I'm not a racist, but I am...

This forum is full of it, but it's all true. The facts are there. Maybe there is a little hyperbole, sure black people can become doctors, fly planes etc... I'm a reasonable human being, I was raised in a liberal environment. I have bullied before, but never been racist and I see bigotry as immature, however I can't escape the fact that they are indeed very unusual looking.

http://unicast.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=1

"golly, niggers are hideous with their buck teeth, black skin and brillo heads. Egads."

Just do a google search for skull shapes of different races and albino black people... CAucasian and mongoloid skulls are about the same and both these races have obviously exceeded negrito races in culture and civilisation. Even the obscure native americans constructed early civilisations. Their hunter gatherers tribes only existed due to their isolation, deprived of the circumstnaces that allow for agrarian civilisation. Given another 1000 years after the SPanish arrived, and the Gulf of Mexico would be like the Mediteranean circa 1000 B.C..

Though I can't say the same for black civilisations, they were not isolated, theywere exposed to the Egyptians, who were arabic, im not one of these nuts who thinks they are white. I really am not a racist or even a far right conservative...

I can't contain what i think anymore and I shouldn't be afraid of expressing my thoughts. They do look so animal like, it is as if they are a relic from evolution before human civilisation. In fact that's what they are, the only tribal systems outside of sub-saharran africa left by around 1300 were in areas which didn't have much food. Yet in the rich jungles of africa they still lived in the stone age, never utilising the wide range of plants there.

I think the out of africa theory is correct and that blacks haven't evolved much whilst caucasians and mongoloids have had to deal with the ice age.

How should I approach these facts rationally? Liberals say I should just ignore them, conservatives say I should become a whtie supremacist nut. Surely there is another way? Surely there is a way to get society to accept these facts without sinking into depths of paranoia and stupidity.

>>440
SHUT UP TEENAGER!  Do you even realize how immature that sounds? 

I have already shown how environment is not the be-all end all to what makes up a person.  Ever notice how I keep mentioning twin studies?  And how even in different environments intelligence still correlates (by as much as ten points)?. Well, I guess you just conveniently ignore that to keep up with your lame brained ideological sorry excuse for a belief. 

And instead of responding to my comment on affirmative action, you just ham-handedly lob some ad-hominem shit at me and move on at your leisure.

You are the lame.

(I'm honestly arguing with you to improve my own argument skills.. I thought it would help but it looks like I was mistaken)

The debate is over, kid. Which means: I don't have to fucking be nice to you, anymore. Calling you a teenager doesn't sound at all immature, because you *are* a teenager and your knowledge of the world and the way science works is utterly fucking limited. There's nothing ideological about the facts that I state. Never have I termed my postion as a "belief", because unlike you I work in the realm of truth and data.

Your position is the same as me stating that Americans are overall dumber than the rest of the world because of post WWI nuclear testing and the persistance of radiation (from the cold war and information age) in and around America's atomsphere.

Now, would *I* be correct? No, of course, not. The only way I could think this is if I ignored the problem of us having a culture that promotes stupidity and places too much importance on fame.

Now what makes you think you can slide your shitty little theories in here? And then throw up you hands like Pat Robertson, claiming that I don't see the light or some shit? Fuck you.

And Fuck your affirmative action comment. Debating with me is a privilage you uneducated little shithead. Don't ask me "what about, what about, what about" if you haven't taken out the fucking time to figure out that answer *for yourself* before jumping to conclusions about race and IQ. The inherant flaws in Affirmative Action are many and it's shit that people have known about for years. Kid, just face it: You have no data and have NOT done your research.

And improve your argument skills? You have none. Your argument has been filled with hypocritical bitching, racial slurs, a profound disrespect for the scientific method and outright cognitive dissonance. Plus: You lost.

So you can fuck off and die now, thanks.

I agree with anti-chan.

>>443

Shut the fuck up, fagbrain. You are the personification of fail, therefore you get no opinion.

The debate is over, kid. Which means: I don't have to fucking be nice to you, anymore.

Revisionist history at work here. You never were nice to anyone. Part of your argumentation is valid, yet the other half always has been ad hominem attacks and expletives, even when the other party is civil. You're a jackass, whether you have a point or not.

By the way, have not countered the twin studies at all. Just saying it ain't so doesn't make it false.

