

(Edited by Hampton at 1:30 am on June 1, 2003)

[Totalitarian]

Millenium was referring to average differences, not saying that every black is dumber than every white.

[Millennium]

> Is this your "proof" that blacks are just dumber
> than other races?

No; the evidence that individuals identifying themselves as black are generally not as intelligent as those identifying as being of other ethnicities is that:

1. They score consistently lower on intelligence tests, and have scored lower since the creation of such tests and in spite of many attempts to fine tune the tests to remove culture loading and test bias (which only resulted in increased disparities between races' scores).

2. In every culture they live in, they do poorly socially and economically. While it's often thought that this is a vast conspiracy by whites to oppress them, it's difficult to make this case since every white nation would have to be in on it. The truth of the matter is that things like racial quotas and Affirmative Action actually suggest that we live in a society which is biased in favor of minority groups such as blacks.

3. Throughout history, groups living in sub saharan Africa (which is the ancestral homeland of those who identify as black) have remained conspicuously underdeveloped socially and technologically. Despite rich mineral resources and a variety of domesticable plants and animals, Africans never mined metal, never had a written language, and never even used the wheel.

4. Individuals identified as black, white, and East Asian have been found to possess different brain sizes, and brain size is demonstrably correlated with intelligence. In fact, when controlling a sample of individuals by brain size, the racial disparities in IQ disappear.


> The money that went to the
> schools never got there, crack is not "better
> nutrition", your use of the word adopted is rather
> curious.

What is so curious about a study on black, mixed race, and white children from impoverished households adopted at birth into upper middle class white families? It was an adoption study, hence my usage of the word "adopted."

> So you let a few black families move into the
> holy land of the middle class neighborhood and you
> think that you're helping someone, like the school
> system in a middle class suburb, which you make it
> seem likes it's a white area since they let the
> blacks "adopt" a house, is any better than the one
> which they left, not saying that the problem might be
> the ones who run or teach at the school, you just
> blame the guy or gal because they can't learn right?

It sounds as though you are the one casting blame. Of course blacks can learn; some of them are quite gifted. But school is a waste of time for people who are noticably behind (or ahead) of the rest of their class. Yet intelligence tests for black schoolchildren have been outlawed - think for a moment about that. Rather than identifying those blacks who need help, we are pushing them along without teaching them. We could focus on the slower children, give them curricula appropriate to their ability, and make an effort to help them learn, but we're so intent on burying our heads in the sand and pretending that no intelligence disparities exist that we're forcing them through schools which do little other than frustrate and alienate them. I certainly don't think that's a wise thing to do.


> Millenium was referring to average differences, not
> saying that every black is dumber than every white.

Of course. It's always good to remember that fact to prevent the issue from becomming too heated. One in six blacks is in fact smarter than the average white. There have been many intelligent black men; for instance, White Nationalists often disparage the efforts of George Washington Carver, but come on, who doesn't like peanut butter? :D

--Mark

[Umoja]

Has anyone looked at the site this guy is quoting from?
http://www.Childrenofthemillenium.org

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 5:32 am on May 31, 2003
> wasn't it shown that blacks actually have larger
> brains because they have larger skulls?

No.

Blacks have smaller endocranial volume on average; see http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugeni...nics/index.html (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/index.html) --> Race


> First of all you are still saying that skin color
> determines intellegence.
> I never specified tone of skin, I just said skin color.

But I don't believe that. Look, if skin color somehow "determined" intelligence (and that would be amazing, but just for the sake of argument) we would expect to see that, within races or between races, smart people were always of a certain color. That's not true; you can look at a lineup of smart people and see that they all have different color skin. I think you may be sufferring from the misconception that race is (or that I believe race to be) skin color. It isn't. If anything, skin color is the least meaningful of any racial trait.

(Also, just to be sure we're on the same page, East Asians don't really have a different color from dark skinned whites. They aren't really "yellow," they just tend to have more mellanin.)

> I want to see what he says to your "sex
> machines without brains" arguement

Actually I wasn't going to dignify that with a response; it would be a straw man, if it actually argued anything, but it doesn't. It's just a caricature of the facts and a silly attempt to make light of my statements without actually arguing with them at all.

> PLease tell I'm reading too much into this and
> you aren't trying to call me dumb on the sly

You're reading too much into it. I appreciate your comments, which are in stark contrast to those made by my other opponents in this thread who have thus far failed to demonstrate any real maturity or understanding.

> Now for the evidence which you have been asking me for.

In the future, please provide links so that I can investigate your sources more thoroughly.

...Having read over your sources, I found thart I had little problem agreeing with everything there. The only statements which needed qualification were:

One study indicated that children from a home with a low SES, upon being transferred to a home with high SES, improved their test scores as much as 16 points (Wahlsten, 1995).

These gains were only temporary, and disappeared by adulthood. This makes sense in consideration with:

For example, a challenging environment may boost your I-Q, but your score could drop again when your environment changes. The researchers say this effect means that small genetic differences could ultimately have a big effect. People who are naturally a bit smarter may seek more challenging situations, which make them even smarter.

This is an interesting theory, and seems borne out by research, but I think whoever wrote that article was overblowing the effects of genetics iun the way he phrased it. Nevertheless, most twin studies find that IQ is about 70% genetic and 30% environmental.

If you asked 100 randomly selected genetic scientists their view on the controversy of nature vs. nurture, you would get 100 entirely different answers, and almost every one would make perfect sense with the evidence that supports it.

This is sheer silliness, and additionally, in a poll given by Snyderman & Rothman to over 1000 experts in the field of intelligence, the number of respondents who answered that racial differences in IQ were entirely due to the environment were outnumbered three to one by those who said the differences were partially genetic.

See that's the poinbt I'm arguing. It's not nature or nuture, it's nature and nurture. It's both. To say that genes has nothing to do with racial disparities in intelligence is really pretty hard to defend. Almost nothing has been found to be 100% environmental or 100% genetic - and I say "almost" just to hege my bet. I don't know of any trait which has ever been shown to have a 0% heritability. If racial differences in gestation times, impulsivity, reflex speed, pain sensetivity, extroversion, reasoning ability, metabolism, and anything else turns out to be even 1% genetic, then what I'm saying to you is correct, and they are partially genetic. That's all I'm really saying; racial differences are partly inborn.

--Mark


OK aslong as no one here is resorting to insults we are fine.

>>>Throughout history, groups living in sub saharan Africa (which is the ancestral homeland of those who identify as black) have remained conspicuously underdeveloped socially and technologically. Despite rich mineral resources and a variety of domesticable plants and animals, Africans never mined metal, never had a written language, and never even used the wheel. <<<


Before I move on to the arguement you and I have I want to say something on this.

Take a class in African History and this simply isn't true.

NYU offers a great number of courses on this which i plan to take when i attend college.

Also a great number of Africans were Muslim so written language and the wheel weren't unkown to them.

The reason that they were under developed technologicaly boils down to the fact that their cultures were more spread out so they were isolated.

Europeans and Asians were concentrated into areas of larger populations so cultural diffusion was something that they had a lot of.

Also alot of african cultures did have metal, most of there weapons were metal.

Not to mention Africa had very little cultural diffusion(something key to progressing technology)

Most European to African trade was mainly salt for cloth, etc.

Weapons were sometimes traded but that was later on.

I honestly suggest you take NYU up on it's pre-medevil through modern african history classes.


In the future I shall provide links.

Unfortunatley I i had to search through online NEws Articles to find the evidence and I didn't put them in favorites

give me a bit and I will find them for you ok?


My main arguement isn't against Nature or for Nurture.

I was trying to prove that it's both.

And my main arguement isn't Enviroment is what develops genetics.

It's all adaptation.


Think if being able to solve algebraic equations isn't something you need to survive in life then someone wont be as eager to learn them

However if you are on a track to become a CEO you better make damn well sure you know your math.


The point is in black communities coupled with anti intellectualism is the need for, for lack of a better term, street smarts.

If your surroundings don't press you to do well in school, but instead to know how not to get shot then enviroment has influence.

Over time enviroment effects genetics, over time.


Just like those five points, over time it will make a significant difference.

I can't say I have any proof but It seems to work logically.

If I could get some funding to do a long term test I would.

So you see I'm not saying genetics has nothing to do with it, both of my parents are intellegent and they had intellegent parents and so on.

My father has two masters degrees, my brother got a 33 on the ACT, and I've got to be the biggest book nerd on earth.

So genetics is definitely a factor, a large factor.

But I also didn't grow up in an anti-intellectual enviroment.


by the way I apologize for continuing to use my family as an example

[Soul Rebel]

I dont know if someone mentioned this because i just skimmed the arguments. After reading what i did i would like to point something out.
Many of the tests used to measure intelligence are called standard tests. These so-called standard tests are of course racist because they are ethnocentric and do not take other cultures into account. If you give a black, african, asian, or hispanic a test that is standard they can be expected to fail. The test does not measure what they know about their own culture or their learning style or lifestyle. It measures what they know about the white life and white knowledge. Why is this. Because whites are considered to be the norm in society- they make up society. If you dont believe me you can read any recent book that discusses the education system, educational technology, and educational theories.

And i would like to back up an argument someone had mentioned. These tests are worthless because it is a hard and true fact that whites do recieve better education than blacks and hispanics. Schools that are all white (meaning a very small minority population) have more technology for educational purposes, more teachers, small class size, bigger rooms, more money, etc. All these things contribute to a better education. Now schools that contain high amounts of minorities are missing these things, which leads them to have a worse educational experience. And its not that they want it this ways- it is society that wants it this way. And the governments policies on education do not help either- such as the No Child Left Behind by Bush. It only benefits those schools that already have everything, which are white schools.

If you truly want to understand how the school system works to disadvantage minorities i suggest you read "Savage Inequalities."

[Xvall]

There are better ways to help the African American community rise out of poverty; blaming evil white men isn't one of them.

