Oriental populations in East Asia and North America typically have mean IQs falling between 101 to 111. White populations in Europe, South Africa, Australasia, and North America have mean IQs of from 85 to 115, with an overall mean of 100. Black populations living south of the Sahara, in the Caribbean, in Britain, and in North America, average IQs of from 70 to 90.
Especially contentious was Lynn's calculation of a mean IQ of only 70 for Black Africans living south of the Sahara. Many reviewers have expressed skepticism about such a low IQ, holding it impossible that, by European standards, 50 percent of Black Africa is 'mentally retarded'. But a mean African IQ of 70 has been confirmed in three studies since Lynn's review, each of which used Raven's Progressive Matrices, a test regarded as an excellent measure of the non-verbal component of general intelligence and one not bound by culturally specific information.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-23 22:49 ID:et2rELvK
Consider, for example, a section titled "A Curtain Raiser With a Moral". In this, Gould (1996, 109-114) reviewed a technical debate over Black/White brain-size differences between Robert Bennett Bean (1906), a Virginia physician, and Franklin P. Mall (1909), Beans mentor at Johns Hopkins Medical School. Bean (1906) published a study finding that the weight of 103 American Negro brains at autopsy varied with the amount of Caucasian admixture, from 0 admixture = 1,157 grams, 1/16 = 1,191 grams, 1/8 = 1,335 grams, 1/4 = 1,340 grams, to 1/2 = 1,347 grams. Bean also reported that the 103 Negro brains were less convoluted than were 49 White brains and that Whites had a proportionately larger genus to splenium ratio (front to back part of corpus callosum), implying that Whites may have more activity in the frontal lobes which were thought to be the seat of intelligence. Mall (1909) disagreed and found that he was unable to replicate the results on genus/splenium ratios when he remeasured a subset of the brains under 'blind' conditions regarding the race of the brain. Gould elevated this disagreement on one of the findings into a morality play. (Mall "became suspicious"; "prior prejudice dictates conclusions"). What Gould neglects to tell us is that Mall himself (p. 7) reported a Black/White difference in brain weight of 100 grams and that he did not refute the data on racial admixture or on complexity of convolutions.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-23 22:50 ID:et2rELvK
J. S. Michael's (1988) revelation of Gould's mistreatment of Samuel George Morton's 19th century data has been described above. Nonetheless, Michael remained doubtful that Morton's data could be used to examine race differences in brain size. Rushton (1989a), however, showed that Morton's data, even as reassesed by Gould, indicated that in cubic inches, Mongoloids averaged 86.5, Caucasoids 85.5, and Negroids 83.0, which convert to 1,401, 1,385, and 1,360 cm3, respectively. To be absolutely clear there is no misunderstanding about these data and to allow readers to combine the subgroups in their own preferred ways, Table 1 presents Gould's own retabulation of Morton's data (1981, p. 66, Table 2.5; 1996, p. 98, Table 2.5). Gould dismisses these differences as "trivial". But, as noted, a difference of 1 cubic inch (16 cm3) in brain size translates into a very nontrivial millions of neurons and hundreds of millions of synapses.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-23 22:51 ID:et2rELvK
Finally, consider the pattern of decreasing mean brain size going from East Asians to Europeans to Africans shown in Rushton's (1989a) reanalysis of Gould's retabulation of Morton's data. This pattern has been corroborated since 1980 by three different techniques: wet brain weight at autopsy, volume of empty skulls using filler, and volume estimated from external head sizes. Recently, a fourth technique, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), has confirmed the White/Black difference. The preponderance of evidence from studies using different techniques, conducted by different researchers, on different samples, confirms the conclusion that the brains of Orientals and their descendants average about 17 cm3 (1 in3) larger than those of Europeans and their descendants whose brains average about 80 cm3 (5 in3) larger than those of Africans and their descendants.
Consider the following statistically significant comparisons (sexes combined) from recently conducted studies using the four techniques mentioned above. Using brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1990) summarized data for 1,261 individuals. They reported a mean brain weight of 1,323 grams for White Americans and 1,223 grams for Black Americans. Using endocranial volume, Beals et al. (1984) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world and found that East Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268 cm3 respectively. Using external head measurements from a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel, Rushton (1992) found that Asian Americans, European Americans, and African Americans averaged 1,416, 1,380, and 1,359 cm3, respectively. Using external head measures from tens of thousands of men and women from around the world collated by the International Labour Office, Rushton (1994) found that Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged 1,308, 1,297, and 1,241 cm3, respectively. Finally, an MRI study in Britain found that people of African and of Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (Harvey et al., 1994).
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-23 22:54 ID:U1qYKHrz
Interesting, but there's something I've encountered which struck this notion of brain size = high intelligence theory a notch down.
A show (yes, this isn't a well supported source) I had seen was trying to compare the minds of different specialists in different fields.
They took someone who had a high intelligence 160+ and added him into the mix. When they were undergoing magnetic resonance imaging, the man was said to have a much smaller brain and his intelligence was attributed to a high concentration of neural networks in his brain compared to that of a brain of the same size.
This should be considered when anthropologists/psychologists measure skull cavities.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-23 22:59 ID:et2rELvK
Gould (the guy sayin every race was equal)was a jew by the way, just sayin (how does that fit in to the jewish communist conspiracy)
the idea that intelligence can be accurately tested = FAIL
the idea that the results of that test can be represented on a linear scale = FAIL
this thread = FAIL
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-23 23:03 ID:et2rELvK
#5 I saw that show too, I can't explain that unfortunately
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-24 7:15 ID:eSTKIJLc
>>7
Well no shit. "Intelligence" is a word and concept created by HUMANS; of course it's not one hidden number in your genes. It is open to some interpretation as to what intelligence is. For me, IQ tests seem to be a pretty damn good indication of what we mean by "intelligence". What is your criteria for measuring a person's intelligence? Are you saying because it's not a linear number we shouldn't try to understand it or attempt to measure it? You must think every kind of knowledge other than absolute truths is "FAIL". In which case you will always be an ignorant fool with no understanding of the world.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-24 7:59 ID:eSTKIJLc
>>6
Nice article, really shows what an intellectually dishonest and shoddy scholar Gould is. It's sad that Liberals think The Mismeasure of Man is a genuine refutation of intelligence differences between race.