>>444
Motherfucker, I will gouge out your eyeballs, rip your balls off, and shove the latter in place of the former! >:O
Then I'll poke them in until you fucking die! >:O
YOU shut the fuck up! >:O

>>446
cawk goes where?

niggerz iz niggerz

>>445

First: Same with you. You called me retard, cocksucker, stupid, etc etc. If you can't take it, don't try to dish it out in bitch-helpings, you hypocritical loser-fuck.

Second: I realize that you're used to people pissing in your eyes due to your crippling lack of social skills, so I'll excuse your inability to see properly.

TWIN STUDY, IQ

I haven't dodged shit- the results are trivial because there is no "intelligence gene" in the first fucking place. How many times must it be pointed out that IQ cannot fully measure intelligence? It only measures what we *assume* intelligence to be. It is simple common sense that you cannot 100% accurately measure the attributes of the human mind using the human mind. Objectivity is not possible by virtue of the means used.

Quantum physics has been struggling to uncover the mysteries of objectivity since forever and then you come skipping along claiming to have discovered an objective test for intellect? Here's an example of mental fortitude: SURVIVOR. Why is it that when 20 or so Americans try for 30 days to live like an AFRICAN...their brains turn to mush and they start babbling to themselves and start begging to strip naked for the camera for a bite of peanut butter?

What If I then gave an "IQ test" that asked how many triangles of equal size can fit into a square comprised of a square made from 12 of those triangles? If the subject answers "who gives a shit, I'm fucking *hungry*?". I will score that subject with above average IQ. When we've finally reached a consensus on exactly how every part of the brain works then we will talk about an objective "IQ" test. (Analogy: If you can find a doctor who can explain why the heart loves then we will talk about an objective EQ test.)

Conclusion: IQ tests are bullshit in the first fucking place. You have no way of knowing what was culture and what was genetic. You have NO way of knowing the IQ of sub-saharan Africans. And even if you did it would totally fucking irrelevant. Why would a bush man know any of the shit in a Western IQ test? Have you ever asked yourself that, you fucking dunderhead? And by *10* points?!? That's *nothing*.  Do you even realize how much the IQ test has changed since that study was done? It's been "re-standardized" about twice now. You know NOTHING of what you speak.

Just...shut the fuck up.(-.-) You fail.

>>449
eat me.

I am saddened that the pedo thread is being outclassed by this. I'm gonna be righteously pissed if a misanthropic anarchist fucknut is the reason we 1000get politics.

>>449
When did I call you anything? That was my first post to this thread long time. But now I will: you're a fucking idiot par excellence. Nay, a raving lunatic.

How many times must it be pointed out that IQ cannot fully measure intelligence?

I like how you keep repeating "fully". That's because "partly" would make your argument false. Twin studies support that "partly". Please show any studies that support that there is no significant component. Just one miserable reference to a respectable journal? Anything?

You have no way of knowing what was culture and what was genetic.

In science we do something called "isolating variables". What do you think twin studies were designed and refined for? Fun?

MISANTHROPIC ANARCHIS FUCKNUT

I am not 452.

I am not misanthropic.  I just think it's a bad idea to deny a genetic component to intelligence, because you want to know what?  By doing that we preclude any possible remedy.

What if we found certain teaching methods or drugs that could overcome black people's hampered ability to develop. (I've said many times that I don't think their problems are as much intelligence as they are ADD and inhibition control)

Imagine if we were able to find a gene that would help, for example, black children do better in school.  Imagine if we found that one magic gene, and that it could be activated by a simple injection (they are figuring out how to do this now, they have a lead, all they have to do is find the technique).  If we allow our society to force itself to subscribe to the myth that there's no race, we won't be able to do anything about it because trying it, or reasearching it would be considered racist.

What if everyone was able to manipulate their intelligence however they saw fit, or to manipulate it to the point that they'd be able to do their jobs most effictively.  Not everyone would need to be a genius, but almost anyone could if they really wanted to (and wanted to spend their paycheck on it). 

That wouldn't be allowed because looking at intelligence and the physical component of it would be taboo.  Because of a lot of misguided good intentioned rejects decided it.

>>452

Again, "fully" is the end all be-all here because the IQ tests are supposed to be regarded as "full" results. Hey and thank you for ignoring everything I suggested in >>449. That's perfectly alright with me as it proves that you are simply not open even to the possibility that we might be gauging IQ the wrong way in the first place.

