Jump to content

Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?


  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe that there are racial differences in intelligence?



Recommended Posts

 

EDIT to below: OH NO!

More Joseph Graves/Race-denial SPAMMING! (as in your attempted agree-with-me correspondence posting earlier)

Replete with the SAME Youtube You've used HUNDREDS of Times (#136 here) and probably the SAME citation I've seen 100 times.

You cannot/Have Not/Never debated Race without Graves. Period. While I can use logic and 100 varying sources.

Indeed, the various Race Realist posters have used too many sources/graphs/charts in this string alone to count.

In fact, virtually All the quantification/numbers/Charts on IQ, measures of genetic distance, etc have been on the Race Realism side.. with basically just apologetics on the other.

These Obsessive and Pavlovian Link Dumps/Fall-Backs/Answers-to-anything/Scriptural-like citations by some self-interested professor at a Black College (NC-A&T), are NONRESPONSIVE to my simple points of Logic in your posts/posting. (And hardly James Watson either!)

Just the usual Bury-em with text/Graves nonsense.

You did NOT answer my pointing out that your definition of 'Racism' is only mental/cognitive difference, and that Obsessive focus on the topic is NOT only from One side or Motivation. On the contrary, one sides Motivation may be personal defense/Self-Bias/'My-Race' support, rather than intellectual, or 'other-tribe racism.'

+

 

This is the level of debate we're dealing with here folks. Rather than address my arguments like a sensible poster "Bering Strait" instead rants and whines about my use of sources that he doesn't like and makes blatantly racist comments which only support my point, which is that most people who make these arguments are motivated by racist ideological bias rather than the scientific pursuit of truth. They are in fact misusing science to support their racist ideological agenda. The quotes I used do in fact clearly address Watson and your brain size comments and the video addresses all of the issues of whether races exist in humans and whether evolution can be invoked to explain mental differences between human populations or races. I answered your questions and the reason I am posting the same material I have posted elsewhere is because these issues have already been addressed multiple times. There is no reason to post new information when you are making the same old tired arguments.

 

 

 

Seems rather self-serving to suggest someone who agrees with your position is honest, and that anyone who disagrees with your position is automatically a racist with ulterior motives.

 

The issue here is the credibility of the source and the validity of the argument. Watson is being propped up because he agrees with racists and did some breakthrough work in genetics decades ago yet has no credibility to speak on the subject. My source does.

Edited by EgalitarianJay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the level of debate we're dealing with here folks. Rather than address my arguments like a sensible poster "Bering Strait" instead rants and whines about my use of sources that he doesn't like and makes blatantly racist comments which only support my point, ...

On the contrary: My post made simple logical statements

 

Bering strait: Finally a partial admission/concession to the obvious

What's so Troubling, and Inconsistent about your posts is you always specify [just] IQ differences as "Racist", but for Physical differences/ability 'Black' superiority' is given tacit approval/a pass.

Of course, the Skull and Brain ARE Physically different among races, and there is No reason to assume there aren't mental (Intelligence/behavioral) adaptations among them. It would only be logical.

".. there is No firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

- James Watson, co-Nobel Winner for Discovering DNA

As far as "spending so much time on the subject", a simple google search will show WHO is the all time Race-Posting champ. And Race Denial is tantamount to Evolution denial: claiming it stopped 200,000 years ago, and only cognitively/behaviorally, no less.

Topical obsession is NOT limited to one side and one motivation.

1. About YOUR Inconsistency/Hypocrisy in 'Racism'. That YOU allow/condone the area where 'Blacks' excel, (Physical Pursuits), and call Racism ONLY someone who advocates IQ/Mental difference when that (IQ, Behavior etc) would only ALSO Be Natural Adaptation to different environments.

2. I used a Watson quote on that same simple Point of Evolutionary Logic.

3/Finally: Another Hypocrisy. While you accuse others of being obsessed/Motivated by other than intellect, it's YOU who make ALL your 'super hero' (avatar) posts as much defending a Single race as in all ways equal... except in the one way they're superior, that is.

So It did NOT require your usual SPAM City, replete with both an 'Uncle' Joe Graves youtube and article.

Just simple logical reply and explanation of those/your conflicting ideas. (or at most a paragraph/excerpt from that Graves article)

Didn't happen. Your posts are default programmed. Many intended to Bury/Bludgeon with that multimedia Volume. (and ergo Unnecessarily include lines with his address, suite number, etc, etc.)