Hah! Hah! That was the funniest thing that I have read all day. You seem to have a complete misunderstanding. First of all, the whole 'blaming evil white men' for much of the state of many Africans today. I suppose we do. Actually, yes, we do. Why do we do this? Quite simple. Because it is true. Not even a staunch 'racialist' such as yourself will deny this. The Continent of Africa was invaded, occupied, opressed, and so fourth my mostly European countries. Who were the rulers of these countries? White men. Assuming that enslaving an entire continent isn't a 'good' thing, we can assume that these white men are 'evil'. Are you going to deny this? I would love to see you point out a few reasons why the African community itself should be responsible for crimes perpetrated against them. So, that explains how evil white men are responsible for the state of the savage, civil-war fueled continent known as Africa today. And in the other countrys? Why are many Africans in the United States doing so poorly? They were brought here, didn't speak a single word of the English language, were denied an education; their culture was eliminated. They were thrown in the lower class; many of them had to struggle to survive. They were forced to be thrown in the back of the bus; they endured hardships from people like you who seem content in preserving these 'racial boundaries'. And at least most of the other ethnicities happen to have at least some remains of their cultural background intact. Maybe you can remember where your great grandfather was, and how he immigrated to the country because of such and such. You can remember the traditions of your anscestors. Most other people have something like 'Polish Independence Day' or 'The Irish Festival' or whatever the hell. What does the African community have? Kwanza? Do you think otherwise? Name a couple of African traditions that have been preserved. Of course we think that it was the result of 'Evil White Men' that many Africans are in the state they are today; because it is true. Once again; I would love to hear how you think that it was the African's faults that they were thrown on ships, brought to other countries, sold into slavery, emancipated so that they could be lynched, deprived of an education, and then finally being 'free' to participate in the 'free market' and go on message board so we can hear people like you tell us that we are a bunch of idiots that should be ashamed of ourselves.

Burn in hell. (Sorry. I'm throwing in an edit just to make sure you don't take it the wrong way. It's just a little upsetting when someone tells me that I am not as intelligent as everyone else, and that it is on account of my ethnicity.)

I'm pretty sure if some (For example) Mexican males barged into your house, shot your parents, raped your sister, dragged you down to Mexico, sold you into slavery, and then when you were imancipated they threw you on the street; I'm pretty sure that if something like that happened you would believe it is the fault of evil mexican men that you were put in the state you were. I don't see why you seem to be so content on denying this!


(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 12:35 am on June 1, 2003)

[Xvall]

I can argue with Senora Che on that 'school' thing as well. Once again; we will never believe your useless out of date statistics that could have easilly been fabricated out of thin air. As far as schools go, I can agrue for that myself. She's damn right that a school in the 'white suburbs' are going to be a lot better than the ones in the westside of Chicago. I can argue for this myself. Personal experience. The school I went to (In the west side of Chicago) was primarily a 'minority school'. The classes were horrible, the place was a mess, they didn't teach us much at all. Now I attend a school in the suburbs, mostly filled with 'white' individuals and such. The school is a lot more effective, a lot more effort is put into education people here as well. Are you telling me that my experience in the school in Chicago was my fault?

[Totalitarian]

Africa for Africans; Europe for Europeans. That way we can have racial harmony.

[Xvall]

Africa for Africans; Europe for Europeans. That way we can have racial harmony.

Hah! I'm terribly sorry. That is never going to happen. Ever. You see, that's how it was origionally; but apparently the europeans thought that kidnapping all the people from Africa and forcing them to go to other locations was fundamentally a good idea. I'm sorry, I've been aproached with this horrible argument before, and it doesn't work. Many European and American corporations seem to have no problem going to countries like Zimbabe, China, and Indonesia so that children can make products for them. Your theory is bizzare. I suppose, then, that you have no problem forcing every 'white' person in the United States to pack up their bags and go back to Europe, right? And what about me? I'm mixed. Where the fuck am I supposed to go? Racial harmony? That's horrible logic. That two sides being oblivious to each other will provide some sense of 'racial harmony'. With that logic, I can argue that all humans should be killed. It would create world peace, right? After all, if no one is around to kill people everyone is happy!

Bah! So that's how it works. You just seems to be treating us (I'll consider myself an African in this thread, although I am mixed) as though we are resources of some sort. So Africa is invaded, raped, pillaged, dammaged, occupied; then it is abandoned and everyone in it is lost, condemned to a life of pain and bloodshed. The continent is thrown in to chaos because of what another group of people have done; and then you want us to all go back?

I suppose I shall use another analogy; much like the one before.

Can I go into your house, kill your family, burn your house down, drag you to my house, make you clean it up, complain that you're taking away my opportunity to work, spit on you, and tell you to go back to where you came from?

What the hell are you thinking?


(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 12:36 am on June 1, 2003)

[Nobody]

If you look at a history book, you will find that before Europeans began to conquer Africa they had a rather advanced civ both cultural and intlectually. The reason Africa is underdevloped is becasue when the Europeans redrew the map of Africa ethnic and cultural found them selves seperated or moved into areas with hostile tribes (hence the various wars they are still fighting today). Also white cultural pratices, espically thoses brought in by Christian Missionaries. destoryed long held ethnic pratices. With the splitering of their tribes, coupled with the systematic destrucation of their cultural many Africans communities found themselves adrift, hence the reason that Europeans could eaily cajole them into working horrible jobs (like the gold mines of South Africa). And when the Europeans pulled out in the 20th century, the people holding the areas together left, and all their pent-up hostility was released casuing the various wars that engulf Africa today. You see a similar problem were Europeans colonizied like India, Pakistan, etc, etc. This is the reason Sub-Saharan Africa is underdev. The reason African-American students do not do as well as white students in school I think is becasue problems in their communities. Many African-American families are headed up by women, the father is nowhere to be seen in many cases. Becasue they lack half of their parents they miss out on many learning and social teachings that their white and Asian fellow students recieve. I think the number of broken families really hurt the African-American learning experiance, hence lower test scores.

(Edited by LevTrosky at 12:46 am on June 1, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Excuse me... but to all those who called him a racist he has not posted a racst remark yet. He has posted that the average IQ of an easetern asian is higher than a white persons, and a white persons is on average higher than a black persons. If he was a racist, he would have hardly stated that an eastern asian person has an average IQ which is higher than a white persons would he?

He also pointed ut that physically black people are on average more physically able than white people. If he was a racist he most certaily would not have said that.

[Umoja]

LL seems to miss out on something.

Africans did have metal working. Throwing Irons would be the easiest example of which, although they did develop numerous forms of blades in many parts of Africa (further pushed on by the Muslim invaders). Secondly, in pre-muslim times Africans did have "writting systems". The Ethiopians are the prime example, but the Ashanti also had a picture based writting system (forgot the actual word for it logogram?). So, I really do believe Africans (as a whole) weren't the savages that textbooks and Eugenist want to portray them as.

[synthesis]

Quote: from AK47 on 1:25 am on June 1, 2003
Excuse me... but to all those who called him a racist he has not posted a racst remark yet. He has posted that the average IQ of an easetern asian is higher than a white persons, and a white persons is on average higher than a black persons. If he was a racist, he would have hardly stated that an eastern asian person has an average IQ which is higher than a white persons would he?

He also pointed ut that physically black people are on average more physically able than white people. If he was a racist he most certaily would not have said that.
The only racist opinions that can ever be taken are those that elevate white people?

I refuse to believe that.

I think we should stop focusing on racial differences altogether.

[Millennium]

Lardlad, I'd like to say that I do appreciate your providing me with information on historical African societies; I will of course have to see links before I render any sort of decision about your claims. In the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to read the article at http://www.t-mag.com/html/5speed.html about black athletic superiority and answer the questions I asked you about it.

I definitely agree that environment is what drives genetics, via selection, but the time scale is somewhat longer than you seem to imply. While evolutionist arguments exist to explain ethnic differences in the various traits we've been discussing, I'll hold off on presenting them until you've had a chance to read over http://www.t-mag.com/html/5speed.html and I've had a chance to see the sources for your own arguments.


> Has anyone looked at the site this guy is quoting from?
> http://www.Childrenofthemillenium.org

Actually the address is www.childrenofmillennium.org (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org), and I would certainly like to see more people examine the ideas and information presented there (although most of the site is not race related).


> These so-called standard tests are of course
> racist because they are ethnocentric and do
> not take other cultures into account. If you
> give a black, african, asian, or hispanic a test
> that is standard they can be expected to fail.

You're right, SenoraChe; the non-white minorities would be expected to fail, if the tests truly were ethnocentric. However, East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews actually outscore whites on IQ tests. The reason this is possible is because IQ tests have been specifically tailored to avoid bias; when blacks were first discovered to score low for IQ, the test designers immediately set out looking for sources of bias and ways to eliminate them. Interestingly, the fewer "culturally loaded" terms they included on the IQ test, the more pronounced racial differences became. No intelligence test has ever been created which does not show the black/white racial disparity.

To help put this in perspective: There is an intelligence test called The Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices, which is a non verbal test using symbols like squares, triangles, and small clusters of dots to test for pattern recognition in a completely culture-free way. A black scholar, Fred Zindi, gave this test to 204 black Zimbabwean and 202 white English students from London inner city schools, matching them for age (12-14), sex, parent's occupation (working class), and educational level. The mean IQ score for the White students on the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices was 95; for the black students, it was 72.

This may be hard to face, but it's not test bias, it's not poor schooling or environment, and it isn't racism, either. It is a real disparity in intelligence which is caused in part by hereditary differences which exist between black and white populations.


> Burn in hell.

Drake, I consider your behavior juvenile and your words ill considered, and I'm not reading your posts.


> The only racist opinions that can ever be taken
> are those that elevate white people?

That's a good point; racism is simply "The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior" (American Heritage Dictionary). Obviously a Hispanic could claim Hispanic superiority and qualify as a racist. But:

A) I am making no claims for the superiority or inferiority of any race, and

B) Even if I were making the argument that "smarter = superior" I do not consider my own ethnicity to be the smartest.


> I think we should stop focusing on racial
> differences altogether.

I started this thread in response to the claim that the white race needed to be abolished. If you wish to stop focussing on racial differences, I see nothing particularly unhealthy about that. I would prefer that we discuss the issue rather than sweep it under the rug, however. I am not a socialist, but I would like to see class differences decreased, if not completely removed. As long as individual and racial disparities exist, the idea of a classless society is impossible.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 3:06 am on June 1, 2003)

[synthesis]

I am not a socialist, but I would like to see class differences decreased, if not completely removed.