And obviously you haven't read any of the criticism of the twin studies...and if you bothered to *look*. You wouldn't have come on here claiming your view as divine mandate.

But hey THAT'S alright too. Ignore the restandardization of the tests...ignore that the twins were not raised by families of different "races". Ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world view! Yay! Now you're always right!

>>454

Blah, blah, blah, More bullshit. If we're not trying to give "black" children, poor children better learning environments now. What makes you think they're going to handing out a smart pill to little "black"/poor kids in the future? Are you that fucking young and naive to think that will happen? We can help "black" children do better in school now. - But we're doing fuck all.

Get real.

"That wouldn't be allowed because looking at intelligence and the physical component of it would be taboo.  Because of a lot of misguided good intentioned rejects decided it."

You're completely full of shit, kid. How many times must I acknowledge the genetic basis in intelligence? It's just that from what I've been shown... not even a 150 IQ can save you if you're black, live in the poorest neighborhood, and if everyone ASSUMES you have ADD and poor inhibition because you're black. You are completely IGNORANT of what you speak, kid. It's just that simple. You don't understand how the world works.

It's not racist to look into the physical component of IQ until you do so *BY RACE*. Are you having a hard time understanding that your oldest human ancester was a sub-saharan African? The same "race" (snicker) of people you automatically *ASSUME* to have a low IQ?

Remember when I blasted you on your idea that "they just had knowledge"? LOL, you just hear what you *want* to hear, because you actually think you're searching for a way to help mankind. You're doing nothing but affirming an UNTRUE idea that has been perpetuated by white superemists and eurocentrics every since they ENSLAVED blacks and put them in this position in the FIRST place. Their "inferiority" was their excuse to do! Explain to me  how your misguided notion is different from theirs?

And now you're trying to use that same BASELESS logic because you want to "help" these "po widdle nigglet chillens"? That's ridiculous! Because first of all, if such a technology comes out, ALL "races" would have to use it and second of all- YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

Economist method, INDEED.

IQ tests are supposed to be regarded as "full" results.

How so? And how does a single number indicate that the effects are entirely the result of heredity? It's just a number, which makes no claims about the source of the results, just like a thermometer doesn't tell me why water is a particular temperature.

we might be gauging IQ the wrong way in the first place.

What about WAIS then? Results in school? Socioeconomic status? You realize that twin studies don't rely on IQ alone? Have you read any of them at all? Have you at least read the Minnesota Twin Study?

And obviously you haven't read any of the criticism of the twin studies...

I asked for evidence to support your claim, not another pathetic dodge. Actual studies of any sort that support your position that heredity plays no significant role in intelligence. They don't have to be twin studies either, they just need to have been published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal. Is it really that hard?

ignore that the twins were not raised by families of different "races".

Your point here is what? Why would being raised by a different "race" have any effect on their genetic makeup? The idea is to isolate and manipulate one variable. As it is, most modern twin studies also consider twins raised with different socioeconomic families anyway. Again, have you read any, or are you blowing out your ass again?

How so? And how does a single number indicate that the effects are entirely the result of heredity? .... Etc.

DUR DUR, my point exactly, stupid.

And you keep repeating to yourself over and over that my position is "nature's lack of a significant role in intelligence". Sorry, but no: That's idiotic, desperate wishful thinking on your part. If I said something along those lines, I recant on that now. Everyone knows nature/nurture work in concert. You learn that shit in grade school.

My position is simply that blacks are not "naturally inferior" to whites in intelligence, genetically. This is an assertion for which you have *no* definitive proof. The only way you can make an absolute assertion like that is if you completely ignore any environmental factors, which you cannot do when it comes to intelligence especially seeing as how the IQ test themselves are based on NURTURE. The results themselves aren't just nurture or just nature. It's both. However, *we don't know which*.

So, tell me again why I would have any studies that support something I'm not asserting? You have to realize: We are not arguing nurture vs nature here, dumb dumb. We are however, arguing if nature has anything to do with the low IQ scores of blacks. We are, however, discussing the gap in IQ among the races. I do have studies about environment's impact on IQ- if you want it. Oh wait! You don't get a choice! :)

However, adoption studies seem to indicate that SES has a strong, causal effect on intelligence, e.g.:

    "Well-controlled adoption studies done in France have found that transferring an infant from a family having low socioeconomic status (SES) to a home where parents have high SES improves childhood IQ scores by 12 to 16 points or about one standard deviation, which is considered a large effect size in psychological research." Wahlsten (1997, p. 76).