Backfired.

In fact, it doesn't matter what/who you post, EJay is going to put up Graves (as scripture) and Rushton v Graves. That's it.

Never mind the world/genetics is moving on, and finding more genetic difference every day. Several areas now thought Likely candidates for IQ.

More coming on that Goofy Graves article.

Edited by bering strait
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. About YOUR Inconsistenty/Hypocrisy in 'Racism'. That YOU allow/condone the area where 'Blacks' excel, (Physical Pursuits), and call Racism only someone who advocates IQ/Mental difference that (IQ, Behavior etc) would only ALSO Be Natural Adaptation to a different environment.

2. I used a Watson quote on that same simple Point of Evolutionary Logic.

3/Finally: Another Hypocrisy. While you accuse others of being obsessed/Motivated by other than intellect, it's YOU who make ALL your 'super hero' (avatar) posts as much defending a Single race as in all ways equal... except in the one way they're superior, that is.

So It did NOT require your usual SPAM City, replete with both an 'Uncle' Joe Graves youtube and article.

Just simple logical reply. Didn't happen. Your posts are default programmed.

More coming on that Goofy Graves article

 

1. I have never argued that a population can not have physical traits that have adaptive importance. Skin color for example is an adaptation that serves a purpose (resistance to UV radiation in darker groups and helps to synthesize vitamin D in lighter groups) but has no social importance and is therefore seen as a superficial difference. Athletic differences while meaningful in sports also have no social importance. Mental differences that impact traits such as intelligence and personality have a lot of social importance as they are relevant to behavior and ability which could impact everything from nation wealth to crime rates. So the fundamental question is why do so-called race-realists fixate on mental differences between races? The reason is obvious. They (you) have a racist ideological agenda for promoting this idea. There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy on my end. I have acknowledged that there are some differences between populations that have adaptive significance and I am not giving the idea of Blacks having an advantage in athleticism a pass. What I have said is that there is no scientific reason to assume that there are innate mental differences between races and plenty of evidence indicating that environmental differences explain racial differences in IQ. You are being dishonest if you claim to not recognize how appealing the idea of there being mental differences between races is to racist ideologues.

 

2. I countered your Watson quote with quotes from Graves showing that his argument is not as logical as you make it out to be. Rather than address the quote you simply whine about me using sources that I have used elsewhere which is irrelevant and a distraction from the point.

 

3. I have made it a hobby to post on message boards about this topic to combat racism. You seem to have the false perception that I am advancing my own form of racism by "defending a single race" as equal while simultaneously accepting that they are superior in other ways. Let me make this clear, I am not a racist. You are. You are attacking a strawman with all of this talk about me accepting Blacks as more athletic (which I never argued by the way) but equal in intellectual ability. What I have clearly said here and on other message boards is that there are differences and commonalities but more commonalities than differences. Why is it so hard for you to understand that just like many other biological characteristics different human populations might have the same genetic potential for mental characteristics while also having slight differences in traits that have no social importance? I have accepted the plausibility that mental differences might exist between human populations or races and that this is just a product of natural selection and adaptation like the other traits that differ between humans. But I have looked at the scientific evidence on BOTH sides of the debate and come to the conclusion that there is no scientific reason to assume this and plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary. You won't take an honest look at the other side. You are trying to shame me in to avoiding the citation of sources you don't like and attacking strawman then trying to make me out to be a hypocrite.

 

In your next reply I would like you to actually address the sources I posted as they were clearly relevant to your argument. I would also like you to explain how you are not a racist if you are making that claim. And why exactly are you calling Joseph Graves "Uncle" and "Goofy?"

 

Explain yourself.

Edited by EgalitarianJay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I recommend you both calm down a little. When tempers get frayed moderators tend not to pay undue heed to who started a slanging match, only as to who is participating in it. Let's focus purely on the facts, halt comments on each others posting styles and motives, and avoid emotive language entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I have never argued that a population can not have physical traits that have adaptive importance. Skin color for example is an adaptation that serves a purpose (resistance to UV radiation in darker groups and helps to synthesize vitamin D in lighter groups) but has no social importance and is therefore seen as a superficial difference. Athletic differences while meaningful in sports also have no social importance.