From my own experiences, making a statement like that would get you labeled as a Marxist, a socialist, or a communist.

Not that that's a bad thing, of course.

[Millennium]

I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "socialist" or "Marxist" is. The standard party line for Marxists is to say that human differences are purely cultural and environmental, while the eugenics movement claims that these differences are to a large extent innate. While we may have similar goals, our methods differ because we see different causes to the same problem.

For some examples, I would like to see grants given to promising college students to reproduce. I would like to see socialized birth control, especially for the underclass. I would like to see more research carried out on genetics and heritability, with the hopes of eventually making "designer babies" something affordable for all. I would like to see a media campaign launched, one that tells the real "Truth" about the fact that dysgenic reproductive rates are eroding the genetic component to IQ at a rate of 1 to 2 points per generation. I would like to see more immigration restrictions (only smart, healthy, and well educated individuals should be allowed in) and I would like to see much more severe penalties on criminals.

These ideas all make sense if you see that genes drive ability, and that ability drives outcomes. But in the absense of that worldview, they seem pointless or simply elitist. Most Leftists and socialists I think would probably have a hard time backing my strategies for a better society, with the possible exeption of socialized birth control (well, it has the word "socialized" in it, anyway :) ).

--Mark

[Nobody]

Millennium, you want to encourage "promising" collage students to reproduce, while encouraging the underclass to use birth control?! I'm sorry, but that's a little to nazi for me. Designer babies, what ever hppen to letting nature take its course. WE exist becasue the system that creates us has been prefected through millions of years of evolution. And if we are losing 1 to 2 IQ points a generation we would be well into negative numbers by now, considering how many generations have come before. And your idea about immigration has one flaw. Let me start by saying I live in America, but am not from there, and my family is educated, but you must relize that immigrents play an important role in the American economy. As a communist looking at how immigrants, speciffcily uneducated ones, play an important part in the American econmy. they often work jobs Americans don't want to do, espically those in meat indusrty (I have heard stories form some Mexican friends of mine). While agree that genes help determine your ability, after reading an article in Times, I came to the conculsion ability is more based on experiance. If you live in a cell, but have all the "right" genes, you will never understand the theory of Kannyisian (spelling?) economics. However, someone with less "ideal" genes may one day understand the idea.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 12:32 am on June 1, 2003
Africa for Africans; Europe for Europeans. That way we can have racial harmony.

Hah! I'm terribly sorry. That is never going to happen. Ever. You see, that's how it was origionally; but apparently the europeans thought that kidnapping all the people from Africa and forcing them to go to other locations was fundamentally a good idea. I'm sorry, I've been aproached with this horrible argument before, and it doesn't work. Many European and American corporations seem to have no problem going to countries like Zimbabe, China, and Indonesia so that children can make products for them. Your theory is bizzare. I suppose, then, that you have no problem forcing every 'white' person in the United States to pack up their bags and go back to Europe, right? And what about me? I'm mixed. Where the fuck am I supposed to go? Racial harmony? That's horrible logic. That two sides being oblivious to each other will provide some sense of 'racial harmony'. With that logic, I can argue that all humans should be killed. It would create world peace, right? After all, if no one is around to kill people everyone is happy!

Bah! So that's how it works. You just seems to be treating us (I'll consider myself an African in this thread, although I am mixed) as though we are resources of some sort. So Africa is invaded, raped, pillaged, dammaged, occupied; then it is abandoned and everyone in it is lost, condemned to a life of pain and bloodshed. The continent is thrown in to chaos because of what another group of people have done; and then you want us to all go back?

I suppose I shall use another analogy; much like the one before.

Can I go into your house, kill your family, burn your house down, drag you to my house, make you clean it up, complain that you're taking away my opportunity to work, spit on you, and tell you to go back to where you came from?

What the hell are you thinking?
(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 12:36 am on June 1, 2003)



It's simple. Instead of international capital continuing to exploit the resources and people of Africa, that continent could be left to the Africans themselves. Africa would be a Black Homeland, run by Blacks for Blacks.

Likewise, Europe is the traditional White homeland. At the moment Europe is being flooded by high birthrate non-whites, which means that Europeans will eventually become a minority in Europe. If this continues, it will destroy the European way of life.

As for North America; that could just stay as a "melting pot" i guess although i'd like to see self-determination for the Red man.

[Hampton]

Millennium: I would like to see socialized birth control, especially for the underclass.

Telling people who should have the right to reproduce? Nice one. Funny thing is, who's the "underclass"? Oh yea, blacks. Let's all have perfect children and let only those with college degrees to have kids, sounds like fun. But, if you really think about it, if this was appied how many of us would be here today? Do all of our parents have Masters and Doctorates?

Millennium:There is an intelligence test called The Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices....This may be hard to face, but it's not test bias, it's not poor schooling or environment, and it isn't racism, either.

Yet the Raven's Matrices obviously contain items that can be solved more easily by persons trained in geometry or in algebraic formula involving negative and positive numbers. These tests are of dubious value if administered to persons raised within a dramatically dissimilar culture. The traditional Eskimo, the rural Chinese, Tibetans from remote and relatively inaccessible villages, disadvantaged South African blacks, or blacks and Latinos in America in isolated ghettos would likely perform better on items whose content is more consistent with their well rehearsed normal daily activities. Smells like bullshit.

Totalitarian: Likewise, Europe is the traditional White homeland. At the moment Europe is being flooded by high birthrate non-whites, which means that Europeans will eventually become a minority in Europe. If this continues, it will destroy the European way of life.

Well, nobody seemed to care when the African way of life as well as its culture was destroyed and still no one seems to care so why would I care about Europe?

[Millennium]

Millennium, you want to encourage "promising" collage students to reproduce, while encouraging the underclass to use birth control?! I'm sorry, but that's a little to nazi for me.

As I said, it doesn't seem reasonable, until you understand the role genes play in life. Incidentally, eugenics has long been falsely associated with Nazism, and if you think the association is genuine, I encourage you to visit http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugeni...nics/index.html (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/index.html) --> Essays --> The Third Reich



Designer babies, what ever hppen to letting nature take its course. WE exist becasue the system that creates us has been prefected through millions of years of evolution.

And we are spitting upon that system, and upon the sacrifices it demanded on those who came before us!



If it be the truth that human beings, as biological organisms, are subject to the natural laws which govern other creatures, then surely it is also true that human beings, as a species, hate themselves. The one thing which has made us great, we undermine and compromise at every opportunity; the one thing which prevents us from sliding backwards into chaos and distress, we make our best efforts to attack and push away; the one thing to which we owe our humblest thanks, our deepest respect, we despise.

That thing is natural selection.

Countless millions have died to ensure our future—countless souls snuffed out to make us what we are today. Did those who were less intelligent, less cunning, less healthy, less able to survive and reproduce not think or feel? Did they not struggle and suffer? Was their desire for life and happiness so different from our own? Was their anguish at being denied these things less real than our own would be?

These men and women who died without copying their genes are not to be forgotten, not to be ignored, not to be disgraced, for these men and women who died for us are our heroes! It is to their sacrifice that we owe everything we have today, our health, our prosperity, our intelligence, our sentiment—our very lives. If they had not perished, and instead had passed onto us the legacy of their genetic poverty, then the forces of natural selection, which cannot be placated or avoided forever, no matter how long we may try, would have surely destroyed us all when we were just emerging, weak, helpless, naked, from our Eden, from the place our species was born.

Each and every great civilization we have made, from Egypt to America, has spit upon their sacrifice by encouraging its unfit to procreate. Those who would have died under the harsh system of natural selection are fed, sheltered, and encouraged to reproduce by their society. Those who would have thrived and passed on their genes were distracted by the fruits of civilization, seduced by wealth and power, addicted to the practice of thought itself, and failed to pass on their genetic wealth.

Each and every civilization before our own, believing itself above the laws of natural selection, was eventually destroyed by those laws. As harmful mutations built up, as the less able and intelligent outbred the more fortunate, as genetic poverty washed over them in ever growing waves, the fire which kindled the light of civilization dimmed, sputtered, and died, leaving anarchy and destruction and hundreds of years of ignorance in its wake.

If we are to break this dysgenic cycle of suffering, then we must respect those who died for us, respect the forces of natural selection which weeded out their undesirable genes, and, if we are to remove natural selection, we must replace it with artificial selection. There must be selection, in one form or another, and if we find death too cruel a sentence for those whose genes do not merit survival, then we must either reproduce responsibly and in a way which will leave our children with a heritage of genetic wealth, or else accept the whirlwind of destruction which overtakes us when natural selection, too long suppressed, cleanses our species in one nightmarish gesture.

--Sherman Hawk, 2001 AD

[Millennium]

Yet the Raven's Matrices obviously contain items that can be solved more easily by persons trained in geometry or in algebraic formula involving negative and positive numbers. These tests are of dubious value if administered to persons raised within a dramatically dissimilar culture. The traditional Eskimo, the rural Chinese, Tibetans from remote and relatively inaccessible villages, disadvantaged South African blacks, or blacks and Latinos in America in isolated ghettos would likely perform better on items whose content is more consistent with their well rehearsed normal daily activities. Smells like bullshit.
Hampton, you slipped this post in while I was compiling my previous post, and I have been thinking about how best to respoind (since I'm sure you'd appreciate a response). I've decided simply to be direct with you and say what I think:

You don't believe what you just wrote.

I honestly don't think that you do, because it's obvious that what you said isn't true. I will explain why, but I think that deep down you already know all these things I'm about to write.

1. The Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices has nothing to do with geometry; it is a test of pattern recognition. While it's true that geometric shapes are involved, any child able to identify a "triangle" "circle" or "square," or count up to ten, can answer questions in the format of the Raven. Negative numbers don't come into play, since only real, visible dots or figures exist on the page to be counted.

2. Even if education in geometry somehow does affect the score one achieves of the Raven, the children were too young to have received instruction in geometry. Geometry is a high school course, and as this was an inner city school, it's highly unlikely to have been taught to any of these children, white or black, by the time they took the test.

3. The children were matched by age, gender, and location. Their parents were matched by occupation and socioeconomic status. You know very well that questions about dots and triangles are no more applicable to the black children's lives than to the white children's lives if they grow up in the same area, as members of the same social class.