And

Intelligence at age 5 predicts better than any other variable a child's future educational progress and attainment (Kline, 1991).

Wahlsten (1997):
• delays in schooling cause IQ to 'drop' 5 points per year
• temporary drop in IQ during school vacations

Winship & Korenman (1997):
• 2.7 IQ point advantage for each year of schooling
• thus to predict later IQ, two estimates are useful: early IQ estimates and number of years of schooling

There is however, a criticism to this.

One justifiable criticism levelled at educational enrichment studies conclusions about increased IQ is that what is being modified is performance on a test rather than an actual modification in intelligence. Children in enrichment programmes often receive extensive instruction and practice in test-taking. “What has been temporarily modified in the early stages of early intervention programmes is performance on a test, not the child’s general intelligence” (Herman Spitz, 1999, p. 289).

This criticism is far from justifible. What this addresses is the "Fade out" effect. Where programs like "Head Start" aim to enrich the schooling of disadvantaged children. The results have been mixed and criticized for not living up to expectations in changing IQ. But these programs aren't designed to "improve IQ", in the first place. Only accelerate academic development. IQ change is a bonus. And what good are these programs anyway if the children return to poor, unsupportive, deprived environments, hm? And what else is the IQ but a standardized test? Can't you just 'study' to take the IQ test, like any other?

  Intelligence & occupation

    "In more than 10,000 studies the average correlation of IQ with occupational success was 0.3...this correlation is certainly a low estimate of its true size...no other variable, either of ability or personality, can approach this figure."
    - Kline (1991), p. 139

Herrstein and Murray estimate the relationship between IQ and occupation to be between .2 and .6 (i.e. that IQ explains between 4% and 36% of the variations in occupation). These correlations are slightly higher for skilled, professional jobs, and slightly lower for jobs that require less skill. Whilst this might be useful in describing groups, it means there is questionable value in administering an IQ test to an individual in an attempt to help determine their occupational options. It may be a useful approach, however, to help select the best 100 employees from a 1000 applicants (Howe,1997, p.97).

I'll post more on this as I get the information. I would however, like it if I didn't have to sit here and hold people hands through this shit. If you haven't at the very least looked this stuff up on the net, then you need to not make this argument about Race/Intelligence in the first fucking place.

I'll respond to more about the Minnosota twin studies later, I got to fucking eat or I'm going to die.

And yes, I have read the Minnisota twin study. I've read enough to know that the test only reaffirm stuff that we already know about genetics. This is *no* way validates your claim about IQ and race, shame on you for using the study to this end.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGISTRY TWINS

Because the total of Black, Asian, and native American minorities is less than 2% in the Minnesota population, we do not identify race nor make any racial comparisons.

Years of education completed by both male and female Registry twins correlated 0.48 with their mothers' and 0.52 with their fathers' educational attainmen

So how exactly does one infer from the Minnisota twins that any low IQ in blacks or any other minority is solely genetic? Sounds like alot of reaching to me. Here's some other tibits that might interest:
 


 Post WWI: 1920’s-1930’s

After World War I, careful reanalysis of the mass of intelligence test data took place. This began to challenge the commonly held view that intelligence was directly, genetically linked to racial differences:

    *      e.g. blacks from Illinois had higher IQ scores than whites from 9 southern states - a finding difficult to reconcile with the simple idea that whites are intellectually superior to blacks.

Evidence now seemed to support a closer link between social class and intelligence, rather than race and intelligence. As a result, a number of psychologists in the 1920s and 1930s shifted their position towards the environmental camp.

The shift against 'nature' views was given momentum by the backlash against the social consequences of government policies:

    *      e.g. sterilization laws had been passed in 24 US States, resulting in 20, 000 people being sterilized against their will. 320, 000 people suffered the same fate in Germany.

This is *no* way validates your claim about IQ and race, shame on you for using the study to this end.

It wasn't about IQ and race, you dolt, it was about IQ and heredity. Stop trying to stuff words in your opponent's face. Your stance is weak, so you make up your opponent's arguments for them as you go along.