>>5
If you are ludicrous enough to say that brain size doesn't correlate with intelligence, why does the brain sizes of races often fits with their behaviour. No matter how blind you are you have to notice how Blacks act in a society, how Whites act, and their successes as races etc.
The 160+ thing was probably a real anomaly. I've never heard of anything like that.
>>6
I've noticed, I don't know why Jews push this equality thing, and at the same time often the same persons are ardent racist Zionists. One of life's mysteries ...
>>7
You can group people by race or another criterion though, and point out racial or other differences.
Unless you are ideologically inclined to ignore scientific data which = fail
>>8
I'd say it was quite an anomaly, I need to learn more. Come on. It's pretty common knowledge that brain size correlates really good with intelligence. Look at evolution. The guy must have been a waterhead retard that was only good at logic, dunno though.
You're forgetting Charles Murray and his ex-partner Hernstein.
I fucking love Murray and Hernstein because one of the views popularized in the book The Bell Curve is that welfare shouldn't be paying nigger mammies to shit out niggers because intelligence is stratified by economic successfulness and that if the state gave welfare to the rich and the intelligent the state would be better off than paying for nigger mammies and their nigglets.
Oh fuck, Wikipedia tells me that Murray is a weeaboo.
"Murray credits his time in the Peace Corps in Thailand with his lifelong interest in Asia. "There are aspects of Asian culture as it is lived that I still prefer to Western culture, 30 years after I last lived in Thailand. Two of my children are half-Asian. Apart from those personal aspects, I have always thought that the Chinese and Japanese civilizations had elements that represented the apex of human accomplishment in certain domains." [6]"
>>27
Just ordered Murray's book: Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950
The figures in this book are overwhelmingly White Europeans. Murray has an admiration for Asians, but he is not some kind of self-hating White.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 20:38 ID:l4n/btsi
Nope just a white that acknowledges the fact that different races have different brains. Its good that he admits that asians have slightly larger brains, or else people will just throw him the race card.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 20:58 ID:v5nSj/gz
Murray is a realistic truth lover. Everyone is always attempting to paste stereotypes on him left right and centre but he has never given a shit.
Then he is the type of weeaboo I could rally behind. I marvel at the accomplishments of creating a civil society by non-democratic means by the Asians, but I don't take this obsession to some hyper-real projection of reality.
This is a ridiculous argument that was drummed soundly in the now infamous RACE THREAD posted up here last year. You guys lost. All we have to do is use the wayback machine to conjure up all those things you didn't address in the last round.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 1:23 ID:D4QRIzjB
HAPLOTYPES
An indentifiable haplotype, to me, doesn't constitute the existence of a different biological "race". Plus, I've seen zero evidence that states these haplotypes have an absolute tie-in to intelligence. The differences in intelligence that you continue to imply would only be genetically related if these haplotypes were indications of a seprate speicies. That is not the case.
Moreover, you and I and other modern day human "races" exist as subsets to these haplotypes. Any variation of haplotypes is variation that was already present in ancient homosapiens. Seeing as how Africans were the first to civilize in the most basic sense...I don't see where you get the leap from haplotypes to the definition of biological race and then one race being "better" at civilization than the other. I think your understanding of what the Hap-Map implies is way off and I think you are purposely ignoring history to protect your world view.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 1:23 ID:D4QRIzjB
Can you tell me why the Greenland Norse civilization "failed"? Was that genetic? Ok, well, prove it. Prove that the failure of any one civilization is solely genetic. You're the one making these assertions- not me- so "the burden of proof" is on you, isn't it?
If you don't have the proof the percieved failure of a civilization was absolutely genetic, then you have no basis for your assertion. >>237
You entire argument is based on the idea that any one "white civilization" has been "successful". Why do you not tell us what makes a "successful" civilization? Why so vague? >>292
European "civilization" is the most unstable in history. Its entire history is made up of wars upon wars, violent upheavals and unparalleled atrocities.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 1:24 ID:D4QRIzjB
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.
You can't divide IQ among "racial lines" that don't exist. IQ isn't a good universal guage of intelligence. You have no proof of your ancestors IQs, but considering that we're judgeing them based on the modern IQ test, we know they'd fail. You have no proof that leaps in civilization required a high IQ.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 6:50 ID:/22wsVja
>>33
I'm a newfag here, sorry.
So post the proof that races are biologically equal under the theory of evolution.
Debates with leftists, not to mention their Mongoloid tactics, end in the leftists' defeat, but then they go in denial and claim they won. I'm pretty sure that's the case.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 7:19 ID:1B8CBPHY
100 is supposed to be a mean intelligent quotient. Yet EVERYONE it seems claims to have an IQ of 150-180.
>>36
". 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"
With your very argument you operate under the falise "if-then" assumption that: IF gravity is a surrogate for unknown acceleration towards large bodies, THEN observed movement through space and "time" can be explained by gravity.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 10:19 ID:NeIzJ/4N
>>36
Let me guess; you're a twentysomething pseudo-intellectual type who took a college course in logic, and now you think you can refute every argument ever made by labelling it a certain logical fallacy?
You're trying to deny race; this is one of the saddest last ditch efforts by liberals who can't stand the thought of different races being unequal. GTFO with your burden of proof and haplotype crap and show me some proof of blacks being mentally equal... JUST ONE FUCKING PIECE OF EVIDENCE, ONE STUDY!
If they were authentically intelligent, they wouldn't care what others thought of them or more likely, they'd see the shallowness of a number defining who they are. I fall into the latter category.
Still, this doesn't undermine the idea that races themselves have genetic and documented predisposition to diseases. In fact, the Ashkenazi Jews who are susceptible to a disease known as Tay-Sachs Disease are thought of as an intelligent race. I say this because within the scientific community, people such as Charles Murray speculate that this susceptibility to Tay-Sachs and it being a disease marked by improper lipid storage that the disease itself or the predisposition to it increases their intelligence by increasing the amount of lipids found on neural networks in the brain.
Maybe you should pick up a Scientific Journal? The burden of proof is on you. Sorry. >>34,>>35,>>36 are questions and points that the "right wing white nationalist" failed to address properly in the last debate. Maybe you should try to succeed where they failed?
And please, please, for the love of God, stop with this "leftie this, leftie that" bullshit. It makes you sound way fucking retarded. I'm far from what would be termed as "Liberal" or "Socialist". If your next reply to me has anything about "them libs" I'm going to tune right the fuck out. (Just like I do around election time).