4. Zindi is an accomplished, well educated and intelligent black man. He deserves credit for being able to carry out a study on intelligence competently and effectively. He clearly believed that this test was an accurate assessment of the childrens' ability, he obviously felt that it was a good way to determine what the relative intelligence of these two groups really was, and he clearly considered the results of the test to be fair, scientific, and meaningful, or he would not have published them.


As a final note, I noticed that you did not quote the portion of my post which gave my comment meaning. Since I consider this extremely important, I would like to post it again so that you and everone else who may have missed it can see it.


There is an intelligence test called The Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices, which is a non verbal test using symbols like squares, triangles, and small clusters of dots to test for pattern recognition in a completely culture-free way. A black scholar, Fred Zindi, gave this test to 204 black Zimbabwean and 202 white English students from London inner city schools, matching them for age (12-14), sex, parent's occupation (working class), and educational level. The mean IQ score for the White students on the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices was 95; for the black students, it was 72.


--Mark

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 3:02 am on June 1, 2003
Lardlad, I'd like to say that I do appreciate your providing me with information on historical African societies; I will of course have to see links before I render any sort of decision about your claims. In the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to read the article at http://www.t-mag.com/html/5speed.html about black athletic superiority and answer the questions I asked you about it.

I definitely agree that environment is what drives genetics, via selection, but the time scale is somewhat longer than you seem to imply. While evolutionist arguments exist to explain ethnic differences in the various traits we've been discussing, I'll hold off on presenting them until you've had a chance to read over http://www.t-mag.com/html/5speed.html and I've had a chance to see the sources for your own arguments.


> Has anyone looked at the site this guy is quoting from?
> http://www.Childrenofthemillenium.org

Actually the address is www.childrenofmillennium.org (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org), and I would certainly like to see more people examine the ideas and information presented there (although most of the site is not race related).


> These so-called standard tests are of course
> racist because they are ethnocentric and do
> not take other cultures into account. If you
> give a black, african, asian, or hispanic a test
> that is standard they can be expected to fail.

You're right, SenoraChe; the non-white minorities would be expected to fail, if the tests truly were ethnocentric. However, East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews actually outscore whites on IQ tests. The reason this is possible is because IQ tests have been specifically tailored to avoid bias; when blacks were first discovered to score low for IQ, the test designers immediately set out looking for sources of bias and ways to eliminate them. Interestingly, the fewer "culturally loaded" terms they included on the IQ test, the more pronounced racial differences became. No intelligence test has ever been created which does not show the black/white racial disparity.

To help put this in perspective: There is an intelligence test called The Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices, which is a non verbal test using symbols like squares, triangles, and small clusters of dots to test for pattern recognition in a completely culture-free way. A black scholar, Fred Zindi, gave this test to 204 black Zimbabwean and 202 white English students from London inner city schools, matching them for age (12-14), sex, parent's occupation (working class), and educational level. The mean IQ score for the White students on the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices was 95; for the black students, it was 72.

This may be hard to face, but it's not test bias, it's not poor schooling or environment, and it isn't racism, either. It is a real disparity in intelligence which is caused in part by hereditary differences which exist between black and white populations.


> Burn in hell.

Drake, I consider your behavior juvenile and your words ill considered, and I'm not reading your posts.


> The only racist opinions that can ever be taken
> are those that elevate white people?

That's a good point; racism is simply "The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior" (American Heritage Dictionary). Obviously a Hispanic could claim Hispanic superiority and qualify as a racist. But:

A) I am making no claims for the superiority or inferiority of any race, and

B) Even if I were making the argument that "smarter = superior" I do not consider my own ethnicity to be the smartest.


> I think we should stop focusing on racial
> differences altogether.

I started this thread in response to the claim that the white race needed to be abolished. If you wish to stop focussing on racial differences, I see nothing particularly unhealthy about that. I would prefer that we discuss the issue rather than sweep it under the rug, however. I am not a socialist, but I would like to see class differences decreased, if not completely removed. As long as individual and racial disparities exist, the idea of a classless society is impossible.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 3:06 am on June 1, 2003)


I can do better than give you links.

The NYU HISTORY Department has a list of the courses and the Professors who teach them.

They have the Professor's emails via the School


Email the Professors, that is better than just reading a paper done by a professor because it comes straight from the horses mouth.


Also as far as natural selection, since humans are the same species I doubt it would take some little boy with an IQ that wasn't all that high to raise his IQ.

If you said 5 points, and I said 16 then it must fall somewhere inbetween them(theoretically)

Intellegence isn't like evolving into a creature with a third eye.

Since we are all basicaly the same I doubt it would take as long to raise your IQ as it would take to evolve a dorsal fin.

Understand what I'm saying?

Also like I said enviroment does have an affect on your intellegence. Once again I have never said Genetics didn't play an important role, but the world you are exposed to has affect also.


If you can't find the emails of the professors just tell me and I'll find them for you

[Nobody]

Millennium, if brain size some how corralates with IQ, they why do Asians have the hightest on average IQ's? Wouldn't their brians be bigger than both black's and white's?


(Edited by LevTrosky at 9:29 pm on June 1, 2003)

[Xvall]

Drake, I consider your behavior juvenile and your words ill considered, and I'm not reading your posts.

Mark, I consider you to be illiterate. Apparently you neglected to read the nice little three line post in parenthesis that accompanied the the short, three letter spout of anger. Now I will ask that you respond. Of course you don't have to, but then it will simply look like you are trying to dodge the argument. Is that what you are doing, Mark?

[Dan Majerle]

Black have larger penises on average!!!
*sigh*

[Millennium]

Millennium, if brain size some how corralates with IQ, they why do Asians have the hightest on average IQ's? Wouldn't their brians be samer than both black's and white's?

I'm not sure what you mean by "samer," Lev, but East Asians have about one extra cubic inch of grey matter when compared to people who are socially identified as white. Although there has been some confusion about whether Asians were smarter or very slightly less intelligent than whites, this confusion was resolved when they realized that South Asians and East Asians are geneticly distinct enough to have different IQs. East Asians, specifically, the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans, typically score from 100-110 for general intelligence, and (now here is where racial differences start to become interesting) about 10 points higher on "Visuo-spatial" ability than "Verbal" ability. This same VS/Verb disparity exists in Native Americans and Eskimos, although Eskimos seem to score somewhere above 100 and Native Americans somewhere around 85. On the other hand, American Jews of Ashkenazi descent score about ten points higher than people socially identified as white, but they have the opposite disparity of about 20 points in favor of verbal ability over visuo-spatial.

It is generally believed that the Ashkenazim developed this lopsided intelligence over centuries of eugenics. No joke! Their social customs throughout disapora favored the reproduction of talmudic scholars, and the defection of less intelligent Jews into the mainstream "Gentile" community. Now they make about 50% more money than the average European-American, are strongly overrepresented in law and journalism, have an extremely high proportion of Nobel Prize winners, and are overall the most wealthy and successful ethnicity in America.

Unfortunately, their reproductive rates are abysmal; they are dying out.

If you really are interested in this, or if you're skeptical and wonder where I'm getting this information, once again I'd like to direct you to http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugeni...nics/index.html (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/index.html).


Mark, I consider you to be illiterate.

Drake, I have better things to do than deal with your insults. I notice that you created a thread specifically to solicit my opinion, but I am disinterested in discussing anything with you and would prefer you left me alone.


I can do better than give you links.

Lardlad, what you have done is given me less. I think everyone here will agree that I have provided a large amount of evidence to support my case. So far, you have supplied three articles, which, while interesting, were unsourced. You have also not read and commented on the article "Speed Demons" for which I repeatedly gave you the link and asked your opinion on. I'm not interested in bending over backwards to carry on both sides of this argument. I'd love to see you develop your case, but you will have to develop it yourself.


If you said 5 points, and I said 16 then it must fall somewhere inbetween them(theoretically)

I'm not sure what you mean. The instance where they raised the IQs of children permanently was 5 points. They have never been able to give children lasting gains to their IQ of 16 points; these apparent "gains" only occured in childhood, and then faded by adolescence.


Intellegence isn't like evolving into a creature with a third eye.

Yes, but it would take millions of years to evolve a third eye. Intelligence doesn't change overnight; selection pressures work slowly and you can't permanently make people's brains 5 cubic inches larger by changing the environment over 50 years.


Since we are all basicaly the same I doubt it would take as long to raise your IQ as it would take to evolve a dorsal fin.

But we aren't basically the same (compare Pygmies with Icelanders) and the amount of time it would take to evolve a dorsal fin is mind boggling.

--Mark

[Xvall]

Drake, I have better things to do than deal with your insults.

I am not insulting you, Mark. You seem to have completely overlooked everything I said. I simply said you were illiterate in reply to your statement, which was far more insulting than mine. You stated that I was immature; I tried to explain to you that I had put a disclaimer in the 'burn in hell' statement that I had made in an attempt to make sure that you don't overreact to the statement. You seem to have completely ignored this. Once again, you read a few words from my post, and assumed that it was a good enough reason to completely ignore the rest of it. Perhaps if you read past the first sentence, you would understand.

I notice that you created a thread specifically to solicit my opinion, but I am disinterested in discussing anything with you and would prefer you left me alone.

Once again, you obviously neglected to read the post at all. You saw that I started a post regarding you, and assumed that the post was garbage. If you had read the post that I had made conscerning your beliefs, you would realize that it consists of nothing more than a few questions. How is this soliciting you? Leave you alone? No one here is every going to leave you alone. You are in the opposing ideologies section of the board for a reason. When here, we are under the impression that you are here to debate. If you are not here to discuss things with people, and instead refuse to respond to anyone; then perhaps you shouldn't be on this website at all.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 9:55 pm on June 1, 2003)

[Pete]

Mark, you offend me. The idea that you even believe such nonesense is dumb founding. You may claim it has base, but as it has been said many many times you are ignoring the cultural and social differences between races. Just by examining people based on race and saying which is better subconsiously or consiouly is racism. Most of the problems we have today are the results of such decisions. The inequality is not born from genetics but from a history of Euro-centricism and colonization. Why do Canadian first nations have such a high level of drug dependancy (mostly alcohol)? It is not because of their genetic make up but because they had their culture brutaly stripped off of them and where thrown into the gutters offically by the government until the 1980s. Now it is more underground, nonchalantly. Or Asians? Well I have asian friends from the same town as me with high grades ect, and then I know some from central Toronto with lower grades. The social conditions between each are tremendiously different. That has more effect than genes. Scientifically supported racism is still racism. I suggest you rethink your wonderful "Children of the Millenium" ideas and open your eyes to the real social problems that are causing these figures.