If heredity is significant (plenty of support), and different populations have different allele distributions (plenty of support for small populations), there is the possibility that intelligence distribution may well be different for large populations as well.

You are the one claiming that there is no significance, yet the quote above supports that indeed heredity does. You are the one who denies any possibility. Where is the evidence for such a claim?

Correction, s/IQ/intelligence/

DUR DUR, my point exactly, stupid.

Not your point exactly, stupid. How do you go from "fully" to "it's just a number"? Only you were claiming it was fully, remember?

Do you suffer from a convenient amnesia? Do I have to cut and paste everything to remind you what you wrote?

>>1 is a pretty crummy troll.  Looks like someone recently read "A Modest Proposal" and decided to try a little satire for themselves.

I don't know why you insist on asserting that it bothers me that blacks are the same species, and are 99.99 percent the same as me. 

{We can help "black" children do better in school now. - But we're doing fuck all.}

Actually, we're doing all we can...  Trying special magnet schools in inner city neighborhoods ETC...  But it's really misguided and for the most part isn't working. 

{not even a 150 IQ can save you if you're black, live in the poorest neighborhood, and if everyone ASSUMES you have ADD and poor inhibition because you're black. }

LOL this is one of the most bullshit things I've ever heard you say.  a 150 IQ would most definately save you; it'd make you realize that you don't need to be spending your time in the ghetto, make you move out to a lower crime area, get a job and wal mart and pay your way through school.  Most people who sit in the ghetto and amount to nothing do so because they're dumb and ignorant.  A high IQ doesn't mean you won't be ignorant, but it'll make you MUCH better able to realize WHY you're rotting in the ghetto, and make you realize what you can do to combat it.  Most ignant giggaboos(sp?) just blame it on the white man and get back to rasin' the roof up in hyere!

And if you're going to play the racism card, I can just point out affirmative action and how most employers are scrambling for the opportunity to hire a qualified black person to fulfill their quotas. 

I don't even think you meant this point seriously to be honest.   I can't believe you'd be dumb enough to make such an asenine point.



{It's not racist to look into the physical component of IQ until you do so *BY RACE*. Are you having a hard time understanding that your oldest human ancester was a sub-saharan African? The same "race" (snicker) of people you automatically *ASSUME* to have a low IQ?}

Well, if the data's there then...

{Remember when I blasted you on your idea that "they just had knowledge"? }
You never blasted shit. (wasn't me btw, you're arguing with no less than three anonymouses here...)  A bushman has knowledge that's passed down for generations, and memorized.  A bushman isn't inventing the techniques for survival, just copying them.  Just because a white man can't survive in the wilderness doesn't mean that he has a lower IQ or anything.

Now, take the same bushman, and a suburban person, and put them both in the same environment that aren't like anything either have ever been in before, and whoever adapts the fastest and the best can be said to have done so because of IQ.

{LOL, you just hear what you *want* to hear, because you actually think you're searching for a way to help mankind. You're doing nothing but affirming an UNTRUE idea that has been perpetuated by white superemists and eurocentrics every since they ENSLAVED blacks and put them in this position in the FIRST place. }
Everything is the white man's fault, and we're such horrible horrible people. Maybe if they had been able to mount any sort of opposition to european power the situation would be different today.  You're doing nothing but perpetuating a lie, which might not even neccesarily be helpful (I'm still undecided on that, to be honest.).

However, you win for the use of the word niglet.

>>463
Let me clarify on the 150 IQ thing.  If you're smart and focused (key word focused) enough to get a 150 result on an IQ test, then you're smart (and focused) enough to get out of the ghetto.

>>459
And you keep repeating to yourself over and over that my position is "nature's lack of a significant role in intelligence". Sorry, but no: That's idiotic, desperate wishful thinking on your part. If I said something along those lines, I recant on that now. Everyone knows nature/nurture work in concert. You learn that shit in grade school.

>>461
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? You need a take a reading comprehension class, seriously. I said. "IQ can not fully measure intelligence."

Either way, your argument are semantical and have nothing to do with what one >>1 asserts. The corelation between IQ and race. If you have nothing to add to that and you've come on here to nitpick like everyone jewish mother-in-law, then get the fuck out.

>>464
Proof, data, evidence? Oh right- like since the beginning of this thread. You have none.