If your line of thinking is illogical, I think we can pretty much chalk that up to your own innate retardation. You tried to kill the messenger with ad hominem and passing the buck on the burden of proof last time. It didn't work.
Yet again, here you are unable to provide any article, any iota of empirical evidence that means fuck all to the facts presented. Keep it up the lame ass analogies, by all means. We all know you resort to them because you are unable to reply with hard science.
This argument is just going to keep going around in circles. >>41,>>42 are the same type of fail we saw in the Race thread. Just GTFO already. You lose.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 14:37 ID:NeIzJ/4N
>>45
Good job confirming everything I accused you of in >>42. I might as well resort to ad hominem for the lulz, because after so much evidence you continue to deny. It's shown succesful developed societies have people with high IQs (Lynn). In turn, IQ is proven to be largely inherited (countless studies have shown this, see The Bell Curve or the link posted earlier). Rushton has proven brain size varies by race and correlates to IQ. Murray's book that was mentioned before shows all the greatest human achievemers have been White men, despite being an overall minority as a race on the planet.
In the end, arguing with you is like trying to convince a creationist Christfag of the validity of evolution through evidence and reason; it just won't work, because of whatever deep-seated beliefs you already hold. At best, you might gradually change your mind over time, since people prefer to change their minds in private.
>>48
Huge ad hominem?
I'm not inbred, I'm not a redneck, I'm not a KKK member, and I don't live in a trailer park. I'm also European. For one.
How about you post your proof of biological equality of niggers and humans?
I like how the article is very well written and has
Malicious Jews, and there are many such individuals among Jews, have a strong interest in undermining the welfare of non-Jews, especially whites. Malicious Jews have been at the forefront of race denial in academia, and the reason is obvious. By convincing others that there are no genetic differences between populations with respect to behavior, talent, personality distributions, aptitude, creativity, acquisition of culture and other features relevant to social existence, opposition to replacement immigration can be reduced, and replacement immigration is surely an excellent way to harm the cultural and genetic interests of a population.
Is this a reality? Was my public schooling so dumb not to teach me that this is what is actually going on behind the curtains?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 22:58 ID:oMXFzwXJ
4chans been invaded by Nazi's because liberals and communist are brain washed pussys believing all the BS the jews shove down their throats, you are fucking pathetic delusional pussys who can't see that your race is dying before your very eyes.
Jews control 5/6ths of American media
Jews control the central banks
Jews have dominated both Republicans and Democrats
Jews used communism and multiculteralism to take over sovereign European countries, after they took over Russia for instance they murdered 50,000,000 Russians.
Blah, Blah, Blah. You just don't seem to get that, for me, this is the same old shit you've guys been saying forever. Respond to the the points brought up in >>34,>>35,>>36 then we can talk. Otherwise: GTFO.
>>52
Yawn. Did it ever occur to you that some people just don't have the "sports team" mentality when it comes to matters of race? From what I've seen your "delusional pussy whites" aren't denying race, they're just questioning it's validity and the dogma it demands that every freeman follow. Did it ever occur to you that some of us, white-black-whatever, just don't give a shit anymore?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 3:55 ID:H2hdHxNu
>>51
I don't know if you are trying to be a smartarse or not, but Jews have been at the forefront of race denial in academia. Do you not know of Franz Boas, a leftist Jew who with no formal training on the subject, hijacked Anthropology to become 'cultural anthropology' which is a joke? He constantly opposed genetic studies and denied race is relevant, based on minutiae details of behavioural randomness and suggested that skipping some of the developmental stages described by Darwin? There were 2 factions, Boasians (his cult following) v. Darwinists, and with a shitload of funding from fellow Jews and help from the media, popular support et al., he had won the battle. Again, he had NO formal training in anthropology and just declared race and genetics irrelevant by the same liberal arguments as today 'We all bleed red' and so on. At the same time, he was a proud Jew and Zionist. Do you not know of the leftist take over of academia in the 60s? Do you not know of the Jews who heavily pushed and supported the immigration reform act of 1965 (proposed by Emanuel Celler, a Jew) in the U.S. and also started such 'pro-diversity' movements in Europe? Do you now know of the Frankfurt school, which was largely Jewish, and set to dismantle Western civlisation? It is the source of 'social democracy' and modern leftism.
Of course you don't learn about these things at school. How often do you hear present day taught 'evolution' is Boas' delusion and not Darwin's theory?
Also, what is wrong with the REST OF THE FUCKING ARTICLE?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 5:55 ID:rj5V78QQ
>>> ...North America typically have mean IQs falling between 101 to 111.
No one denies the events and the people in said events. I think what not everyone is set on is the relevance and meaning. Race isn't biological instinct. It's learned. Not saying that it doesn't exist, but the relevance of its existence is highly dubious.
All I'm saying it doesn't matter how many "facts" you trump up or how much you rant about the actions of Jews or whatever...it just appears...you know...looking at our collective genetic history that no one really gives too much a fuck about a race and the only reason people stuck to fucking their own race for so fucking long is because that's all their was. The world is a big place now and people can fuck all kinds of flavors and reproduce with whomever.
Nothing you say is going to stop that. Nothing you say matters in light of this.
Come to California some time, any kid who claims to be Jewish is probably half Jewish at most. Their other parent is almost always Catholic.
Or did the Jew media just implant that information in my head with their magic Semitic-Beams?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 6:00 ID:SSMCX0P/
#61 doesn't know a think about jews. Ashkenazi jews are 70-80% European anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 7:22 ID:aI7rXGH5
>>57
So you asked about Jews who have been the frontrunners of race denial in academia, I answered and I could name more, and you say it doesn't matter? I hope you're not the guy that asked, because fuck you then.
Also your race denial is understandable (I know exactly what, who, based on what errors and based on what intentions caused it) but retarded at the same time. You are being pushed by most media and academia to feel that way. It is in no way natural, and a childish, wishful thinking belief at best. Race is a valid biological construct, no matter how much you twist around pseudo-science and 'we all bleed red' baaaawww. Also, this mental disorder has only been going on after the 60s, so your culture of critique and the multiculturalist imperium is not that fastened in Western culture as some would have us believe. It's a morality that it probably subject to change soon, once the first White country will have a non-White majority.
Also, race is a biological instinct. People fuck mostly within their own race. Whites will not going down as easily as you want to. What better way to genetically kill off Whites than to deny the relevance of race? So, why do you hate us?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 8:15 ID:SSMCX0P/
#63 is right on, look at South Africa and Rhodesia, aren't too many white liberals down their anymore!!!!
