I didn't say their means or reasons for going to the US were the same I'm just saying that at that point of time their situations were very similar.
Anyway its 11pm in NZ and iv got to be up at 4 30 so better leave this for tonight. Might come back and answer the million responses there will probably be in a couple of days.
Ok, but this was addressed before; even if you put the kid in another family, you can't remove the colour of their skin, and they'll always be discriminated against for that reason. The only way you could really test this was if society was completely unbiased, and that's just not possible
That's true in a society like the US where blacks etc are a minority but other studies have been done in other countries that still support the heritabily view. For example the living and education standards in india and asia have increased dramatically over the last 50 years but the average IQ's still havn't changed dramatically. The difference in IQ between indians and chinese with the similar wealth is huge.
Another point is that while blacks and hispanics have been discriminated against so have asians. Going back to when asian first arrived in the US they were in very much the same position as blacks being at the bottom of the social ladder. Despite this and similar discrimination they did well academically, financially and also in IQ tests.
BTW by social success I just meant a higher standing in society. This is normally implied by intelligence and wealth but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
So... you admit that IQ tests are shaky grounds, and that you need to correlate them with real life. Ok. But financial, academic and social (And what does that mean? they go down well at cocktail parties, or what?) success, which you are so often hold up as evidence of lesser intelligence is ignoring the fact that people are constantly discriminated against simply because of their skin colour. It's not that they're dumb, and so can't be CEOs- its that the other members of the board are all white and would prefer them to be janitors...
Well that's the whole point of this argument. I'm not saying that a negative environment and racism doesn't have a negative effect on a person's development because obviously it does. What i'm saying is that this is not the only factor and that genes also play a role in a races average intelligence.
You'd be right if I was basing it entirely on that simple fact but I'm not. I'm basing it on a combination of factors. One being the same deviation in IQ after environmental effects have been isolated (in adoption cases). Since the only two theories to the difference in AVERAGE IQ are environment and genes we can conclude that after eliminating environment, genes is the answer. This has also been shown by the fact that changing of environment (due to the increase of education and the better environment minorities grow up in compared to 50 years ago) has not changed the standard deviation difference between average IQs of races.
oh and also that part where he said it was incredibly incomplete and inconclusive and that basing conclusions on the data it presented would be irresponsible, socially and intellectually
I like how about five seconds ago you used the term black cunts and then you try be nice about it.
What about how it makes you angry seeing a black guy with a white girl?
If you want to discuss it come out of your room. I know the reason you made me come on here to discuss is that you were stumped and couldn't prove me wrong and so thought it'd be nice to have an army of people supporting you but this is just getting ridiculous
btw it's pretty funny how a lot of the past three pages have been UHHH IQ TESTS ARE PRETTY SILLY AND INTELLIGENCE IS NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT TO MEASURE and you never seemed to acknowledge that in the slightest
Yeh thats a really good point I did address right in my first post though where i talked about the argument that IQ is an abstract social construction. Pretty much its that you're right that intelligence is hard to define but there is proven correlation between high iq and high success academically, financially and socially. So although we can not say that such tests mean someone is more "intelligent" we can say that they're likely to score higher academically, financially and socially etc. Magical negro made the response to this that correlation doesn't imply causation which I havn't responded to yet. The answer is that I'm not saying it is causation. If you like we can say the correlation with iq also means correlation with success as these two are correlated together. You could say that success is actually due to some third external factor that in fact is also correlated with IQ but either way it's the same result.
why do you refuse to reply to most comments on this page
is it because I am a hairy mediterran?
EDIT:also guys give me some racist slurs towards us greeks, all I have been called so far is hairy, which is hardly a slur
well if you havn't noticed jack its one person arguing with 7 or 8 and i hardly have time to reply before getting something else i have to respond to. I havn't been responding to you in particular because you are obviously slightly retarded and have no idea of whats going on in the thread. Perhaps you should sit back and leave this discussion to people with atleast a slight degree of intelligence
Again, I want to stress that the whole argument is a moot-point.
We retarded spicks and lowbrow negroes may do in average worse in calculus, IQ tests, or whatever. However, whether it is because of genes or social standing, it lacks of any political significance because still there are black people that can do better in IQ tests than loads of mighty Aryans, regardless if in average they do worse. It is like finding a correlation between tall or fat people, and finding out that they do in average worse in IQ tests than the average short, skinny person, and then making a political statement saying that because tall people are in average more stupid we should segregate them.
It has no political significance whatsoever.
Can't argue with you there Marmot you're totally right. This is just about averages and there are some really smart black people out there just like there are some really stupid asian people. It's all about averages and just because a certain race might be less intelligent on average doesn't really mean that an individual who is part of that race can't achieve just as much or be just as intelligent as someone from any other race.