>>463

I think the most telling thing about "whites" and the race/IQ arguement is that it always serves as an excusal of "white guilt". There's not a time where a white person in this debate doesn't try to effectively say: "Well see? It's not our fault!" It's a plain effort for anglo-saxons in general to wash their hands of the sins of their fathers. The irony is that when we speak upon things, we aren't attacking the entire white race.

We are attacking the history of a culture of assumed inferiority surrounding blacks, latinos, asians, arabs, shintos, hindus, buddists, etc. Races and religions which were deemed inferior on the grounds of being non-white and non-christian. That is true even now.

A bushman has knowledge that's passed down for generations, and memorized.  A bushman isn't inventing the techniques for survival, just copying them.

How is that different from academic education? It's very rare that relevant new ideas are introduced in academia and it was rare, then, new ideas were introduced for survival.

You see: We're simply stating things that happened in history. Things were not equal and are not equal now. And it is the assumption of whites that things, in fact, are equal. Of course they're equal.

For you.

Notice that it's only "whites" that think this. Notice that the one "people" who have a history of doing everything in their power to make sure things are not equal- are the ones claiming everything to be fair and good in the modern world. At the same time you turn around and try to "prove your superiority" with the IQ/race. While saying: "I have no connection to the whites of slavery and colonialism, so I'm not racist." - you turn around at the same time and say: "It's not *OUR* fault. You see *WE* are superior, so you failed." Don't you see the conflict of your words there?

But your apathy to the very real things that have happened to non-whites over this long modern history is at the very heart- the flaw in your debate.

"Well, if the data's there then..."

It's not there. It's only there if you completely ignore the fact that intelligence is nature AND nuture. Which is what you do with you don't address these issues in the race/IQ discussion. You don't address nurture. You already conceded. That's because there's no way around this. But you must desperately believe that you are responsible and NOT responsible at once. It's either one or the other. Either your view is bigotry and white eurocentricity. Or it is not.

"*we don't know which*"
then why are you arguing this point?  if the data's not there then we have no argument, either way.  it's all just hearsay.  you can say that blacks were persecuted from the beginning, he can say that blacks were floundering since the beginning, but if even YOU admit that we don't know which it is than neither of you have a point.

you'll just have to dig for some data, but I doubt that data exists, what with the whole societal taboo on even doing an experiment to search for it (i mean, even if controlling for all the variables. 

people are afraid of what they would find. 

>>467

It's this fucking delusional, bi-polar thinking of yours that strikes me as ignorant. So who's putting words in someone's mouth again?

I have made no claim that blacks were "persecuted from the beginning". However, what we certainly do know is that generations upon generations upon generations of "blacks" were not only (merely, as you imply) persecuted, but reduced to servitude and deprived very important envirnomental factors that contribute to the growth of intellect. All due to that initial perception of inferiority. A view based on nothing. 

The data didn't exist then, it doesn't exist now. We know that genetics have something to do with intelligence, but we don't know exactly what. HOWEVER, what we do know about the environment we can control, yet we have not been putting forth any sort of earnest effort in this regard. Just look at the American education system. Lack of competition = stagnacy. Are you going to say that white Americans are genetically inferior to white Europeans, then?

As for people being afraid of what they would find, that's an ignorant statement. You don't know what the fuck people are afriad of. It's an assumption, which serves your ego and your argument.

You say that assuming people would be afriad: "Wow, blacks really are inferior!" - when honestly, the guys who wrote the Bell Curve could have avoided this maddness by at least attempting to put out a complete study in the first place. We all know why they didn't and why they ignored culture and society in their study. (Pioneer Fund Nazis, FTW)

And It's funny, societal taboos only exist in your camp when it suits you. You completely ignore the fact that 400+ years of blackness being a "societal (and cultural) taboo" could have an effect on future generations' intelligence- while at the same time citing "societal tabboo" as a reason one person wouldn't do an experiment on the genetic basis.

Even if you find negroid genetic inferiority in the latter, the reason for that inferiority is going to be because what we *know as fact* pretaining to the former.

No matter what: You will lose. There's not one side to intelligence and to make any purely genetic arugement regarding *anyone* intelligence is inherantly wrong and goes against everything scientific.

If I said something along those lines, I recant on that now.

Good to hear.

So if genetics plays some role, if all other things are equal (education, experience, opportunities, etc), will they have the same intelligence?