[Nobody]

CrazyPete, not to defend Millennium or agree with him in anyway, but Native American/Canadians have alcholal dependence becasue of their gentic makeup. Booze to them is crack to others. Once they start drinking, they become dependent quicker then most. This becasue many American Civs never had booze so they have no natural barriers to becoming addicted. God, agreeing with Millennium felt, well, wrong(Please don't take offence, we just don't see eye to eye.. But a bigger problem facing native Canadian/Americans is the systematic destrucation of their cultures and people by europeans. They still have not ben able to cope with the movement to reservations, hence they are more likily to turn to substance abuse to solve their problems.

(Edited by LevTrosky at 10:44 pm on June 1, 2003)

[Pete]

The problem is that they turn to such things as a result of their social conditions. Another example would be sniffing gasoline and glue. No race could have a build up immunity to that, yet the disparity caused by the destruction of their culture and society has led to a large number of innu to be dependant on that.

[Hampton]

There is an intelligence test called The Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices, which is a non verbal test using symbols like squares, triangles, and small clusters of dots to test for pattern recognition in a completely culture-free way. A black scholar, Fred Zindi, gave this test to 204 black Zimbabwean and 202 white English students from London inner city schools, matching them for age (12-14), sex, parent's occupation (working class), and educational level. The mean IQ score for the White students on the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices was 95; for the black students, it was 72.

I think that if you use this as the prove the inferiority of blacks to whites than as an scientific experiment it would fail. You can't use this as a microcosm for the two races because there are just to many things, or factors, that play into what the outcome would be.

While it's all and well that the children were matched with the same age group (12-14), sex, parent's occupation (working class), and educational level, one group was from Zimbabwe and the other from London. I don't think I have to tell you that there is a difference between the two places. There is bound to be a difference in the curriculum that is taught, the way it's taught and who teaches it. There are many other common factors that may play a key role in the test results:

Now while they are from the same social class who's to say that something like malnutrition or not having a proper breakfast that morning did not effect the way that the student preformed on the test? Did Zindi make sure each had the proper nutritional balanced breakfast that morning? Or the child may have suffered from protein deficiency or have got too little food which have made them passive and thereby less active that again have effected learning in a negative way.

Another is education facilities. Could it be that perhaps in Africa the schools are poorly equipped, few books and no visual material such as pictures and maps, teachers are poorly motivated?

Another is the way that the child is raised. Harsh child rearing could result in a discouraged interaction with the child's physical environment in the form of play and/or sport, independence and curiosity.

As an ad hoc experiment this, I believe, is a failure. As a tool to elevate the thinking that Africans are somehow genetically inferior to another race, it still dosen't work.

[Xvall]

CrazyPete, not to defend Millennium or agree with him in anyway, but Native American/Canadians have alcholal dependence becasue of their gentic makeup.

No, actually; they don't. I have never met a person with an 'alcohol gene' that causes them to lust for alcohol without ever having tasted it in the first place. Alcoholism is not a result of genetic makeup. People are not born with a love for alcohol.

Once they start drinking, they become dependent quicker then most.

Correct. So it is simply people turning to drugs because they feel as though their lives have been ruined. It is not because they were born with a genetic addiction to alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, etc. Keep in mind that most alcohol is man made. This means that when humans were around in the begining, it wasn't there. It's just as silly as saying that someone was born with a genetic addiction to television; as television was something that we made, and not something that has always existed. Now; if you say someone is genetically dependent on OXYGEN, something that has always been around, then that is a diffirent story.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So what exactly do you, Miliennium, propose we do about african natives' mental inferiority? And what do you propose we do about asian natives' hormonal deficiencies? Any logical person would not even consider such theories as proof of inferiority or deficiency, even if they took it seriously. A logical idividual would view such observations either as false or simply differences, not necessarily inferiorities.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 9:26 pm on June 1, 2003
Millennium, if brain size some how corralates with IQ, they why do Asians have the hightest on average IQ's? Wouldn't their brians be samer than both black's and white's?

I'm not sure what you mean by "samer," Lev, but East Asians have about one extra cubic inch of grey matter when compared to people who are socially identified as white. Although there has been some confusion about whether Asians were smarter or very slightly less intelligent than whites, this confusion was resolved when they realized that South Asians and East Asians are geneticly distinct enough to have different IQs. East Asians, specifically, the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans, typically score from 100-110 for general intelligence, and (now here is where racial differences start to become interesting) about 10 points higher on "Visuo-spatial" ability than "Verbal" ability. This same VS/Verb disparity exists in Native Americans and Eskimos, although Eskimos seem to score somewhere above 100 and Native Americans somewhere around 85. On the other hand, American Jews of Ashkenazi descent score about ten points higher than people socially identified as white, but they have the opposite disparity of about 20 points in favor of verbal ability over visuo-spatial.

It is generally believed that the Ashkenazim developed this lopsided intelligence over centuries of eugenics. No joke! Their social customs throughout disapora favored the reproduction of talmudic scholars, and the defection of less intelligent Jews into the mainstream "Gentile" community. Now they make about 50% more money than the average European-American, are strongly overrepresented in law and journalism, have an extremely high proportion of Nobel Prize winners, and are overall the most wealthy and successful ethnicity in America.

Unfortunately, their reproductive rates are abysmal; they are dying out.

If you really are interested in this, or if you're skeptical and wonder where I'm getting this information, once again I'd like to direct you to http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugeni...nics/index.html (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/index.html).


Mark, I consider you to be illiterate.

Drake, I have better things to do than deal with your insults. I notice that you created a thread specifically to solicit my opinion, but I am disinterested in discussing anything with you and would prefer you left me alone.


I can do better than give you links.

Lardlad, what you have done is given me less. I think everyone here will agree that I have provided a large amount of evidence to support my case. So far, you have supplied three articles, which, while interesting, were unsourced. You have also not read and commented on the article "Speed Demons" for which I repeatedly gave you the link and asked your opinion on. I'm not interested in bending over backwards to carry on both sides of this argument. I'd love to see you develop your case, but you will have to develop it yourself.


If you said 5 points, and I said 16 then it must fall somewhere inbetween them(theoretically)

I'm not sure what you mean. The instance where they raised the IQs of children permanently was 5 points. They have never been able to give children lasting gains to their IQ of 16 points; these apparent "gains" only occured in childhood, and then faded by adolescence.


Intellegence isn't like evolving into a creature with a third eye.

Yes, but it would take millions of years to evolve a third eye. Intelligence doesn't change overnight; selection pressures work slowly and you can't permanently make people's brains 5 cubic inches larger by changing the environment over 50 years.


Since we are all basicaly the same I doubt it would take as long to raise your IQ as it would take to evolve a dorsal fin.

But we aren't basically the same (compare Pygmies with Icelanders) and the amount of time it would take to evolve a dorsal fin is mind boggling.

--Mark




Mark... THe reason i suggested you emailing the professors is

1. Because they teach these things

2. They have more information than some online article

3. It will give you a chance to ask some of your own questions.


Also I said I would give you the links, please do not act like I am fabricating everything I've said. You are not carrying both sides of the arguement.

My life doesn't revolve around argueing whether or not my son is going to be a moron just because I'm black.

These expiremts were short term man. Thats why they didn't last.

If you are put in an enviroment you make progress but are taken out of it that isn't progress at all.

Take this example lets say there is a fat kid, he works hard and loses weight...but then he suddenly doesn't excersize anymore he's going to gain that weight back.

You can't expect short term programs to have a long term effect.

Privileged children get to live in these enviroments all their lives, they don't have to return to a place that doesn't encourage education.


Also why do you keep going back to the brainsize? You yourself said that experiments have raised intellegence 5 points.

Their brains didn't increase in mass, so this has nothing to do with brain size.

All we have to do is keep these progressive enviroments alive long enough to make a significant difference.



Are Pygmies and Icelanders humans? If the answer is yes than we aren't too physically different.

Do they both walk upright?

Do they both have two arms? Two legs?

Both have the ability to produce words?

Both have the ability to think?

Ok then where is the problem?

Now since you seem to concern yourself only with links I will provide you with the links, the emails and a critique of that damn article.

But before I do, don't believe everything you read. I mean you seem to be a person who is takin in by a good arguement. Hitler was an excellent speaker, a very convincing man, if you are easily bought he probably could have made a nazi out of you.


Ok I read the article.

All I'm saying is then why the fuck can't I play basketball?

Rocky Marceano beat the shit out of Joe Louis perhapes the greatest fighter of all time, a black man.

You are to given to look at the groups, to stereotype. In doing so you fail to realize the individual.

Does this article mean that you can't be good at sports? Infact why even try because inevitably some black guy will be better than you.

There is also a mentality to all of this. In the black community sports are looked upon more favorably than education.

So perhapes we excell because of the way we view it.

This article may have what you say is cold hard facts, but Rocky Marceano still beat up Joe Louis.

Also you'd think blacks would excell at other sports also.

The best black hockey player is Jerome Igena and there are lots of white guys in hockey who are better than him.

So why if he's black isn't he better than Scott Stevens, Sergi Fedarov, and Jamier Jagar put together, let alone individually?


Here you go: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/history/faculty-s.htm


This is the BYU History Professors list.

It has them arranged by speciality

there are two groups on Africa

one on Africa and one on Africa Dispora.

Each Professor has papers/books published by them as well as emails.

Email them if you want.


here are your precious links

http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html

http://www3.utsouthwestern.edu/library/con...turenurture.htm (http://www3.utsouthwestern.edu/library/consumer/naturenurture.htm)

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20...able_minds2.htm (http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/nurture_helps_mold_able_minds2.htm)

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/archives/mehler/reason.htm

(these are arguements between nature and nuture)


I'll get you some more links tomorrow if thats ok with you.

Also once again i must reiterate not to believe everything you read.


Not everything a scientists says is true.