(THIS BOARD FORMAT SUCKS]

 

Bering strait:

Speak English. That is Precisely what I said you did. Allowing for Physical difference Only.

What planet are we on.

it's not even a strawman, its a total Misread.

 

 

 

 

Mental differences that impact traits such as intelligence and personality have a lot of social importance as they are Relevant to behavior and ability which could impact everything from nation wealth to crime rates. So the fundamental question is why do so-called race-realists fixate on mental differences between races? The reason is obvious. They (you) have a racist ideological agenda for promoting this idea.

Bering strait: What!

So you are acknowledging Mental differences that account for everything from the Wealth of Nations (Races that occupy those nations) to crime rates! Ooops

So you are now doing a 180° [/size]Turn on your 100,000 Race-denilaist posts?

"Why do race - realists fixate on them".

Who says they do. It comes up usually only on message boards, and again, YOU are the Denial champ (of what you just said!) on that front.

I post on economics, Europe, Middle East, general Science, News, politics, food, etc.

 

 

 

There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy on my end. I have acknowledged that there are some differences between populations that have adaptive significance and I am not giving the idea of Blacks having an advantage in athleticism a pass. What I have said is that there is no scientific reason to assume that there are innate mental differences between races and plenty of evidence indicating that environmental differences explain racial differences in IQ. You are being dishonest if you claim to not recognize how appealing the idea of there being mental differences between races is to racist ideologues.

Bering strait: You just ADMITTED above that These Mental; differences have adaptive advantages. Now you say there;s No reason to assume the do.

This, btw, is where Graves is wrong, and YOU are now Disagreeing with him.

AGAIN it's only logical some mental differences/Behavior IQ would evolve in response to different environments. Me, Watson, and all other 3 digit IQers.

 

 

 

2. I countered your Watson quote with quotes from Graves showing that his argument is not as logical as you make it out to be. Rather than address the quote you simply whine about me using sources that I have used elsewhere which is irrelevant and a distraction from the point.

 

Bering strait: Except YOU countered Graves with your own NEW admission, with a rationale for different mental adaptations.

 

 

 

 

3. I have made it a hobby to post on message boards about this topic to combat racism. You seem to have the false perception that I am advancing my own form of racism by "defending a single race" as equal while simultaneously accepting that they are superior in other ways. Let me make this clear, I am not a racist. You are. You are attacking a strawman with all of this talk about me accepting Blacks as more athletic (which I never argued by the way) but equal in intellectual ability....

 

Bering strait: My point was that you are a selecta-Racist. That your definition of Racist, at least Twice uttered on the last page alone, Designates ONLY those as saying there is an IQ difference.

So again, you allow/omit for one obvious advantage of a Race, while castigating another with huge (and singular) statistical and life outcome evidence.

 

IOW, If I said Blacks are innately better Sprinters/Marathoners you would NOT call me a Racist.

 

I will still be getting to Graves-the-Clown when I get a chance. (this reply took yet more time) The article on the last page is ridiculous. I'm alot smarter than your social agenda professor-god whose in no position to acknowledge any difference. And indeed holds that position for That reason.

Edited by hypervalent_iodine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I recommend you both calm down a little. When tempers get frayed moderators tend not to pay undue heed to who started a slanging match, only as to who is participating in it. Let's focus purely on the facts, halt comments on each others posting styles and motives, and avoid emotive language entirely.

 

I am being calm and I have clearly given Bering Strait the chance to defend his arguments. Now he is blatantly misrepresenting my comments. Bering Strait, why don't you address my arguments instead of trying to dissect and distort what I am saying in my posts? Anyone who can read knows that what you are saying isn't true. If you are going to compare your intelligence to Graves I recommend that you identify yourself and share your academic achievements instead of making outrageous boasts. I am not trying to deify Graves. You seem to be becoming unhinged with every post. I recommend that you settle down and use some common sense in your future posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask the "racial experts" in this thread (its a genuine question), if we did evolve into seperate races which have differences in IQ, what are these differences measured to? Is it 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% difference? What is it exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Superiority is subjective, it is dependent on the context, However by definition g is suppossed to be useful in all environments. It is merely representative of potential and not necessarily reflective of your current performance. Height is partially genetic and we know different ethnic groups vary in this feature. Is is it racist to point out such differences? I was thinking racism was more like new black panther or KKK type rhetoric.