>>469
This is a loaded question, moar like "loaded with shit", because it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion we're having now (About the race-IQ corelation). Elaborate on the relevance or attention whore it up somewhere else.

it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion we're having now

Not exactly. If genetics plays a role, and different populations can have different allele frequencies, would it not be possible that different populations have different propensities for learning?

I am not saying this need be the case, but is it possible? If not, why not? It seems the result logically follows.

>>471

I've been over allele frequencies already. Getting sick of repeating this shit. Go back and find the page yourself, for a fucking change. But to answer your question: Not if segments of these populations are divided by "race". Not if it's a race that was subjected to 400 yeara of slave culture where education was denied.

If a couple generations of people are selected in breeding specifically for unintelligence, then it affects the following generation and so on and so son. The line of "learning propensities" is liquid- fluidity dependant upon pre and post natal environmental facotrs.

I've read your comments on allele frequencies, and I do not see how you refute anything.

Small populations have specific allele frequencies, as any biology major will attest. Does this apply to larger populations? We can't be certain without actually sampling a large population and sequencing their DNA, but the physical characteristics that typically define "race" indicate that it's there.

If allele frequencies don't exist, how can we call someone Negro, Asian, Caucasian, etc? Why are these characteristics heritable? Why can we predict the results of inter-racial pairing? Why do these characteristics not vary with changed environment?

>>473

From >>355 - unlike the loaded questions you pose, this actually as something to do with the subject at hand.

Finally, you are never going to get around the race thing with your talk of haplotypes and allele frequencies. With your very arguement you operate under the false "if-then" assumption that: IF race is a surrogate for unknown genetic mechanisms, THEN observed racial differences in IQ and "achievement" can be explained by genetic differences. I just don't see how you can arrive to that conclusion with all of the blank spots in our understanding of human traits controlled by many genes in concert with environmental factors. I.E - INTELLIGENCE.

On top of all that, your "pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- don't know where you're getting the data that says that. Anyway, by definition ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND). The whole thing is a poor effort on your part to biologically define race- but guess what? It doesn't exist. The very term "negroid" greatly over-generalizes and over-simplies a contenient of people who have the greatest number of haplotypes in the world. Different allele frequences only mean that a different parts of a continuum has been sampled.

Ace trolling, by the way. Also, if you have a point- stop posing loaded questions and make a statement. I don't have all day to sit here and mince around ideas with you. 

You call it a loaded question because you realize what will happen if you answer it. Answer it: yes or no?

>>475

LOL, "Yes or no", what? Do you see a "yes or no" question posed in >>473? I don't. --What I've contended about allele frequencies has remained uncontested since >>355 and when comes to further questions of "why we can define, etc, etc."- that *is* my answer.

Now what do *you* have to say to that, chumpy?

Also for all your bloated egotistical ramblings, you might want to get started on, you know, actually responding to what I've said in >>466, >>468 and >>472 since you and "you camp" have done everything in your power to dodge these issues since >>1.

But hey if you're too afriad to respond to it, that's alright. I understand why you would be, seeing as how it questions everything about this argument outright. Like Christianity the race/IQ psuedo-science requires a leap of faith on the part of anyone- a total disregard for hundreds of years of real science about the balance of nurture and nature. In addition to that, I think it's safe to say that if you believe- with such fanaticism- in the concept of race, that there is no way to reach you anyway.

The question was specifically:

So if genetics plays some role, if all other things are equal (education, experience, opportunities, etc), will they have the same intelligence?

YES or NO.

>>478

Your dodges and your attempts are controlling are pathetic. That's fine, two can play the game of "not responding to each other statements and questions":

My answer: It's not a question of "yes or no", that approach is everything that's wrong with the study of intelligence.

If you finally address the points brought up in >>466, >>468, >>472, I'll be more than willing elaborate further- until then, I'd advise you rephrase your question as a statement representing your viewpoint.

I've seen what happens to other people who get distracted by you. I asked a question, and instead of answering, you ask another question. Give me an answer first, then we'll proceed, otherwise this is yet another example of evasiveness that you've demonstrated since the beginning of this thread.

Even though all things were equal, you didn't give a yes or no. With only one changing variable, there are only two possibilities: yes and no. "I don't know" is also acceptable.

So, what is it? Why won't you answer?