For instance some people are proving Einstien wrong about the speed of light. I have one article on it(if I can find it) and my brother has another in a magazine(i'll ask him for it)
so you see not everything a scientist says is true.

I mean they may compose some compelling arguements, but scientists themselves say that nothing can ever truly be proved, only disproved.

[Sasafrás]

Sometimes, I believe that all these so-called "facts" are created by these, pardon my French, racist Crackers in order to make Blacks look inferior. And all this bullshit about Asians. "Oh, they're so great at math." These are called stereotypes.

I'm black myself, and I'm pretty damned smart, so I am quite offended by the idea that someone believes my people aren't as smart as the next white boy or Asian girl. I believe that if you grow up in an environment in which the importance of education is not stressed, and this tends to occur in many black urban communities and well as with countless whites (rural ones), then you obviously will not be as smart as you could be if education was pushed harder on you..

Hey, I know a black guy named Jonathan (used to have a crush on him too). Fucking genius. He didn't even have to try to be smart. A black girl named Eboné. So smart, she gets her face on the front of our city's newspaper for being a smart kid in a not so great school. GPA of 4.7. Got an Honors Diploma. Genius.

In addition, I know an Asian boy named Joey. He's so stupid. Doesn't do his work, doesn't even care. He did graduate. I think barely. His brother, however.. fucking genius. I don't get it...

My point is, it all depends on what your parents and you want for yourself. Your environment. Your friends. If you hang with riff-raff, you're gonna be riff-raff.

And please don't say, "Well, there are exceptions to the rules sometimes." Don't give me that...

[Millennium]

Note: I hope you'll forgive the length of my reply, but I wanted to be sure to answer all the posts here. I split my response off to create a new thread dealing with eugenics because this thread is not about that, but instead about race.

Sometimes, I believe that all these so-called "facts" are created by these, pardon my French, racist Crackers in order to make Blacks look inferior.

Might I suggest you take a Psychology 1 course?

In comparing the average IQ for various racial groups, several studies have shown differences. For example, Japanese and Chinese schoolchildren tend to score above white American children on intelligence and achievement tests, especially in math. – Psychology, by Hockenbury & Hockenbury


I'm black myself, and I'm pretty damned smart

Well, I'm white myself, and I have a big penis. That doesn't mean I didn't find it a little hard to accept that most whites don't have penises as big as most blacks. I got over it; so can you.


And please don't say, "Well, there are exceptions to the rules sometimes." Don't give me that...

Why not? The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean that there are no rules. I never said that all blacks excell at sports, only that overall they do better than other ethnicities. If you find that fact too scary to deal with, post on a different thread.


Mark, you offend me.

While I am truly sorry you are bothered by this, and am sympathetic to your feelings, I wish you would not find it offensive when other people have different views. Copernicus was considered offensive in his day. So was Darwin. I think it's generally better to try to consider ideas with a neutral attitude whenever possible.


but Native American/Canadians have alcholal dependence becasue of their gentic makeup.

I'm curious, Lev, do you have any stats or sources for this? I think it's probably true, but it may merely be a myth that Native Americans have a high incidence of alcoholism.


The problem is that they turn to such things as a result of their social conditions

What makes you say that? How you you know that social conditions cause the behavioral differences? The truth is that the exact opposite is the case, and that is precisely what the information I have provided here shows. It isn't that environment has no effect, but environmental determinism is as untenable as genetic determinism. Genes simply cannot be ruled out.


one group was from Zimbabwe and the other from London.

I'm sorry, Hampton, both groups lived in London. They experienced the same social environment, yet tested radically different for intelligence. I am sympathetic to your struggle to find some way, any way to make these ugly truths disappear, but I think it's better to face them than to stick your head in the sand.


A logical idividual would view such observations either as false or simply differences, not necessarily inferiorities.

Exactly. While it's quite clear that there is not much hope of ever being able to show these differences to be false, they aren't "inferiorities." The thing is that they are treated like problems. I actually made a mistake when I said that we have spent "billions" of dollars struggling in increase the intelligence of low IQ minority groups. The truth is that we have spent over five trillion dollars trying to fix these problems through social intervention. ( See http://euvolution.com/articles/shockley.html ) The results have been a failure, precisely because the problems aren't rooted in upbringing or environment, but are, at least in part, hereditary.


Mark... THe reason i suggested you emailing the professors is

1. Because they teach these things
2. They have more information than some online article
3. It will give you a chance to ask some of your own questions.

Look, LardLad, maybe I haven't made myself clear, here. I simply do not believe the things you are telling me. I have been in college for more than three years, and have taken classes (taught by leftists) which dealt specifically with non-western cultures and how they fared throughout history. I have found numerous articles on the internet which back up everything I have learned. It all points to a unified conclusion that African societies never progressed, while East Asian societies in turn have been civilized for longer than European societies. There really isn't much question in my mind but that racial disparities in intelligence exist and have existed for millennia, despite apologetic claims by Afrocentrists.


Take this example lets say there is a fat kid, he works hard and loses weight...but then he suddenly doesn't excersize anymore he's going to gain that weight back.

You can't expect short term programs to have a long term effect.

This is essentially what I've been saying. A fat person with a genetic predisposition towards obesity is going to be obese by nature. You can change his weight temporarily, but you have to keep struggling to make him stay thin. Obesity is not as heritable as intelligence; in fact obesity is only about half as heritable. Intelligence is very hard to change, even for a short time. It's just not practical.


Also why do you keep going back to the brainsize? You yourself said that experiments have raised intellegence 5 points.

Their brains didn't increase in mass, so this has nothing to do with brain size.

All we have to do is keep these progressive enviroments alive long enough to make a significant difference.

Firstly, brain size and intelligence only correlate 60%. The correlation isn't 100%. Other factors like mylenization and brain layout account for some, too. But when you're talking about racial disparities in intelligence, they correlate almost 100% with brain size disparities. You just cannot make that disappear environmentally.


Are Pygmies and Icelanders humans? If the answer is yes than we aren't too physically different.

Do they both walk upright?

Do they both have two arms? Two legs?

Both have the ability to produce words?

Both have the ability to think?

Ok then where is the problem?

By your reasoning a VW Beetle is interchangable with a Ford pickup or a Porsche. Similarities don't imply congruencies.


Not everything a scientists says is true.

I agree; in fact in the past I've been rather vociferous on that score. But the scientists are painting a very strong picture for us. While we can never be certain that what they are saying is true, we have no reason to believe that what they said was untrue.


You are to given to look at the groups, to stereotype. In doing so you fail to realize the individual.

:) Actually I'm all hip on the individual. I don't like to see social programs (Affirmative Action, for instance) or laws applied selectively to different races. But to say that there are individual differences (and yes these differences are big; you can find whites at 50 IQ and whites at 150 IQ, which is a difference of 100 points and makes the black/white IQ gap look a lot less scary) doesn't mean that there are no racial differences. As long as people try to claim that there are no racial differences, they are perpetuating an untruth, and I would like people to be able to understand what's really going on.

--Mark

[Pete]

While I am truly sorry you are bothered by this, and am sympathetic to your feelings, I wish you would not find it offensive when other people have different views. Copernicus was considered offensive in his day. So was Darwin. I think it's generally better to try to consider ideas with a neutral attitude whenever possible.

But they where not making excuses for ones racism, they where expanding science into the realms of superstition. Big difference.

I'm curious, Lev, do you have any stats or sources for this? I think it's probably true, but it may merely be a myth that Native Americans have a high incidence of alcoholism.

They live in small reserves. They have had their culture forcefully destroyed before their own eyes. They have been beaten for speaking their own langauges by people trying to "help" them for their genetic "deficiencies."

What makes you say that? How you you know that social conditions cause the behavioral differences? The truth is that the exact opposite is the case, and that is precisely what the information I have provided here shows. It isn't that environment has no effect, but environmental determinism is as untenable as genetic determinism. Genes simply cannot be ruled out

I ask you but one thing. Examine a white man coming from the inner cities of New York to a white man coming from New York's suburbs. Genes mean nothing in this catergorie buddy.

I'm sorry, Hampton, both groups lived in London. They experienced the same social environment, yet tested radically different for intelligence. I am sympathetic to your struggle to find some way, any way to make these ugly truths disappear, but I think it's better to face them than to stick your head in the sand.


Go back and read your own post. You said that one was from England, the other Zimbabwe. They only happened to be in London when the test was taken.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 9:43 pm on June 1, 2003)

[Millennium]

Go back and read your own post. You said that one was from England, the other Zimbabwe. They only happened to be in London when the test was taken.

This is becomming rather sad. They didn't "happen to be" in London. They were living in London; their parents were from Zimbabwe. Moreover - and this is the important part - it was a culture free test administered by an educated black man. In case you've forgotten from the last rtime I pointed it out, adpotion studies have shown that black children adopted into white middle class homes score about 16 points below whites adopted into white middle class homes. I'm sorry; you're grasping at straws. If you don't like what professor Zindi, and dozens of other professional psychometricians, have discovered, you're pretty much out of luck.


They live in small reserves. They have had their culture forcefully destroyed before their own eyes. They have been beaten for speaking their own langauges by people trying to "help" them for their genetic "deficiencies."

Your faith borders on the religious. What justification do you have for your belief that this is purely environmental? Do you have any reason to think it is environmental at all? I'm going to be frank, here: I don't think you do.


I ask you but one thing. Examine a white man coming from the inner cities of New York to a white man coming from New York's suburbs. Genes mean nothing in this catergorie buddy.

Oh? Then why is it that the New Yorker living in the suburbs has an IQ that's only around 5 points higher than the New Yorker who came from the inner city? Why is it that blacks of the highest SES score below whites on the lowest SES? If I provided you with a source for this, would you bother to examine it?


--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 3:05 am on June 2, 2003)

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Hampton on 6:19 am on June 1, 2003Totalitarian: Likewise, Europe is the traditional White homeland. At the moment Europe is being flooded by high birthrate non-whites, which means that Europeans will eventually become a minority in Europe. If this continues, it will destroy the European way of life.

Well, nobody seemed to care when the African way of life as well as its culture was destroyed and still no one seems to care so why would I care about Europe?