Yeah, no. You see I'm still not buying it. The first thing whites did when they "discovered" other races was start fucking them immediately. It's very easy to say that you're only sexually attracted to your race when that's the only "race" around.
Furthermore, as many people as there are pushing for race denial there are just as many external forces pushing whites as the prime race and just as many people emphasizing the idea of race. Just take a look at the porn you beat off to.
Finally, if anyone is in the "pseudo-science" camp, it's you guys. We've been over this and you still have to hard scientific defense for statements that have made contrary to your worldview. I'm no longer in the habit of implicitly arguing anything with your type. What mankind thinks he wants and what he actually wants are two different things with his environment being the factor.
I'm sure there are people who believe as you do, but generally speaking, when comes to race people do the exact opposite. The world is too fucking small now for the views you hold.
Sorry?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 15:51 ID:aI7rXGH5
>>65
>The first thing whites did when they "discovered" other races was start fucking them immediately.
This is a typical 'White guilt' propaganda piece.
>Furthermore, as many people as there are pushing for race denial there are just as many external forces pushing whites as the prime race and just as many people emphasizing the idea of race.
Fallacy. Race deniers control academia and are overwhelmingly represented among the populace. The representatives themselves are obsessed with race. Liberals say "judge individually" and then propose a huge bloated nanny state to take care of negroes at the expense of everyone.
What's more important is the fact that the Boasian revolution in anthropology was political and not based on science at all. You don't get it. Science is not a fucking democracy, pick and choose whatever your wishful thinking mind wants to believe is real. If you're willing to totally disregard the turning point of race and why it was retarded to do so your fucking choice. But don't do what you do in your next quote: Call racialism pseudo-science.
>Just take a look at the porn you beat off to.
Don't need to, have a wife.
>Finally, if anyone is in the "pseudo-science" camp, it's you guys.
To race deniers, like creationists, it is impossible to prove race. They name dissident views heretics (or pseudo-science) and think they can get away with it because they can appeal to the majority instead of answering why is it pseudo-science. Like theism, race denial is unfalsifiable for leftists. They never say what proof would prove race for them, or ask for a non-reasonable proof.
>We've been over this and you still have to hard scientific defense for statements that have made contrary to your worldview.
Leftists would never be satisfied with science, and will always claim the proof is not 'hard enough.' However, you never fucking post proof of racial equality, despite having asked for it ITT. Not one study.
>I'm sure there are people who believe as you do, but generally speaking, when comes to race people do the exact opposite. The world is too fucking small now for the views you hold.
That's hardly a rebuttal to race, just more wishful thinking. When will you people get it? Moralism and the moral high ground (Jews introduced it in academia -- if you want I'll elaborate on that too) cannot be used to establish facts. It's an obvious bias.
>Sorry?
Well your stance is: "I don't really about anything you post, you might be right but you're wrong and it doesn't matter.
You can't be serious."
By the way, how do I quote properly? Also don't deny you're not a leftist, the second sentence you made evoking White guilt utterly exposed your school of thought.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 15:52 ID:aI7rXGH5
Oops, I mean don't deny you are a leftist*
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 15:52 ID:xwQwGHk8
>>65
Personal question (just wondering): What's your race? Do you have any Jewish heritage?
You don't really seem to get it, so this post is primarily for lulz.
This is a typical 'White guilt' propaganda piece.
What if I'm not white? Or Jewish? Or Black? Or Mexican? Or a Man?
Fallacy. Race deniers control academia and are overwhelmingly represented among the populace. The representatives themselves are obsessed with race. Liberals say "judge individually" and then propose a huge bloated nanny state to take care of negroes at the expense of everyone.
Ok, I get that this may or may not be true. But how is this relevant? 150 years ago race "embracers" controlled academia and were overwhelmingly represented among the populace. The world wasn't any better then and it isn't any better now. Or is it? What exactly are you prepared to do with this truth of yours?
What's more important is the fact that the Boasian revolution in anthropology was political and not based on science at all. You don't get it. Science is not a fucking democracy, pick and choose whatever your wishful thinking mind wants to believe is real. If you're willing to totally disregard the turning point of race and why it was retarded to do so your fucking choice. But don't do what you do in your next quote: Call racialism pseudo-science.
I wholeheartedly concur. You can't just "elect" the truth. We can play this game of allele frequencies, haplotypes, nuture vs nature all fucking day and come to 100 half-truths and people are going to still do whatever and whoever the fuck they want. Are you trying to control the genetic destiny of mankind? The effort is somewhat admirable but due to man's inner nature I don't think it's possible.
Don't need to, have a wife.
That's nice. Is she 100% white? (PROTIP: She's not and neither are you.)
To race deniers, like creationists, it is impossible to prove race. They name dissident views heretics (or pseudo-science) and think they can get away with it because they can appeal to the majority instead of answering why is it pseudo-science. Like theism, race denial is unfalsifiable for leftists. They never say what proof would prove race for them, or ask for a non-reasonable proof.
Leftists would never be satisfied with science, and will always claim the proof is not 'hard enough.' However, you never fucking post proof of racial equality, despite having asked for it ITT. Not one study.
And you still haven't scientifically addressed what's been said in posts >>34,>>35,>>36. At all. You just vomited up more shit from "Take back America" pamphlets. When the other side provides solid arguments contrary to your beliefs you cry in the same fashion as "your enemy does" and about the exact same shit.
That's hardly a rebuttal to race, just more wishful thinking. When will you people get it? Moralism and the moral high ground (Jews introduced it in academia -- if you want I'll elaborate on that too) cannot be used to establish facts. It's an obvious bias.
I'm not "rebutting" race, cockbrain. And please don't bring Moralism into this as if you're deferring to objectivity. I highly doubt you'd still feel the way you do now if you were not white.
Well your stance is: "I don't really care about anything you post, you might be right but you're wrong and it doesn't matter. You can't be serious."
Yeah, I thought the fact that I'm basically trolling you would've been obvious from the start.
Also don't deny you're not a leftist, the second sentence you made evoking White guilt utterly exposed your school of thought.
Everything you said in this sentence is why no one in their right mind takes your type seriously.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 18:51 ID:T+++zkvT
>>72
I might agree with you if I could figure out which parts in your post were quoting the previous poster and which parts were your own attribution.
