>>> What if it's true? Doesn't make you a racist. Racism is defined as IGNORANT characterization. Our beliefs are based on data and information, which is suppressed at every opportunity by moralists and other people who believe they're doing something good.
It isn't true though, and it becomes an ignorant characterization when you ignore envirnomental factors for gaps in intelligence. Which you do when you cite genetics as the sole reasons for such. Regardless, belief in a heirarchy of races makes you racist by definition alone. We don't even have to bring morality into this, because even from an objective stand point; It's indefensible. But, you're so desperate to be right that you're sitting here trying to change the definition of racism. If you're a racist, say you're a racist. I don't give a shit.
>>> No single gene. Nobody ever claimed there was one. Yet another of your transparent and idiotic debate tactics. What we have is a constellation of genes that affect an individual's overall intelligence, picked out more or less at random over the years. There is no single gene that controls muscle mass, there is no single gene that controls SKIN COLOR. Yet we know that these factors are genetic (unless I read you properly when you said that all those traits are environmental)
Then what are these "constellation of genes"? Why is intelligence still considered an abstract? You can pretend all you want that these are "transparent" non-issues- but this is the very argument. Intelligence is an abstract. There's no way around that. Genes alone don't control intelligence, there's no way around that either. Those different physical traits came about because of the environment. They are not fundamentally genetic in the sense that change in traits would've have initiated without reason to do so, environementally.
>> This is the same thing as when you said that there is no such thing as race. Race is a measure invented by man to explain empirical observation. Intelligence is the same. It doesn't make it any less valid in the sphere we're talking about here. Especially when intelligence, (g especially) correlates to success in life. If you can cite me a study that refutes that (and isn't just an attack questioning the motives of the experimenters) then by all means do it.
No, it's not. This is just manuevering on your part. Race doesn't exist the way you want it to. Intelligence does but it's abstract. Race isn't inherant in nature and it shouldn't be treated in the same regard as intelligence. The very fact that we define race socially first and biologically second makes it less valid. At the very least with intelligence we can say that it is biological and based on biology we can make certain assumptions socially.
However, asking me to find a study that says high IQ doesn't equal success is a fairly shitty tactic. Of course it does. But that's the not the argument. The arguement is whether or not reasons for gaps in IQ is solely genetic. Even if someone isn't successful that doesn't mean the reasons for that lack of success is solely genetic. It can't be because environemnt plays a balanced if not bigger role in IQ and this statement is validated by the fact that IQ test are standardized under the assumption that you're testing for all of the environemental factors that go into IQ.
What I would like to see is proof that the scores used in this thread are tests that specifically score for "g" and not for IQ. You're acting like they're the same thing, when they are not.
>> You effectively ignore that condition of black people wherever they go in the world since the beginning of civilization. You can cite a few civilizations if you want, but they were nowhere near as advanced as the white civilizations at the time. They didn't have the building prowess or the engineering skill of ANY of them.
You can say that I'm subjectively calling the Assyrians and the Harappans etc... superior because I'm uneducated about them if you want to, but answer me this; why did none of those civilizations we hear so much about have any lasting impact on the rest of the world?
Again: What you don't understand is that your very question is based on an ignorance of history and subjective leaning towards white civilization no matter how unsuccessful they were or how much of a failure they were. There's a bias here that you're purposely not addressing.
High IQ doesn't guarantee you that you civilization will be successful or serve a greater impact. You treat this subject as if all the evidence is in, you treat this subject as if whites of the 1900's during the time of colonization and subjegation of negroid would have ever been inclined to say civilization came out of Africa or that Africa had great civilizations.
>> You can't deny that the system is set up to favor black people nowadays. Colleges have to accept a proportion of them which exceeds their overall population in the country. Quotas everywhere you look. And most white people aren't racist. In fact they're terrified of that label.
Yes I can. While there is a system for colleges and employment, this is done as a reaction to discriminatory mindset prevailent through out society because of the reverberating effects of African colonization and slave culture. Not only that, but you're ignoaring the fact that black people as a whole are still feeling the effects of slave culture and the social stigma surrounding black skin. This is what I mean by:
"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."
If we already know environment has an impact on "g" and therefore general intelligence. Why is it so hard to believe or understand that 400 years of every negroid, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, being subjegated and denied education would have an impact on the general IQ and the culture of black people? Why do you try to ignore history?
The idea that blacks "have always had problems with civilization" is in fact, an ignorant characterization based on the ideal that the failure of any civilization co-relates to low "genetic IQ". But you have no proof for that. The Hittites were smart and were the first to develop iron. And yet: They failed. How many times must it be stated that high IQ doesn't mean your civilization will "win out"?
>> Academic education is harder than surviving in the bush (mentally, not physically) ever was. In academia, you have to come up with original and you have to calculate things. You must tax your brain. To survive, you simply have to follow some simple patterns or some memorization of what plants to eat etc... It was mostly brute strength that prevailed.
Again; this is pure subjective nonsense. But I'm glad you brought this up because I covered it
600 posts ago.
Taken from: >>375
Your opinion about how much intelligence it takes to survive in the sub-sahara is just that: An opinion. You say that it hasn't anything to do with IQ and is "just knowledge".
Well I have some really bad news for you; Dictionary.com's definition of knowledge:
knowl·edge
n.
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge.
Intelligence: The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
Seems to me that you just admitted that the pre-historic sub-saharan humans were pretty intelligent, no? I mean, obviously they understood nature and where to find food or the human race wouldn't be here.
It's not stupid to try and understand intelligence.
But it is very, very stupid to infer certain things about the brain biologically based solely on our perception of it's output. It's important to indentify and quantify the *input*, as well.
Never said it did. The disagreement we're having relates to the extent to which IQ can be attributed to genetics. Please get your shit straight.
By saying that the reason blacks are dumber than whites is genetic- is saying that environment has nothing to do with IQ. Or rather: Saying that genetics works to a greater extent than nurture. That's impossible, because it's a balance. Always. Always. Always. It's always a balance between nurture and nature. Maybe you should get <i>your</i> shit straight, child.