 

Yes, lets start with yours.

 

Using unscientific propoganda as "science" -- Your right to call your self a scientist has been eliminated until further notice

 

Using Logic in the, it makes sense to me -- Your right to be believed in your logic has been eliminated until further notice

 

Being Racist -- Your respect is now the same as Donald Trump's until further notice.

 

 

Anyways, back on topic.

Is it possible Race is simply a small difference in genes? Like pure breeds or something like that? As in black people tend to hook up with black people, and whites with whites, etc. While there are outliers, would this create your supposed "races"?

 

Hahahahaha, your grasp of scientific concepts is incredibly outdated. so it's quite amusing you think you have any authority seeing as how your arguments have been shallow. C'mon humor me, at least try and explain how my arguments are unscientific? What propaganda?

 

 

I suppose it is possible to believe in racial differences in intelligence and not be racist however I am suspicious of anyone who presses the issue and then claims they are not racist. Most of these people are motivated by racist ideology. That is why they spend so much time on the subject. They want to believe that these differences exist.

 

No. that's ridiculous, I spend time on the subject because it is an extension of anthropology, my reaction was similar to users here on my first encounter of the material. About a year later I realized that racism =/= HBD, There are plenty of Alt reichers, but a few of us are able to see past our tribalism, and certainly reject particular tenants of the political ideology. Your question was simple and I answered it truthfully: Intelligence is somewhat genetic and the way these genes are expressed vary in frequency across geographic regions. If anything these adaptations are incredibly recent most races are relatively new, and our mutation rate was increasing tremendously around 40,000 years ago. There is actually a lot of data on this subject and if you find the right places it can be an enlightening experience.

 

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/acceleration/accel_story_2007.html

 

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/every-race-is-a-new-race/

 

I'd like to ask the "racial experts" in this thread (its a genuine question), if we did evolve into seperate races which have differences in IQ, what are these differences measured to? Is it 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% difference? What is it exactly?

 

Well whites on average score 100 while American blacks tend to score about 85, which is 1 SD. African blacks score in 60's and 70's but this is possibly due to malnutrition, high mutation, and parasitic load so researchers speculate their genetic IQ is 80. The extra 5 or 6 american blacks get is speculated to being caused by 19% white admixture, but that's simplistic and assumes IQ is completely additive. Some studies suggest sub saharan genetic IQ's are 90 which is incredibly higher than expected

 

"South Asians and South Americans in 1000 Genomes are mixed and living in Western countries, with exception of Bengali. I refer to you to ALFRED scores (ALFRED has got unmixed populations) and racial PS and you'll see that they're a lot lower.

African PS and particularly factors are still relatively low but not as low as their phenotypic IQ. Europeans are about 2/3 of the way between East Asians and Africans, which would put the IQ of Africans at 90 if we assume Eu at 100 and Ea at 105.

Another problem is that these are not IQ genes, they're educational attainment genes. Sure, the two things are related but not the same thing."

 

https://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=271

 

https://figshare.com/articles/Polygenic_selection_on_educational_attainment/3175522/1

 

https://osf.io/ydc3f/

 

https://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=211

 

http://humanvarieties.org/category/black-white-iq-gap/colorism/

 

Edited by meLothedestroyerofworlds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well whites on average score 100 while American blacks tend to score about 85, which is 1 SD. African blacks score in 60's and 70's but this is possibly due to malnutrition, high mutation, and parasitic load so researchers speculate their genetic IQ is 80. The extra 5 or 6 american blacks get is speculated to being caused by 19% white admixture, but that's simplistic and assumes IQ is completely additive. Some studies suggest sub saharan genetic IQ's are 90 which is incredibly higher than expected

 

"South Asians and South Americans in 1000 Genomes are mixed and living in Western countries, with exception of Bengali. I refer to you to ALFRED scores (ALFRED has got unmixed populations) and racial PS and you'll see that they're a lot lower.

African PS and particularly factors are still relatively low but not as low as their phenotypic IQ. Europeans are about 2/3 of the way between East Asians and Africans, which would put the IQ of Africans at 90 if we assume Eu at 100 and Ea at 105.

Another problem is that these are not IQ genes, they're educational attainment genes. Sure, the two things are related but not the same thing."