All right. I may contend that Blacks are a significant sociological group, and that scientific evidence may point to the fact that the mean brain size is less than the White mean, but the fact is that the same does not hold for individuals, and that it does not matter for any principles, because people should be treated upon their own individual ability rather than identification with groups. Moreover, the fact is that Blacks should be equal, so if there was any way to remedy their intelligence to uplift them to perform better in education, then that would be good.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 2:01 ID:H0+ZZ4+F
Ok, but lets assume you own a farm, you have one pen where you raise white bulls who are known for their low aggresion levels, nonviolence and peaceful nature, sure everyonce in a while you get a bad bull, but in general they are good.
Now lets assume someone wants to sell you his collection of black bulls, known for their aggresive attitude, violence and mean temperament, sure not all black bulls are violent, but about 50% are. Would you buy these bulls and put them in the pen with the white bulls knowing that the black bulls would kill loads of white bulls, and lower the standards for the white bulls, the white bulls would stick to their side of the pen in total fear (self segregation) entirely defenseless as the black bulls come up kill and rape them.
No you would not! You would keep them seperated, one pen for the black bulls and one pen for the white bulls.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 2:05 ID:H0+ZZ4+F
See liberals like to live in a dream world utopia where everyone gets along, when things don't work out, which they never do, they just blame it on racism, you can't eliminate racism its entirely natural, racism will never go away, they don't realize that their philosophy causes harm to totally innocent people, should you sacrifice so many good honest people just to give some black people a chance? No, its sick. It doesn't work.
I would pick the thickest most meatiest bulls with mothers that I recorded as producing a lot of milk regardless of fur colour. I would cross breed bulls to try and gain the positive traits of both breeds and I would inbreed those that possessed both traits and neuter those that have 2 harmful recessive genes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 3:10 ID:7y3SLdaI
>>83
What if a monkey exhibits intelligence beyond that of a normal monkey. Would you perform tests on him and publicise your findings and garner a lot of interest from various scientific fields or would you throw him back in the jungle?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 3:19 ID:H0+ZZ4+F
Yes, some monkeys will be more intelligent than others, but on average monkeys are incredibly dull loathsome creatures.
Lets use Norway or Sweden as an example, two countries with the highest standards of living in the world, only these standards are being lowered because of massive amounts of immigrants from Africa and other 3rd world countries, Norway and Sweden's crime rates have skyrocketed, 89% of all rapes are black on white. And virtually all gangrapes are black on white (similar to USA statistics) Now of course not all of these immigrants are bad, but loads of them are. Why is it Norways or Swedens jobs to give these people a chance? What is so good about diversity??? Because thats what you're doing, youre killing and raping innocent young women all in the name of political correctness, I hope you enjoy that sense of moral superiority. Why should they be the bait to see if a nigger is good or not, its not their job to help these people, especially when you consider how detrimental to their people and culture it has become.
Its not worth it! if someone sends you a barrel of apples and says "Theres 50 apples in here but only 20 are poisoned why whould you take and eat those apples" Its unfortunate but you must make these stereotyped judgments.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 4:02 ID:ADdBhUnz
Men aren't monkeys or bulls or anything but men. When you dehumanize your fellow man, you dehumanize yourself. Crying about liberals is fail. Crying about the white race dying out is fail.
Posts >>79 thru >>86 contain the same lame ass analogies and super-failing pseudo science. >>34,>>35 and >>36 still need to be argued using hard science or you fail.
If you faggots didn't fail so fucking hard, maybe people would actually believe in your little race war and your crybaby calls to save the white race.
Right now it seem that the only problem with whites are people like you and those who think like you without valid reason.
Also not everyone here has declared that negroes are not human, just that many of them are inept and have serious social problems that cause sufferring to whites.
In the rest if yout post you just say everything fails without providing a reason so I don't give a shit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 4:15 ID:H0+ZZ4+F
^nigger alert
how bout logic? is that too much for liberals to understand?
the hard science is here, jews have been the ones who promote this 'all races are the same bullshit' despite all the fucking evidence saying otherwise
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 4:17 ID:7y3SLdaI
>>86
There is nothing good about it, it is our right to prevent people from immigrating but human rights must be maintained since tyranny is much worse so institutionalised racism is out of the question. I am anti-immigration and anti-racist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 4:24 ID:H0+ZZ4+F
For all you pussy brainwashed liberals who believe race is only skin deep. Make sure you grab a tissue liberals get ready for the waterworks. OH NOES!
>>90
Are you anti-discrimination or anti-racist? I'm against discrimination (hurting someone because they are of one race) as well, as I always held that all laws must be enforced equally across the board. But I'm not going to join the lefist dogma of racial equality and be a creationist because of that. I'm also not fucking OK with affirmative action and denying that niggers commit a disproportionate number of crimes -- and should be rightfully avoided without White guilt ensued. That doesn't mean I'll choose an unqualified White for a job instead of a nigger or beat up random niggers et al., it just means I'm worried about meeting a nigger because statistics prove he's more prone to crime and expect them to be on average more stupid than humans.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:07 ID:GUmvLKzm
>>88
I was told by the person who made the posts (I assume) that he was just trolling me. Said posts look like trolling. It is not what I claimed in any on my posts on this thread, so why should I answer to them? You didn't even fucking give the context. Before I answer to them (and they look like written by a Mongoloid) I need to be reassured that it's not a troll and that there's someone who I can discuss them with.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:09 ID:JyWP1hBa
i
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:09 ID:JyWP1hBa
am
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:09 ID:JyWP1hBa
about
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:09 ID:JyWP1hBa
to
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:09 ID:JyWP1hBa
get
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:09 ID:JyWP1hBa
one
Name:
McPeePants2007-09-30 5:10 ID:JyWP1hBa
Hundred.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:27 ID:o2WoF6kH
Regardless, the original poster is a racist, since he/she seems to care whether someone is black or white or asian or whatever race; generalizing is always a bad idea. Maybe you should try to broaden your horizon a bit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:38 ID:GUmvLKzm
>>101
Maybe you should try to broaden your horizon a bit. Status quo is in your favour, and helps you be totally ignorant of the obvious situation at hand: groups. If liberals and leftists didn't make such a big deal out of race as to totally deny it, while blaming all Whites for the lack of equality to be justified, in order to make us accept being overwhelmed by non-White immigration, and if they didn't force us into big bloated nanny states in order for (primarily) Whites to pay for minorities who perform worse, or don't want to and justify it through the imaginary racial equality and denial of differences in statistics, we wouldn't either. If we lived in a truly individualist society, we would enjoy the fruits of our labour individually.
