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.

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.