 

 

 

If these figures were true (any reasonable permutation of them), And the figures meant something meaningful about overall intelligence. And that the frequency distributions follow a Gaussian curve. The suggestion in the data that the means are within the order of one standard deviation of each other implies that there is considerable overlap in the distributions.

 

This has profound implications on the interpretation of that data that are being lost in the loose language been used here.

 

If the mean IQ of population A is higher than the mean IQ of population B, this does not mean that all of population A has a higher IQ than every member of population B. Indeed, an average individual of population A ranked by IQ against a modest random sample taken from population B is highly unlikely to have the highest IQ. The expectation would be that he/she would rank somewhat above average in the mixed population.

 

Therefore a statement of the generic kind 'population A is more intelligent than population B' is highly misleading and in context deeply offensive. The data is not incompatible with population B producing a significant number of Nobel prize winners. And indeed, this is what we see. The most able of any geographic region have significantly higher abilities than the bulk of any other population.

 

We can take this further. If it is supposed that each geographic population is characterised by a distinct assembly of haplotypes (I hope that's the right word) then within each of those assemblages lies the potential for some individuals within those populations to achieve excellence at a global level.

 

Seen in this light, the 'average' IQ of a population is pretty meaningless. Perhaps that society historically has needed more warriors and agricultural labourers than skilled craftsmen, and the IQ distribution amongst that population has skewed accordingly.

 

But each population retains the same potential to adapt to new conditions and produce the requisite proportion of individuals of higher intellectual level when the need arose.

 

What would have been the average IQ of the British population in the depths of the dark ages? I doubt if it would have been particularly impressive. Society's needs of the time were to plough clay and flay vikings. You don't need a particularly high IQ for those activities.

Edited by sethoflagos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The issue here is the credibility of the source and the validity of the argument. Watson is being propped up because he agrees with racists and did some breakthrough work in genetics decades ago yet has no credibility to speak on the subject. My source does.

 

If the issue here is the credibility of the source and the validity of the argument, then you should focus on that and not on the motives and character of the person making the argument.

Neither the use of sources that are not credible, nor invalid arguments, necessarily make you a racist. Your generalization that everyone is a racist if they believe there are differences in intelligence based on race, makes your argument invalid.

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the issue here is the credibility of the source and the validity of the argument, then you should focus on that and not on the motives and character of the person making the argument.

Neither the use of sources that are not credible, nor invalid arguments, necessarily make you a racist. Your generalization that everyone is a racist if they believe there are differences in intelligence based on race, makes your argument invalid.

 

I didn't make that argument and even acknowledged that perhaps some people who believe in innate racial differences in mental characteristics are not racist. However I do argue that most people who put the time and energy in to making that argument are racist and make the argument because it suits their racist ideological agenda. I strongly believe this and further believe it is intellectually dishonest to deny this. The evidence supporting my position is very strong when you consider the history of Scientific Racism, the funding of this type of research and the character of the people making these type of arguments. Is it an unfair generalization to say that most people I have encountered making this argument are either White Nationalists or part of the HBD crowd which is clearly composed of racists? That's just an objective observation. Also you should consider my background on the subject. I had never encountered this argument in real life until I went on the internet to purposefully learn what racists actually believe. If racists aren't the ones pushing this argument then why is it that in real life I have never heard the argument even to this day I have never heard it uttered that some races are less intelligent. In the last 15 years on national TV I only heard it mentioned a few times and most prominently when James Watson made his controversial statements. I only became aware of these arguments when I went on websites and message boards run by White Supremacists.

 

You should also know that I used to be a moderator and even an Admin on an anti-racist message board where I discussed this topic regularly and talked to anti-racists and a few racists privately about their views. Some of the anti-racists became persuaded by racist arguments including arguments about race and intelligence (especially that one) and a few of them even switched sides and became overt racists. The ones that stayed anti-racist actually expressed guilt about believing these arguments but believed them nonetheless so I know full well that you can believe in race/IQ arguments and not be racist but in my experience the vast majority of people who believe these arguments do so because they have a racist agenda. There is simply no reason not to believe this. Can you give me one?