Liberals tell us that we should judge races individually (and most of the time outright denial of racial differences) when as a group they act totally different as proven by biology and statistics, also as a justification for giving up our countries to non-White immigration, then they tell us that we should pay collectively for it. Something about this strikes me as mentally disordered to follow. Yet when they intellectualise this crap and control academia and media, people do. This is my problem. I wouldn't make a big deal out of race if liberals wouldn't make a big deal to divide Whites and keep all other races cohesively against Whites, while forcing Whites to pay for them. (Of course, except East Asians who work etc...)
(Also, I'm not OP, but felt I could answer)
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 5:48 ID:GUmvLKzm
>>101
Let me paste to you what a certified genius wrote in regards to modern leftism. I don't agree with everything he said, but in regards to modern leftism he is right on:
The Psychology of Modern Leftism
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
[edit] Feelings of Inferiority
10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
[edit] Oversocialization
24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.[1]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals[2] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes[3]) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." They want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
You put across logical point using hard science and full-on reason. Metaphors and Analogies are tools of bullshitters and ignorants. My point still stands: Address posts >>34 thru >>36 or fail. The reason everything fails is your inability address >>34,>>35 and >>36 with hard science.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 15:37 ID:GUmvLKzm
>>107
(not >>88)
You talked of trolling me. So you're saying you're willing to discuss >>34,>>35 and >>36 (very Mongoloid arguments btw) and cease your trolling in order to debate?
Ok, not sure what a "mongoloid argument" is, but if you're 100% correct and able to find hard science not backed by ex-nazis to refute what's said in those post then it really shouldn't matter if I'm actually trolling or actually trying to have a debate.
Just face it, if you had what was necessary to put your argument across as unadulterated truth then you would've thrust it right into the limelight of this thread. Just stop fagging it up already and get to it. You're not gaining more the converts the longer you drag this out.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 21:24 ID:GUmvLKzm
>>110
Actually, I have. But if you do comments like: it really shouldn't matter if I'm actually trolling or actually trying to have a debate.
I'm turned off by it and it's a sign you don't give a shit and that you'll stick to your politically correct teachings no matter what, and you don't seem to have the interest Such one sided debates are useless. Since you only pasted your (or worse, someone else's) replies, I'm not interested in what others might have said and I'll take it all as yours. Reasonable since you didn't paste the context. Let's go:
34: An indentifiable haplotype, to me, doesn't constitute the existence of a different biological "race".
D'oh. Your point being? Are you saying every haplotype should constitute a different race? What the fuck? No one has ever claimed that a haplotype = a race. LOL. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about do you? There are (to my knowledge at least) 153 haplogroups and thus much more haplotypes. Plus, I've seen zero evidence that states these haplotypes have an absolute tie-in to intelligence.
So? Haplotypes are irrelevant to this discussion for now. The differences in intelligence that you continue to imply would only be genetically related if these haplotypes were indications of a seprate speicies.
Aha. I don't get what you're saying, but it has no bearing in reality. Look up what 'species,' 'race,' 'haplotype,' and 'haplogroup' mean please. That is not the case.
Of course it isn't. What separate species? LOL.
I feel like I need answer this further, together with one of your earlier comments: That's nice. Is she 100% white? (PROTIP: She's not and neither are you.)
Ugh, you're arguing about minutiae about haplotype diversity as being a rebuttal of the existence of race? Or do you even argue that? What are you on about? Particular haplotypes (or even more sensibly haplogroups) do not separate races like you think. You seem to discard evolution and think that haplotype/haplogroup diversity proves racial mixing -- showing that you have no clue of what they are. Protip: It's supposed to be this way. Or you think that alien haplogroup variation prove significant racial mixing? But that goes against your saying that there aren't any races. You're not fooling anyone intelligent with your neo-Marxist sophistry used for the fooling of uneducated masses. Does a few percent admixture make any significant difference and is sufficient for the abolition of the racial classification? No. In fact, saying people are in the slight racially mixed just further proves races. And let's give a bigger example. Does 20% white admixture in American blacks make them indistinguishable from white Americans -- both in appearance and social statistics? No.
As I see from your other "arguments", you would accept the term "race" only if people from the same race looked 100% the same. Something like this doesn't exist in the animal world. Moreover, you and I and other modern day human "races" exist as subsets to these haplotypes. Any variation of haplotypes is variation that was already present in ancient homosapiens. Seeing as how Africans were the first to civilize in the most basic sense...I don't see where you get the leap from haplotypes to the definition of biological race and then one race being "better" at civilization than the other. I think your understanding of what the Hap-Map implies is way off and I think you are purposely ignoring history to protect your world view.
You are obviously not replying this to me, and I fail to see the exact context but it seems you need a lesson.
All human races/subraces have unique haplogroups and usually come from a common male ancestor. Some human populations are so different that there is virtually no overlap in many physical characteristics - compare a Pygmy with a Montenegrin, or an Eskimo with a Nilote, for example.
Clines and gradients came into being as a result of a geographical isolation followed by "de-isolation" and renewed contacts with other human groups. Traits are gradually changing, because people, who left the geographically isolated areas mixed with people from other formerly isolated areas. This proves that they are races of a single species.
Race can now be genetically determined with 100% accuracy.
Race is basically an extended form of a family, a group of genetically related people, who - due to long intermixing in geographical isolation - share some distinct traits in far higher frequencies than other groups. The traditional racial classification is in an agreement with this definition and we can now improve it with the help of modern genetics.
The Europoid racial stock stems from such a distinct "family" created by a man bearing Y-haplogroup F and a woman with mtDNA haplogroup N, who lived somewhere in the Middle East (perhaps in Iran or Mesopotamia) ca. 50 000 years ago. All populations traditionally classified into the Europoid race bear these haplogroups in high frequencies. Similarly, black-skinned populations of South Asia (Australoids) were created by another "founding pair" with male lineage C and female lineage M. Mongoloids are actually cold-adapted Australoids from Southern Siberia, who absorbed some Europoid groups in East Asia.
Mixtures during glacial and post-glacial times were not rare, however. American Indians are basically a variable Europoid-Mongoloid mixture, while Ainu are fundamentally Europoids with some Australoid admixture. Polynesians are not Mongoloids, but Europoids partly mixed with Australoid negritos.