Well, i'm sorry about that but the colonisation of Africa really had nothing to do with me. And remember the Europeans didn't only harm Africans; they also built schools, hospitals and suchlike.

Blacks are also under threat of extinction from things like the AIDS plague and famine at the moment. What do you think is the solution for making Africa become a prosperous and happy continent for the Black races?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 3:08 am on June 2, 2003

Quote: from Hampton on 6:19 am on June 1, 2003Totalitarian: Likewise, Europe is the traditional White homeland. At the moment Europe is being flooded by high birthrate non-whites, which means that Europeans will eventually become a minority in Europe. If this continues, it will destroy the European way of life.

Well, nobody seemed to care when the African way of life as well as its culture was destroyed and still no one seems to care so why would I care about Europe?



Well, i'm sorry about that but the colonisation of Africa really had nothing to do with me. And remember the Europeans didn't only harm Africans; they also built schools, hospitals and suchlike.

Blacks are also under threat of extinction from things like the AIDS plague and famine at the moment. What do you think is the solution for making Africa become a prosperous and happy continent for the Black races?


You know there is also a growing aids problem in south east asia....but does anyone mention that?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 2:27 am on June 2, 2003
Note: I hope you'll forgive the length of my reply, but I wanted to be sure to answer all the posts here. I split my response off to create a new thread dealing with eugenics because this thread is not about that, but instead about race.

Sometimes, I believe that all these so-called "facts" are created by these, pardon my French, racist Crackers in order to make Blacks look inferior.

Might I suggest you take a Psychology 1 course?

In comparing the average IQ for various racial groups, several studies have shown differences. For example, Japanese and Chinese schoolchildren tend to score above white American children on intelligence and achievement tests, especially in math. – Psychology, by Hockenbury & Hockenbury


I'm black myself, and I'm pretty damned smart

Well, I'm white myself, and I have a big penis. That doesn't mean I didn't find it a little hard to accept that most whites don't have penises as big as most blacks. I got over it; so can you.


And please don't say, "Well, there are exceptions to the rules sometimes." Don't give me that...

Why not? The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean that there are no rules. I never said that all blacks excell at sports, only that overall they do better than other ethnicities. If you find that fact too scary to deal with, post on a different thread.


Mark, you offend me.

While I am truly sorry you are bothered by this, and am sympathetic to your feelings, I wish you would not find it offensive when other people have different views. Copernicus was considered offensive in his day. So was Darwin. I think it's generally better to try to consider ideas with a neutral attitude whenever possible.


but Native American/Canadians have alcholal dependence becasue of their gentic makeup.

I'm curious, Lev, do you have any stats or sources for this? I think it's probably true, but it may merely be a myth that Native Americans have a high incidence of alcoholism.


The problem is that they turn to such things as a result of their social conditions

What makes you say that? How you you know that social conditions cause the behavioral differences? The truth is that the exact opposite is the case, and that is precisely what the information I have provided here shows. It isn't that environment has no effect, but environmental determinism is as untenable as genetic determinism. Genes simply cannot be ruled out.


one group was from Zimbabwe and the other from London.

I'm sorry, Hampton, both groups lived in London. They experienced the same social environment, yet tested radically different for intelligence. I am sympathetic to your struggle to find some way, any way to make these ugly truths disappear, but I think it's better to face them than to stick your head in the sand.


A logical idividual would view such observations either as false or simply differences, not necessarily inferiorities.

Exactly. While it's quite clear that there is not much hope of ever being able to show these differences to be false, they aren't "inferiorities." The thing is that they are treated like problems. I actually made a mistake when I said that we have spent "billions" of dollars struggling in increase the intelligence of low IQ minority groups. The truth is that we have spent over five trillion dollars trying to fix these problems through social intervention. ( See http://euvolution.com/articles/shockley.html ) The results have been a failure, precisely because the problems aren't rooted in upbringing or environment, but are, at least in part, hereditary.


Mark... THe reason i suggested you emailing the professors is

1. Because they teach these things
2. They have more information than some online article
3. It will give you a chance to ask some of your own questions.

Look, LardLad, maybe I haven't made myself clear, here. I simply do not believe the things you are telling me. I have been in college for more than three years, and have taken classes (taught by leftists) which dealt specifically with non-western cultures and how they fared throughout history. I have found numerous articles on the internet which back up everything I have learned. It all points to a unified conclusion that African societies never progressed, while East Asian societies in turn have been civilized for longer than European societies. There really isn't much question in my mind but that racial disparities in intelligence exist and have existed for millennia, despite apologetic claims by Afrocentrists.


Take this example lets say there is a fat kid, he works hard and loses weight...but then he suddenly doesn't excersize anymore he's going to gain that weight back.

You can't expect short term programs to have a long term effect.

This is essentially what I've been saying. A fat person with a genetic predisposition towards obesity is going to be obese by nature. You can change his weight temporarily, but you have to keep struggling to make him stay thin. Obesity is not as heritable as intelligence; in fact obesity is only about half as heritable. Intelligence is very hard to change, even for a short time. It's just not practical.


Also why do you keep going back to the brainsize? You yourself said that experiments have raised intellegence 5 points.

Their brains didn't increase in mass, so this has nothing to do with brain size.

All we have to do is keep these progressive enviroments alive long enough to make a significant difference.

Firstly, brain size and intelligence only correlate 60%. The correlation isn't 100%. Other factors like mylenization and brain layout account for some, too. But when you're talking about racial disparities in intelligence, they correlate almost 100% with brain size disparities. You just cannot make that disappear environmentally.


Are Pygmies and Icelanders humans? If the answer is yes than we aren't too physically different.

Do they both walk upright?

Do they both have two arms? Two legs?

Both have the ability to produce words?

Both have the ability to think?

Ok then where is the problem?

By your reasoning a VW Beetle is interchangable with a Ford pickup or a Porsche. Similarities don't imply congruencies.


Not everything a scientists says is true.

I agree; in fact in the past I've been rather vociferous on that score. But the scientists are painting a very strong picture for us. While we can never be certain that what they are saying is true, we have no reason to believe that what they said was untrue.


You are to given to look at the groups, to stereotype. In doing so you fail to realize the individual.

:) Actually I'm all hip on the individual. I don't like to see social programs (Affirmative Action, for instance) or laws applied selectively to different races. But to say that there are individual differences (and yes these differences are big; you can find whites at 50 IQ and whites at 150 IQ, which is a difference of 100 points and makes the black/white IQ gap look a lot less scary) doesn't mean that there are no racial differences. As long as people try to claim that there are no racial differences, they are perpetuating an untruth, and I would like people to be able to understand what's really going on.

--Mark


Which college are you attending?

Like I said email those professors they can give you the information you are looking for, or suppose don't exist.

frankly I don't believe anything you've told me either.

African societies never progressed? Please check out the NYU history department, email those professors.

Becuase it's obvious you've bought into whatever it is you've read.

Also have you ever heard of bias? Most things you read are going to be filled with them.

Seriously you need to stop buying into everything you read. It's obvious that you found some articles and just automatically assumed that it must be true.

DON"T BELIEVE IT JUST BECAUSE IT"S IN PRINT. It's called bias or slant, learn about it.

http://www.historylink101.com/1/africa/afr...ca_research.htm (http://www.historylink101.com/1/africa/africa_research.htm)


there you go, have a ball researching.

If you don't want to talk to these professors just tell me. I just hope it isn't because you are afraid you are wrong about ancient africa.

It all depends on how you look at it.

>>>Intelligence is very hard to change, even for a short time. It's just not practical. <<<


Is it impractical because you

1. Don't think we should try

2. Dont think it is a good use of resources

or 3. your impatient and want change within 3 months

also The obesity thing was just an analogy don't dig to dep into things.

>>>By your reasoning a VW Beetle is interchangable with a Ford pickup or a Porsche. Similarities don't imply congruencies. <<<


a beetle and a pick up can't have children who can reproduce a pygmie and a guy from Iceland can.

You want genetics, humans are the same species if there were any significant difference then their offspring couldn't reproduce

tiger + lion=a liger (can't reproduce) ...and yes a liger is a really animal

donkey + horse= mule (can't reproduce)

pygmie(human) + Icelander (human)=human (can reproduce)

These differences while present aren't strong enough to make a significant difference.


I take everything a scientist says as a theory, because honestly you can't ever know. The universe was believed to be infinite until a physicist proved it wrong. And even he may be wrong.

I can not believe a scientist because he's telling me that the majority of black people I know should be stupid..but that simply isn't true.

I've met just as many stupid white people who weren't smart as I have blacks and asians, and just as much for all for being smart.

In fact I have met less smart asians than I have stupid ones, and I've lived all over America.

And finally you aren't "hip to the individual" if you where these averages wouldn't matter to you. If you really were "hip to the individual" you would look at the individual.

you aren't trying to get people to see the truth you are perpetuating racism and stereotypes.

You condem the individual before you know them.

You see a black guy walking down the street and you would just naturally assume he's got the IQ of a used napkin.

Face it man that is prejudice and bigotry, you don't see the individual you see a skin color..

Race doesn't matter because we are still all humans, and unless you are planning to exterminate the "mud races" I suggest you accept that and stop caring whether or not i'm black or you are white.

Also if you don't like social programs and laws being applied to races then why must you apply sterotypes to them

you can't have it both ways, you can't say it's about the individual when you go judging by the group.

Let me ask you this if you were an employer and one black guy who was dumber than a retarded baboon applied and a white guy who was equally as dumb who would you higher?

Would you higher the white guy because his crainal cavity is larger?

Or what if both of them were equally intellegent? Then who would you higher?


People like you are the reason we need affirmative action because you can't see past race.

And you know what the sad part is, I'm against Aff. Action, in theory atleas.

But I realize that there are people still out there who can't see past race, and for minorities that is a large set back.

Are you fine with the status quo?you say trying to change enviroment to help will take to long...so does that mean that you don't want things to change?

If you see a problem do you just let it be?

If you see that your house is burning down and it's a fact that it's burning down do you just go "we just need to learn to accept it" or do you try to put it out, call the fire department, etc.

Thats the point, just because something is the way it is doesn't mean you shouldn't use your resources to change it.