 

I have a lot of experience debating racists. I know how to get them to expose there racism. It is very easy to do you just ask them questions or make certain comments that illicit a racist reaction. There can be no doubt that the majority of people who promote the view that races differ in intelligence are White and most have racist views. One interesting fact to consider which supports my point is that you don't see many Asian Supremacists promoting this research. Why not? Where is the Asian equivalent of Stormfront? There are of course Asian racists as there are racists in all groups but race-realism especially attracts White people with racist views. The reason is because racism is ingrained in Western culture and many White people who are racist have a superiority complex. There racism has evolved over the years from full blown White Supremacy (e.g. Whites are better at everything and should dominate other races) to White Nationalism and Race-Realism (e.g. Whites aren't the best at everything. Races are different in fundamental ways and Whites might not be the smartest but they are smarter than Blacks who are more athletic and Whites need to separate from other races because they are not compatible with Western Civilization). This latter argument is still racist it is just evolved out of classical White Supremacy.

 

So people can keep pretending in this discussion that they are not racist or most people who have their views are not racist but I know the truth and the evidence supporting my view is solid.

Edited by EgalitarianJay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't make that argument and even acknowledged that perhaps some people who believe in innate racial differences in mental characteristics are not racist. However I do argue that most people who put the time and energy in to making that argument are racist and make the argument because it suits their racist ideological agenda. I strongly believe this and further believe it is intellectually dishonest to deny this.....

[.......]

So people can keep pretending in this discussion that they are not racist or most people who have their views are not racist but I know the truth and the evidence supporting my view is solid.

 

Nonsense and Not true.

In response to one of the county's most Esteemed IQ researchers Linda Gottfredson,

(professor emeritus of educational psychology, University of Delaware and co-director of the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society and DOZENS of other credentials (heads of Psych Orgs/societies) incl testifying before congress many times)

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=479911&p=1066732661#post1066732661

 

 

EgalitarianJay Said THIS:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=479911&page=3&p=1066734497#post1066734497

 

 

Ejay:"Linda Gottfredson is just another Racist psychologist with an ideological axe to grind. The idea that the opponents of Scientific Racism are the ones that are biased is absurd considering the fact that most of its advocates are White Nationalists with political and ideological motives for supporting such research. Whites are not at the top of the IQ pyramid, but so what? How does that lend any credibility to your argument when most of you are completely obsessed with claiming Blacks are mentally inferior in just about every way imaginable?

 

Ejay: "The only difference between classical White Supremacy and Race-Realism is the pecking order that is being promoted
Ejay: If you don't want to call it White Supremacy we can just call it Neo-Racism. You're Still Racist. Most of you are still White

 

Ejay: Your message has just changed from Whites are the best at everything to races are fundamentally different in ways that are socially important.

 

WHO IS THE RACIST?

WHO Is willing to Consider Rationally/Reasonably?

 

WTH is wrong with this board?

It makes you requote-mark after every sentence.

GARBAGE

The above was all a single Ejay Paragraph.

And for the Record..
Ejay was 100% SILENCED by my direct rebuttal #104:
Racial categorization
IQ numbers.
Expert Opinion on Genetic vs Non-genetic component of IQ.
Silenced.
`
Edited by bering strait
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by those statements and we discussed that article on another message board where it was exposed that the authors deliberately targeted researchers who were sympathetic to their views to make it seem like intelligence researchers agreed with them.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/survey-of-expert-opinion-on-intelligence-causes-of-international-differences-in-cognitive-ability.155804/

 

Read post #17 by Bells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your generalization that everyone is a racist if they believe there are differences in intelligence based on race, makes your argument invalid.

 

I didn't make that argument...

 

Nonsense and not true.

 

 

Anyone who tells you that they are not racist when they try to claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence is just being dishonest. Of course they are racist. Why would you want to believe such a thing unless you had a racist agenda? Why put so much energy in to it? You might think the claim is true but you are clearly motivated by racist ideology when you spend time trying to prove your claim is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This has profound implications on the interpretation of that data that are being lost in the loose language been used here.

 

If the mean IQ of population A is higher than the mean IQ of population B, this does not mean that all of population A has a higher IQ than every member of population B. Indeed, an average individual of population A ranked by IQ against a modest random sample taken from population B is highly unlikely to have the highest IQ. The expectation would be that he/she would rank somewhat above average in the mixed population.

 

Therefore a statement of the generic kind 'population A is more intelligent than population B' is highly misleading and in context deeply offensive. The data is not incompatible with population B producing a significant number of Nobel prize winners. And indeed, this is what we see. The most able of any geographic region have significantly higher abilities than the bulk of any other population.