Thats an interesting article Wil. However, it doesn't say that the data was inaccurate but rather that he regrets taking part in it due to the potential social ramifications
Sorry should've been clearer, by that I meant asians smarter than whites, smarter than hispanics, smarter than blacks.
Ok guys you can try to discredit them all you like. Hey their views are hated by a lot of people so I'm sure you'll have no problem finding quotes from people "discrediting" their research. Hey probably any black guy with a doctorate will be happy to add his name to the list. But is there any evidence to support your point of view? any evidence at all? trying to disprove my point of view doesn't do this. Can anyone name an iq test that blacks have actually scored equal to whites? How do you explain that blacks whites and hispanics all adopted into upper class white families with the same average income and given the same learning opportunities still have the same order of intelligence from the age of 3. Shit that might be a hard one.
Egypt is not sub-saharan for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsaharan_Africa
You've entirely missed the point of this debate. I'm talking about the difference in intelligence between races. Not condoning treating people badly based on the colour of their skin.
Why's it so hard for people to get that iq differences between races doesn't mean I'm gonna go lynch me a nigger. It doesn't mean i'm an entirely insensitive bastard who thinks certain races should be treated any worse than others. Although I believe they have different average intelligences it doesn't mean I think blacks or any other race are any less human than I am. I tried to outline this in my first post but everyone had the "lets bash the racist" mentality and it didn't get me anywhere.
Why's it so hard for people to get that iq differences between races doesn't mean I'm gonna go lynch me a nigger. It doesn't mean i'm an entirely insensitive bastard who thinks certain races should be treated any worse than others. Although I believe they have different average intelligences it doesn't mean I think blacks or any other race are any less human than I am. I tried to outline this in my first post but everyone had the "lets bash the racist" mentality and it didn't get me anywhere.
That wasn't referenced just common knowledge. Read an encyclopaedia...
I'm so incredibly excited...
I get sick of people who cite a single obscure piece of research, and ignore the other mounds of contradicting evidence.
Show me some contradicting evidence fuckwit
Oh and btw I know half of you won't bother linking to those sites but heres some useful evidence based on research conducted by medical institutions:
Studies on over 700 participants show that individuals with larger brain volumes have higher IQ scores. About two dozen studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the volume of the human brain have found an overall correlation with IQ of greater than.40 (Rushton & Ankney, 1996; P. A. Vernon, Wickett, Bazana, & Stelmack, 2000). The correlation of.40 using MRI is much higher than the.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures, although the.20 correlation is also reliable and significant. Rushton and Ankney (1996) reviewed 32 studies correlating measures of external head size with IQ scores or with measures of educational and occupational achievement, and they found a mean r =.20 for people of all ages, both sexes, and various ethnic backgrounds, including African Americans.
The most likely reason why larger brains are, on average, more intelligent than smaller brains is that they contain more neurons and synapses, which make them more efficient. Haier et al. (1995) tested the brain efficiency hypothesis by using MRI to measure brain volume and glucose metabolic rate to measure glucose uptake (an indicator of energy use). They found a correlation of −.58 between glucose metabolic rate and IQ, suggesting that more intelligent individuals have more efficient brains because they use less energy in performing a given cognitive task. Several other studies supporting the brain-size/efficiency model were reviewed in Gignac, Vernon, and Wickett (2003). In any individual, however, energy use increases with the increasing complexity of the cognitive task.
Estimates from twin studies indicate that genes contribute from 50% to 90% of the variance to both cranial capacities based on external head size measures and to brain volume measured by MRI (Bartley, Jones, & Weinberger, 1997; Pennington et al., 2000; Posthuma et al., 2002; Rushton & Osborne, 1995; Thompson et al., 2001). Common genetic effects mediate from 50% to 100% of the brain-size/IQ correlation (Pennington et al., 2000; Posthuma et al., 2002). Studies have also shown that correlations between brain size and IQ also hold true within families as well as between families (Gignac et al., 2003; Jensen, 1994; Jensen & Johnson, 1994), which also implies shared genetic effects. However, one study that examined only sisters failed to find the within-family relation (Schoenemann, Budinger, Sarich, & Wang, 2000). Families with larger brains overall tend to have higher IQs and, within a family, the siblings with the larger brains tend to have higher IQ scores. The within-family finding is of special interest because it controls for most of the sources of variance that distinguish families, such as social class, styles of child rearing, and general nutrition, that differ between families.
Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size.
Studies on over 700 participants show that individuals with larger brain volumes have higher IQ scores. About two dozen studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the volume of the human brain have found an overall correlation with IQ of greater than.40 (Rushton & Ankney, 1996; P. A. Vernon, Wickett, Bazana, & Stelmack, 2000). The correlation of.40 using MRI is much higher than the.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures, although the.20 correlation is also reliable and significant. Rushton and Ankney (1996) reviewed 32 studies correlating measures of external head size with IQ scores or with measures of educational and occupational achievement, and they found a mean r =.20 for people of all ages, both sexes, and various ethnic backgrounds, including African Americans.