Local racial sub-groups can be defined as well, although some of them came into being as late as after the Ice Age, when the homogenous and clearly genetically defined refugial groups started to mix, and hence they may be characterized by more (and more subtle) haplogroups.
Sub-Saharan Africans should be classified into four main racial groups and one mixed one, which is in agreement with the haplogroup distribution.
1) Khoisans (A + L0K/L0d)
2) Nilotes (A3b2 + L0f?)
3) Pygmies (B + L1/L2)
4) Somalis (or "Neonegrids", how I call them) (E/E3b1+L3)
5) West Africans (NeonegridxPygmy mixture) + Bantus (further mixtures of West Africans with local African groups)
Earlier points should serve as a reply to the rest.
35: Can you tell me why the Greenland Norse civilization "failed"? Was that genetic? Ok, well, prove it. Prove that the failure of any one civilization is solely genetic. You're the one making these assertions- not me- so "the burden of proof" is on you, isn't it?
I do not claim that the failure of a civilisation is solely genetic, and I doubt the person you spoke to but didn't even have the decency to paste his original message (which I don't care about anymore) ... so I should reply to this why? Mongoloid argument too.
If you don't have the proof the percieved failure of a civilization was absolutely genetic, then you have no basis for your assertion.
Aha. What assertion? You didn't bother to paste it, retard. Also, see earlier point, I do not claim this, and I don't care what the other person said since you didn't bother to paste it yet flashed these posts as the grand rebuttal to races.
You entire argument is based on the idea that any one "white civilization" has been "successful". Why do you not tell us what makes a "successful" civilization? Why so vague?
You gotta love how leftists try to deconstruct entire terms and concepts. This is too retarded to even answer. But to answer your question: g. You can correlate it with civilizations quite well, I gather.
European "civilization" is the most unstable in history. Its entire history is made up of wars upon wars, violent upheavals and unparalleled atrocities.
Ahahaha. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
:-)
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 21:24 ID:GUmvLKzm
>110
(cont)
36:
>Finally, you are never going to get around the race thing with your talk of haplotypes and allele frequencies.
... No context again. But as I clarified earlier, I can get around to race quite easily with haplogroups. 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.
Straw man. It's about heritability. At least we are getting somewhere. 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.
For the purposes of this so called debate, I will assume that you know IQ test scores correlate with things: social outcomes (unemployment, child outside of marriage, lives in poverty, ever incarcerated, chronic welfare recipient)[The Bell Curve - Herrnstein & Murray (1994) pp. 171, 158, 163, 174, 230, 180, 132, 194, 247-248, 194, 146] and income[Murray, C. (1997). IQ and economic success. Public Interest, 128, 21–35.], etc. If you are stupid enough to deny these let me know. Leftists debate over the causation. They say that IQ does not effect income, because when controlled for socio-economic factors, raw IQ ends up not mattering. Fallacious control.
IQ ------ Social
||
| `---- Income
|
`----- Economic
This is what IQ correlates with. And we know it does. Now let's look at what leftists say:
IQ Social
(out of the |
picture) \|/
Income
/|\
|
Economic
This is utterly retarded.
Let's have an analogy. A sprinter's time in the 200m correlates withbody composition -- less fat, more muscles tends to result in faster 200m times.
Body ------ 400m
||
| `---- 200m
|
`----- 100m
Now let's apply the leftist thinking.
Body 400m
(out of the |
picture) \|/
200m
/|\
|
100m
So what you're now saying is that controlling for 400m times and 100m times influences 200m times, and so the body composition is out of the picture. I needn't explain why this is blatantly retarded. When you factor things out, you ignore their own causation. Likewise, you ignore that IQ influences socioeconomic factors.
Now, onto the heritability of IQ.
Family IQs tend to correlate. A good example is the correlation between monozygotic twins. Reared together, 0.84*. When reared apart, one study puts the correlation at 0.77**. The fact that it isn't close to one.
*Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M (1981) Familial studies of intelligence: a review.
**http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/03/minnesota-study-of-twins-reared-apart.php (I'd like to add that I saw a .72 and .75 study too, but can't find it atm)
Let's do some calculus .84^2 = .7056 ... This is called the determination of the monozygotic twins' IQ. This is what it will predict.
Now, monozygotic twins reared apart IQ correlate at: .72 (you'll have to believe me for now on the .72, but I'll search more if you want) to .77 ... What does that tell us?
.7056 + E = .72 - .77
where E should fit the environmental similarities. Fits perfectly.
So, genes would make up at least more than 70.56% of the IQ score.
IQ determination > .7056 (because not even monozygotic twins have identical genes)
Thus, I'd say, genes make up about 75% of the IQ test score.
Looking at most scientific papers on this, you'll find that heritability of IQ has been correlated at 0.4-0.8 (keep in mind that most point toward the latter). http://www.springerlink.com/content/t0844nw244473143/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2218526&dopt=AbstractPlus
Also, short of malnutrition, certain mental disorders and illiteracy, IQ tests are mostly fixed through individuals for most of their lives. (If you have those conditions, you can improve your IQ tests)
To recap, IQ correlates with higher income, more positive social incomes, is heritable, much of it is genetic (75% by my estimation), it's very difficult to change unless you have huge problems.
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.
Talked earlier about this.
You can't divide IQ among "racial lines" that don't exist.
Yes I can. I will expand on this when you will be willing to debate. IQ isn't a good universal guage of intelligence.
Yes it is.
>You have no proof of your ancestors IQs, but considering that we're judgeing them based on the modern IQ test, we know they'd fail.
Apart from the bad English, what the fuck do you mean? Are you an idiot? Of course IQ changes, hello, evolution?
>You have no proof that leaps in civilization required a high IQ.
'g' and the things that correlate with it. There are studies. Do you want me to list them?
Enjoy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 21:47 ID:spvAkQuf
>>111 >>112
Excellent posts; I'm impressed. I thought I was pretty knowledgable about these things.
Anything taken from The Bell Curve is Autofail. But I'll reply to this in kind in a little bit. I've got a hot little white number over here that needs my brown seed in her.
If you're impressed by this display you need to LURK MOAR. Better arguments than this have been presently more eloquently and defeated far more soundly.
No, but The Bell Curve has been soundly crushed and debunked for years now and not at the hands of "Crazy Lefties". Just plain ol' run of the mill scientists.