I hope that one day you can learn these two things

1. That you can't believe everything you read

2. Race doesn't matter

[Hampton]

How many time do you have to say that the test was done by a black man? The color of his skin is not important the motherfucker can be blue and orange for all I care, you seem to be the one who thinks the color of someone's skin is important, not me or the people who have responded to you. And you didn't address the rest of my post. How controlled was this experiment, if I may call it that? The factors that I mentioned have a significant impact on how the children would perform on the test.

If you wish to use this as a catalyst for your beliefs, in your vein attempt to say that the children were in some way the same because they were in the same socio-economic class, you must address all the possible factors that would play a part in how the children would perform on that day, which you have not. You said that both groups were living in England, which I might add you did not say in the original post, you said "A black scholar, Fred Zindi, gave this test to 204 black Zimbabwean and 202 white English students from London inner city schools", missing here was whether the African children were given the test in Zimbabwe and the other given a test in England then compared or if they were both in the same country, so trying to discredit my post from an error you made is ridiculous.

I suppose in other words what I'm trying to say that the test is subjective to the individual and their activities leading up to the test taking date. Who knows what a child was doing the night before the test, does one suffer from a sleeping disorder that would prevent them from getting a good nights sleep before hand? Did one wake up late and was not able to eat a breakfast that would keep them awake during the test? Does an event during their childhood have a lingering effect upon them now?

I'll get my head out of the sand when your head out of your ass.

[Millennium]

You know there is also a growing aids problem in south east asia....but does anyone mention that?

That's interesting; I've certainly never heard that. I have heard that it's a growing problem in Russia, but I don't have any data. Nevertheless I have talked to one of the black instructors at my college, Kinuthyua, and he said that in Africa, ADIS really is worse than everywhere else. The president of Kenya, according to him (he was originally from Kenya), claims that AIDS is a myth, and rates in Africa are now around 10%.

Which college are you attending?

Nothing special; a local community college in CA.


frankly I don't believe anything you've told me either.

Well, that's unfortunate. Why not? You didn't seem to disagree with the authors of "Speed Demons," even while you pointed out that their conclusions couldn't be taken to mean tha all blacks are more athletic than all whites. What in specific do you not believe?

DON"T BELIEVE IT JUST BECAUSE IT"S IN PRINT

I could just as easilly tell you, "Don't believe it just because it's in school." I see no reason to disbelieve any of these things. They have been verified by multiple, independent sources. It's not just one person who sat down with ten corpses, opened their skulls, and declared "why, these black brains are small!" Countless studies, cited in countless sources confirm, again and again, the things I'm saying. I've looked at the ideas of the opposition; I've looked into Gould's "The Mismeasure of Men" and Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel." I've read "The Bell Curve Wars," in which several author try to debunk claims about IQ differences, and I've looked at "Inequality by Design" which makes the claim that disparities have nothing to do with IQ. But social scientists keep discovering, again and again, what I'm telling you. Are you aware that only 15% of experts in the field of psychometrics, psychology, and IQ think that the IQ disparities between blacks and whites are wholly environmental? My views may seem odd to the general public, but among those who have actually looked into the matter - and I have studied this independently for years, now - I am actually quite mainstream.

Is it impractical because you

1. Don't think we should try

Absolutely not; I definitely think we should try!

2. Dont think it is a good use of resources

Well, you tell me; that environmental intervention I told you about which was actually successful at raising IQ five points, unlike virtually everything else that was tried, is called The Milwaukee Project. According to The g Factor, the cost of this project was $23,000 per IQ point per child. Do you think it's worth $23,000 and thousands of hours of a child's time to increase his IQ 1 point?

or 3. your impatient and want change within 3 months


Actually I'm extremely patient. The environmentalists want to fix things right away, and their quick fixes don't work. I'd rather do it right, and fix them forever.

And finally you aren't "hip to the individual" if you where these averages wouldn't matter to you. If you really were "hip to the individual" you would look at the individual.

May I remind you that the reason I began this thread was because some ignorant socialists were clamoring for the abolishment of the white race? These differences matter to the people on this bulletin board. They matter to the people at Head Start who make a living trying and failing to boost the IQs of black children. They matter to angry black people who feel they are being cheated by the system; they matter to angry white people who think that Jews are cheating them out of "their" money. They matter because our society has made them matter through the perpetuation of the myth that "if there's a disparity, someone is to blame."

Nobody's to blame. It's just the way nature made us.

--Mark

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 4:08 am on June 2, 2003
You know there is also a growing aids problem in south east asia....but does anyone mention that?

That's interesting; I've certainly never heard that. I have heard that it's a growing problem in Russia, but I don't have any data. Nevertheless I have talked to one of the black instructors at my college, Kinuthyua, and he said that in Africa, ADIS really is worse than everywhere else. The president of Kenya, according to him (he was originally from Kenya), claims that AIDS is a myth, and rates in Africa are now around 10%.

Which college are you attending?

Nothing special; a local community college in CA.


frankly I don't believe anything you've told me either.

Well, that's unfortunate. Why not? You didn't seem to disagree with the authors of "Speed Demons," even while you pointed out that their conclusions couldn't be taken to mean tha all blacks are more athletic than all whites. What in specific do you not believe?

DON"T BELIEVE IT JUST BECAUSE IT"S IN PRINT

I could just as easilly tell you, "Don't believe it just because it's in school." I see no reason to disbelieve any of these things. They have been verified by multiple, independent sources. It's not just one person who sat down with ten corpses, opened their skulls, and declared "why, these black brains are small!" Countless studies, cited in countless sources confirm, again and again, the things I'm saying. I've looked at the ideas of the opposition; I've looked into Gould's "The Mismeasure of Men" and Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel." I've read "The Bell Curve Wars," in which several author try to debunk claims about IQ differences, and I've looked at "Inequality by Design" which makes the claim that disparities have nothing to do with IQ. But social scientists keep discovering, again and again, what I'm telling you. Are you aware that only 15% of experts in the field of psychometrics, psychology, and IQ think that the IQ disparities between blacks and whites are wholly environmental? My views may seem odd to the general public, but among those who have actually looked into the matter - and I have studied this independently for years, now - I am actually quite mainstream.

Is it impractical because you

1. Don't think we should try

Absolutely not; I definitely think we should try!

2. Dont think it is a good use of resources

Well, you tell me; that environmental intervention I told you about which was actually successful at raising IQ five points, unlike virtually everything else that was tried, is called The Milwaukee Project. According to The g Factor, the cost of this project was $23,000 per IQ point per child. Do you think it's worth $23,000 and thousands of hours of a child's time to increase his IQ 1 point?

or 3. your impatient and want change within 3 months


Actually I'm extremely patient. The environmentalists want to fix things right away, and their quick fixes don't work. I'd rather do it right, and fix them forever.

And finally you aren't "hip to the individual" if you where these averages wouldn't matter to you. If you really were "hip to the individual" you would look at the individual.

May I remind you that the reason I began this thread was because some ignorant socialists were clamoring for the abolishment of the white race? These differences matter to the people on this bulletin board. They matter to the people at Head Start who make a living trying and failing to boost the IQs of black children. They matter to angry black people who feel they are being cheated by the system; they matter to angry white people who think that Jews are cheating them out of "their" money. They matter because our society has made them matter through the perpetuation of the myth that "if there's a disparity, someone is to blame."

Nobody's to blame. It's just the way nature made us.

--Mark


Oh the epidemic in Asia is no where near as bad as the one in Africa, though it's growing at a high rate.

Frankly I just don't believe in generalizing because it isn't fair.

If only two middle eastern kids attend a school one gets a 100 on a test, the other gets a 40, the average test scores for middle eastern students at that school is a 70.

Does that mean that the middle eastern people in that community are stupid? That isn't fair because you dimish the accomplishments of others.

I see no reason to generalize...even if what you say is true...what exactley did you accomplish.

By proving that blacks are dumb are you getting any richer? Is any of your work getting done? No, so unless you are sizing up black communities for genocide and need to justify it you really have no need to generalize.


I think your problem is your assuming that I think that Enviroment is wholly responsible for IQ, that is idiocy.

I just said it affects it, it can change it for better or for worse. I never said that genetics have no effect, in fact I said it did have an affect. i just don't think it does entirely.

I believe it to be a mix of both like a lot of scientists do, nothing is entirely genetic, if it were then I would grow up to be an alcoholic.

But I abhor alcohol because it caused alot of pain in my life, I can't stand the site of beer.

That is enviroment...this doesn't mean that I don't have the potential to be an alcoholic.

In fact if I started drinking I would probably be likely to be an alcoholic because there is a history of alcoholism in my family.

However my experiences have turned me off of it. Now whether or not I turn out to be one remains to be seen, but as you can see genetics and enviroment play a role here.

See what I'm saying?

>>>Well, you tell me; that environmental intervention I told you about which was actually successful at raising IQ five points, unlike virtually everything else that was tried, is called The Milwaukee Project. According to The g Factor, the cost of this project was $23,000 per IQ point per child. Do you think it's worth $23,000 and thousands of hours of a child's time to increase his IQ 1 point? <<<

Shit we give damn near 4 billion to Isreal every year and they sure as hell don't need it. We pump a hell of alot of it into the military which is already beyoned powerful.

iT would be easier if we were socialist.

And you probably asked the wrong person about whether or not it's worth it.

Education is my main focus on fixing, hell I plan to be a teacher so......

Remember when i said bias? Well I'm more biased towards spending on education than anything else.


Also we only need to spend them on a few generations at the most 5 (and I don't even want to say that many and by generation i mean between 20 and 35 years)

Couple this with fixing up education and communities and we have the workings of a long term fix

Poeple aren't to blame, people's actions are to blame.

Not necassarily for intellegence scores but there is definittely an internal link.

I mean opression has lots of different effects.

Horrible education, demoralization, etc. Don't tell me these things don't affect people, they even affect them on a psycological level.

Now I'm not saying that I'm out to get the white man....but realize some horrible things have been done over the years, who's effects are pretty horrendous.


By the people advocating the abolishment of the white race aren't socialists I saw that guy on CNN he is no socialist.

Also when do two wrongs make a right? Just because the average man would try to magnify these differences, sterotypes, and hatreds doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight against them.

[Sasafrás]

Quote: from Millennium on 8:27 pm on June 1, 2003
Well, I'm white myself, and I have a big penis.Hmmm, are you sure?