 

We can take this further. If it is supposed that each geographic population is characterised by a distinct assembly of haplotypes (I hope that's the right word) then within each of those assemblages lies the potential for some individuals within those populations to achieve excellence at a global level.

 

Seen in this light, the 'average' IQ of a population is pretty meaningless. Perhaps that society historically has needed more warriors and agricultural labourers than skilled craftsmen, and the IQ distribution amongst that population has skewed accordingly.

 

But each population retains the same potential to adapt to new conditions and produce the requisite proportion of individuals of higher intellectual level when the need arose.

 

What would have been the average IQ of the British population in the depths of the dark ages? I doubt if it would have been particularly impressive. Society's needs of the time were to plough clay and flay vikings. You don't need a particularly high IQ for those activities.

Oh so your issue was with how Some users chose to word their answers. I completely agree with you. Race is only a correlation and there is in fact considerable overlap, I was simply answering the Main post with a factual statement. I may have generalized at least one point in this conversation, but i am well aware that we are simply talking about averages. I think you're the fellow who said he had the african wife, maybe this will shed light on her exceptional deviation from the mean intelligence in your country. This is a good example of an HBDer who is not racist: http://www.unz.com/article/scrabble-spells-doom-for-the-racial-hypothesis-of-intelligence/

 

I am specifically talking about the people who put the time and energy in to making the argument not saying that everyone who beliefs the argument absolutely must be racist.

How!? Am I not allowed to have my own interests? I like anthropology and the human variation I see is an interesting subject.

Edited by meLothedestroyerofworlds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How!? Am I not allowed to have my own interests? I like anthropology and the human variation I see is an interesting subject.

 

How did you come to develop an interest in this subject? Share your story. When did you develop the interest? What information on the internet did you read? What books if any did you read? What are your overall opinions on race-relations?

 

These are the types of questions you should answer if you want any one to accept the idea that you are not racist and have a genuine interest in human differences without an ideological bias. I have told my story many times and can tell it again if requested to do so.

Edited by EgalitarianJay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you come to develop an interest in this subject? Share your story. When did you develop the interest? What information on the internet did you read? What books if any did you read? What are your overall opinions on race-relations?

 

These are the types of questions you should answer if you want any one to accept the idea that you are not racist and have a genuine interest in human differences without an ideological bias. I have told my story many times and can tell it again if requested to do so.

Why should anyone bother to explain to you the origin of their interest? You have already concluded that "people who put the time and energy in to making the argument" are racist.

You are being unscientific and are as bad as any racist when it comes to making judgements about others. Rather than assuming someone is racist unless they can show evidence to the contrary, you would be better served to make no judgement at all unless and until you have evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should anyone bother to explain to you the origin of their interest? You have already concluded that "people who put the time and energy in to making the argument" are racist.

You are being unscientific and are as bad as any racist when it comes to making judgements about others. Rather than assuming someone is racist unless they can show evidence to the contrary, you would be better served to make no judgement at all unless and until you have evidence.

 

I have plenty of evidence that most people who make arguments about race and intelligence are racist. If anyone is insisting that they are not racist and that they are being judged unfairly the burden of proof is on them to show that this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is insisting that they are not racist and that they are being judged unfairly the burden of proof is on them to show that this is the case.

Sure. Guilty until proven innocent. I suppose you don't see the irony, but racists tend to assume blacks are guilty until proven innocent. Hence the mistreatment of blacks by police and the courts in the US. You are no better.

 

The burden is never on the person accused to prove their innocence, it is on the accuser to prove them guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. Guilty until proven innocent. I suppose you don't see the irony, but racists tend to assume blacks are guilty until proven innocent. Hence the mistreatment of blacks by police and the courts in the US. You are no better.

 

The burden is never on the person accused to prove their innocence, it is on the accuser to prove them guilty.

 

This is not a court a law. In a debate the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So if you are claiming that you are not racist you need to prove it. My evidence that people who claim that there are racial differences in intelligence is primarily being promoted by racists are the plethora of racist websites and racist comments being made by advocates of this belief in addition to the funding most of this type of research receives (research the history of the Pioneer Fund) and the association that most of the scholars promoting this research have. So if you want to claim you are the exception to the rule you have an opportunity to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a court a law. In a debate the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So if you are claiming that you are not racist you need to prove it. My evidence that people who claim that there are racial differences in intelligence is primarily being promoted by racists are the plethora of racist websites and racist comments being made by advocates of this belief in addition to the funding most of this type of research receives (research the history of the Pioneer Fund) and the association that most of the scholars promoting this research have. So if you want to claim you are the exception to the rule you have an opportunity to prove it.