The most likely reason why larger brains are, on average, more intelligent than smaller brains is that they contain more neurons and synapses, which make them more efficient. Haier et al. (1995) tested the brain efficiency hypothesis by using MRI to measure brain volume and glucose metabolic rate to measure glucose uptake (an indicator of energy use). They found a correlation of −.58 between glucose metabolic rate and IQ, suggesting that more intelligent individuals have more efficient brains because they use less energy in performing a given cognitive task. Several other studies supporting the brain-size/efficiency model were reviewed in Gignac, Vernon, and Wickett (2003). In any individual, however, energy use increases with the increasing complexity of the cognitive task.
Estimates from twin studies indicate that genes contribute from 50% to 90% of the variance to both cranial capacities based on external head size measures and to brain volume measured by MRI (Bartley, Jones, & Weinberger, 1997; Pennington et al., 2000; Posthuma et al., 2002; Rushton & Osborne, 1995; Thompson et al., 2001). Common genetic effects mediate from 50% to 100% of the brain-size/IQ correlation (Pennington et al., 2000; Posthuma et al., 2002). Studies have also shown that correlations between brain size and IQ also hold true within families as well as between families (Gignac et al., 2003; Jensen, 1994; Jensen & Johnson, 1994), which also implies shared genetic effects. However, one study that examined only sisters failed to find the within-family relation (Schoenemann, Budinger, Sarich, & Wang, 2000). Families with larger brains overall tend to have higher IQs and, within a family, the siblings with the larger brains tend to have higher IQ scores. The within-family finding is of special interest because it controls for most of the sources of variance that distinguish families, such as social class, styles of child rearing, and general nutrition, that differ between families.
Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size.
1. A lot of you seem to be getting off topic. This debate is about whether intelligence and behaviour are determined entirely by environment, or alternatively that it is a combination of environment and genetics. As a consequence of the latter races which have been seperated for tens of thousands of years obviously having greater genetic difference also have greater difference in intelligence. Noone from the beginning ever suggested that behaviour or intelligence are determined entirely by genes and not at all by environment.
2. The difference in IQ between races is accepted by everyone who has taken 5 minutes out of their life to look into it. Heres just one site with data on it http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&fuseaction=showUIDAbstract&uid=2001-01339-002 but if you dont think its enough or want more evidence just search "iq difference races" or something similar in any search engine. You'll find hundreds of web pages telling you exactly the same thing.
heres another one http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/060423_lynn.htm
3. Some are saying the actual difference in genotype between races is very low. Well if you look at the percentage as a whole this would seem to be true (99.9% of genes are common to humans) but if you look at it relative to other things it doesn't seem like such a big gap. For example that humans also share 99.4% of their genes with chimps. Ouch that blows that theory out of the water. If any other species has the same genetic variation between them as humans do between races they're defined as sub-species. http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html this link gives some comparisons in genetic variation between humans and other mammals.
4. It seems that not everyone is happy with the credibility of the article i linked to originally. The fact that the authors are both doctors of psychology and belong to numerous reputable institutions including american, canadian and british psychological associations means nothing apparently when your views go against what certain people want to believe in. Some have argued that their references are all either outdated or to themselves. Have any of you even read the article? There are over 230 lines of references mostly from reputable journals. Not to mention that referencing ur own past work is done by practically all scientists, it saves them having to prove the same data every time they write a paper; any of you who actually study science would know this. And his references all being outdated is also rubbish. Theres nothing wrong with using references from decades before as long as the methods used to obtain the data are still current and repeatable. Fuck for all of you people who are worried about just ignore everything with refernces from before 1990 and uv still got more proof than you'll know what to do with.
The american psychological association is a large respectable organisation who screens any work they publish, pretty much the same as every major scientific journal. There's no way they'd publish an article which was just "unfounded white supremist views".
Anyway let's ignore that article and look at some other research discussing exactly the same thing from unbiased perspectives.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/24460-iq-race
http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
Everyone clings to the egalitarian view that all races are equal in every way. Hey guys, grow a fucking brain. You really think races that are separated geographically for tens of thousands of years and differ in genes and physical traits incredibly some how ended up with exactly the same brains. Wow that would be pretty amazing huh. The view that race has not effect whatsoever on intelligence was made up based on NOT ONE THREAD OF RESEARCH but rather on the fact that it’s what people wanted to believe. Now that research is proving this entirely wrong people people don’t want to believe it. They don’t quote evidence to oppose it... because there is none. Only views that it’s a racist thing to say. Well cry me a fucking river!