You have no evidence that everyone who argues a racial difference in intelligence is racist. I cannot believe you would seriously make such a claim. 'Guilt by association' does not fly on a science site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no evidence that everyone who argues a racial difference in intelligence is racist. I cannot believe you would seriously make such a claim. 'Guilt by association' does not fly on a science site.

 

I never claimed that every single person who claims there are racial differences in intelligence is racist and I don't need to prove that. The evidence that many of them are racist is all of the racism that you see on the internet so I strongly suspect that every person I encounter on the internet who makes the claim is a racist. In fact I ran an experiment on a racist message board where I made a poll and asked people how many of them claim to believe in racial differences in intelligence but do not consider themselves to be racist. I defined what racism meant and gave them an opportunity to make their case that they are not racist. I told them to answer a questionnaire testing whether they were racist and said I would check their post history for consistency. Every single one of them failed. In my experience people saying that they believe in racial differences in intelligence but are not racist are generally liars. I accept that there may be exceptions but if there are they need to prove that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ejay: "I never claimed that every single person who claims there are racial differences in intelligence is racist and I don't need to prove that. The evidence that many of them are racist is all of the racism that you see on the internet so I strongly suspect that every person I encounter on the internet who makes the claim is a racist. In fact I ran an experiment on a racist message board where I made a poll and asked people how many of them claim to believe in racial differences in intelligence but do not consider themselves to be racist. I defined what racism meant and gave them an opportunity to make their case that they are not racist. I told them to answer a questionnaire testing whether they were racist and said I would check their post history for consistency. Every single one of them failed. In my experience people saying that they believe in racial differences in intelligence but are not racist are generally liars. I accept that there may be exceptions but if there are they need to prove that."

/END Ejay

 

Bering Strait

Basically you HAVE claimed that everyone who believes in Race Difference in IQ Is a Racist.

In fact, and Again, that IS YOUR DEFINITION of Racist as posted on the last few pages of this string.

Anyone who believes Racial difference in IQ

('Physical' was left out, as you tacitly feel/condone saying Blacks are better athletes is OK)

 

I pointed to an example from another general politics board on the bottom of the last page, where you Cursed out a highly Respected IQ researcher as a Racist too.

And you said Everyone was a racist, just some of them/us put Asians on top, but we were Still "Neo-Racists" and "still White."

WHO is the Racist again?

NO ANSWER.

 

And, Ironically, your above post was the usual Fallacious Joke.

Your Ultimate "evidence", (NONE of which you posted here), was to go to a "Racist Message board....".

Come again?

That's just admittedly Bad Sampling.

Mind Numbingly Bad Logic too.

Off the charts goofy or UNWITTINGLY Disingenuous.

 

It's funny: This string started with everyone on the Race denial side.

Singlehandedly, your Terrible logic and accusatory posting has made it do a 180.

And now everyone wants a piece of your accusations and easily Refuted 'stuff'.

Congrats.

`

 

 

EDIT to below:
Note below Ejay has NO answer to his Falsehood on who is a Racist.

According to him, (and by HIS Own DEFINITION) it/was is EVERYONE who believes there is a difference in Race and IQ.

Even eminent researchers... especially because they're "still White."

Horrific Racist IDEAS all from Ejay's own posts.

UNanswered (and too embarrassed to even quote it)

His "evidence" (that we were all Racists) was going to.... a "Racist Message board" with a 'test.'

Unbelievable, and of course no reply to my pointing this Numbingly Bad Sampling.

NO Answer

He's been reduced to small paragraphs now in all his [non] 'replies to me, Unable to deal with his own words, and Unable to Shoehorn/SPAM in Joseph Graves. Without whom he has NOTHING simply logical to say.

/string

 

Edited by bering strait
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is this imaginary army of posters coming after me? If you look at the poll the posters here overwhelmingly rejected the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence and only a few people are posting. You and Over 9000 have tried to revive this thread for what purpose I do not know but considering your history as a racist poster on this board and elsewhere I find it hilarious that you would suggest that you yourself are not a racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.