So while these "equally intelligent" races developed on their different continents some, such as caucasians, developed agriculture, government and philosophy. They developed steel works and complicated manufacturing, built ships, learnt science and built cities. Meanwhile others lived in mudhuts and chased zebras around with spears. Come on people you've got to be kidding me. Ofcourse we're different. Before they met white people sub-saharan africans were only a very small step up from monkeys.
Liberal retarded viewpoint: “Although every race has evolved independently and are entirely different biologically they all have exactly the same brains. Although this has no evidence supporting it and a lot disproving it, this is irrelevant, because we don‘t want to believe it”
It’s like going back a few hundred years and trying to tell people the earth is round.
“That can’t be right”
“You’re a crazy extremist”
Well guess what all you fucking hippies, it’s a fact, races are different.
Fucking live with it.
2. The difference in IQ between races is accepted by everyone who has taken 5 minutes out of their life to look into it. Heres just one site with data on it http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&fuseaction=showUIDAbstract&uid=2001-01339-002 but if you dont think its enough or want more evidence just search "iq difference races" or something similar in any search engine. You'll find hundreds of web pages telling you exactly the same thing.
heres another one http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/060423_lynn.htm
3. Some are saying the actual difference in genotype between races is very low. Well if you look at the percentage as a whole this would seem to be true (99.9% of genes are common to humans) but if you look at it relative to other things it doesn't seem like such a big gap. For example that humans also share 99.4% of their genes with chimps. Ouch that blows that theory out of the water. If any other species has the same genetic variation between them as humans do between races they're defined as sub-species. http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html this link gives some comparisons in genetic variation between humans and other mammals.
4. It seems that not everyone is happy with the credibility of the article i linked to originally. The fact that the authors are both doctors of psychology and belong to numerous reputable institutions including american, canadian and british psychological associations means nothing apparently when your views go against what certain people want to believe in. Some have argued that their references are all either outdated or to themselves. Have any of you even read the article? There are over 230 lines of references mostly from reputable journals. Not to mention that referencing ur own past work is done by practically all scientists, it saves them having to prove the same data every time they write a paper; any of you who actually study science would know this. And his references all being outdated is also rubbish. Theres nothing wrong with using references from decades before as long as the methods used to obtain the data are still current and repeatable. Fuck for all of you people who are worried about just ignore everything with refernces from before 1990 and uv still got more proof than you'll know what to do with.
The american psychological association is a large respectable organisation who screens any work they publish, pretty much the same as every major scientific journal. There's no way they'd publish an article which was just "unfounded white supremist views".
Anyway let's ignore that article and look at some other research discussing exactly the same thing from unbiased perspectives.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/24460-iq-race
http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
Everyone clings to the egalitarian view that all races are equal in every way. Hey guys, grow a fucking brain. You really think races that are separated geographically for tens of thousands of years and differ in genes and physical traits incredibly some how ended up with exactly the same brains. Wow that would be pretty amazing huh. The view that race has not effect whatsoever on intelligence was made up based on NOT ONE THREAD OF RESEARCH but rather on the fact that it’s what people wanted to believe. Now that research is proving this entirely wrong people people don’t want to believe it. They don’t quote evidence to oppose it... because there is none. Only views that it’s a racist thing to say. Well cry me a fucking river!
So while these "equally intelligent" races developed on their different continents some, such as caucasians, developed agriculture, government and philosophy. They developed steel works and complicated manufacturing, built ships, learnt science and built cities. Meanwhile others lived in mudhuts and chased zebras around with spears. Come on people you've got to be kidding me. Ofcourse we're different. Before they met white people sub-saharan africans were only a very small step up from monkeys.
Liberal retarded viewpoint: “Although every race has evolved independently and are entirely different biologically they all have exactly the same brains. Although this has no evidence supporting it and a lot disproving it, this is irrelevant, because we don‘t want to believe it”
It’s like going back a few hundred years and trying to tell people the earth is round.
“That can’t be right”
“You’re a crazy extremist”
Well guess what all you fucking hippies, it’s a fact, races are different.
Fucking live with it.
you take the wrong approach to arguing for it and blow up the point a bit too much so that in the end, even though the individual sentences you're saying do make sense, what you're actually communicating is arrogant tripe, and a needlessly radical and shocking message that you're intentionally setting up in a way that people will never listen to you.
I've tried to answer the question as best I can without being arrogant or offending anyone but this is impossible because no matter how I word my argument the argument itself is offensive. Nearly everyone reading this thread probably thinks im a completely arrogant dickhead and to be honest I don't blame you. Western society views people with views like mine as 'racist' and automatically associate them with being a stupid, arrogant redneck, probably just like you did the moment you read the subject of this thread.
It's hard for a person to be open minded to a view they've been told to hate their whole life. Due to this I don't think this 'debate' is really going to be that constructive. Even if I give an infallible argument supporting my point of view most of you won't accept it and will leave this thread with the same view you had from the beginning, not to mention feeling a bit angrier.