But, I'm sure that whatever opposition is brought up in regards to your outdated and unrealistic ideals...you'll just blame lefties or Marx or whomever. Which is why my reply to you might not be exactly what you're looking for.
By the way. You're still being trolled.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-01 4:12 ID:dgctiBlR
>>118
Not all of the book has been debunked and what has been debunked doesn't draw the line between "there is no such thing as race" and "Aryans are the master race".
Name:
sdfss2007-10-01 4:20 ID:ubBRgsEv
Even white nationalists like me admit that Ashkenazi jews and east asians are more intelligent than whites, we just want Europe for ourselves, stay out of our countries and give us the freedom to live independently. Europe is for Europeans only. America should be resegregated. The southeast for blacks, the southwest for mexicans, and the north for whites, with someplace in the middle for multiculteralists.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-01 7:01 ID:RtKB6dv1
>>118 Hey, Hal.
Starting with the ad hominem and appeal to authority, nice. Textbook leftist.
No, but The Bell Curve has been soundly crushed and debunked for years now and not at the hands of "Crazy Lefties". Just plain ol' run of the mill scientists.
Hahaha. You're hilarious.
I'd like to see your rebuttal to the data gathered that I used -- income and social outcome. There is none as far as I know. The only so called rebuttals I had seen involve the conclusions of racial differences which make liberals squirm, and they are not valid. We can debate on that if you want. But you can, at least, tell me how the data I used (which was most handy) is flawed. Oh wait, sorry, I dare not ask a leftist for a proper justification for his childish religion.
But, I'm sure that whatever opposition is brought up in regards to your outdated and unrealistic ideals...you'll just blame lefties or Marx or whomever. Which is why my reply to you might not be exactly what you're looking for.
LOL.
I could talk about the link between these if you want, but I was asked about those 3 posts repeatedly when I wanted to elaborate and got told it didn't matter. Now it's your turn to answer to my questions.
By the way. You're still being trolled.
Of course, I will gladly give leftists a chance to step down from the debate, but just don't pretend you're trolling to have an excuse for being a moron. Can't you find a better one for not giving a proper rebuttal? It's getting old. Also, everything else I posted in this thread should get a response too. Not just my response to (hopefully) your drivel.
Hardly. I thought you were going to give me your so called rebuttal?
Every time you say you're trolling just shows your intellectual dishonesty.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-01 9:22 ID:B6HtBl/E
[quote]D'oh. Your point being? Are you saying every haplotype should constitute a different race? What the fuck? No one has ever claimed that a haplotype = a race. LOL. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about do you? There are (to my knowledge at least) 153 haplogroups and thus much more haplotypes.[/quote]
Many have claimed that certain groupings of specific haplotypes are ground for sub-grouping the entire human genome along racial lines. This is a false assumption based on suppositions made before any relevant scientific study was attempted.
Alright, I'm going to wrap this up really quickly here.
1. Anything you've written about leftists, Marxism and the like.
Accusing the opposition as being "leftists" is a tactic ranking right up there with McCarthyism in it's stupidity and inherent faggotry. Except that white nationalists have used this cop out since before the red scare, while seemingly ignoring the fact that in order to enact or express the political implications of your illogical and unrealistic beliefs you will basically *have* to give way to big government and socialism. Let's not forget that Nazi-era Germany (before the "burning of the jews") was not only fascist and corrupt but staunchly socialist. Any reference to your opposition being "lefties" who can't "face the reality of race" is instant fail.
I can tell you first hand that those in control of this country are never going to give you what you think you want because it would be literally setting sail for fail for the entire human race. All races and genders. Genetically, Socially, Politically. I can pretty much promise you that even if you somehow gathered concrete proof- it would mean fuck all to anyone with enough power to control the masses.
2. [quote]You seem to discard evolution and think that haplotype/haplogroup diversity proves racial mixing -- showing that you have no clue of what they are. Protip: It's supposed to be this way. Or you think that alien haplogroup variation prove significant racial mixing? But that goes against your saying that there aren't any races. You're not fooling anyone intelligent with your neo-Marxist sophistry used for the fooling of uneducated masses. Does a few percent admixture make any significant difference and is sufficient for the abolition of the racial classification? No. In fact, saying people are in the slight racially mixed just further proves races. And let's give a bigger example. Does 20% white admixture in American blacks make them indistinguishable from white Americans -- both in appearance and social statistics? No.[/quote]
It seems that way to someone with such simple thinking, but the truth is...if evolution is manifesting itself it isn't in the form of race. This would make evolution and very weak force in the genetic adaptability of mankind if this were truly the case. This is one reason why alot of scientists say that your "race biology" is pseudo-science. The implications of The Bell Curve spell doom for all of mankind.
Secondly, I'm not questioning the existence of race. I'm questioning it's social, biological and political relevance. I'm questioning its overall relevance to intelligence, seeing as how intelligence fundamentally has no a priori definition. While "G" may show correlation to intelligence and success...so do alot of other factors. It doesn't show causation. Which, really is all that fucking matter here. Nevermind the fact that we still aren't exactly certain what "G" is in an a priori sense of the word.
As for how much difference these admixtures make...well I suppose that more depends who's asking and who's answering, doesn't it? I don't want the abolition of racial classification. The opposite. I think there are more of racial classes and sub-classes and history has shown us that it was only the last few hundred years where we great over-generalized race. "Whites" and "Blacks" and "Asians" are huge, huge, HUGE over-simplifications for what is going on genetically. The only reason this generalization is still taking place is for political reasons, liberal and conservative. If science and truth REALLY had it's way then there would many more classifications of race. Not the just arbitrary five or six that's has been doled out by our "masters".
Ok, now this where I'm done. The rebuttals to the rest of your posts can be found at the following links:
The traditional division of human races clearly corresponds with haplogroups. The Europid race makes up a distinct lineage, both from the paternal (F) and maternal (N) side, that originated in the Near East 45 000 years ago. Europeans are actually a special sub-race, because they are composed of three F-subbranches (R1a1, R1b, I) that were isolated from the rest of mankind for 20 000 years and are mutually connected by maternal lineages.
The groups traditionally classified as "Australoids" could be taken as separate races, because they separated from each other as early as 50-60 000 years ago. Again, they make up a distinct lineage (Y-haplogroup C, mtDNA haplogroup M).
The Mongoloid race is actually a racial mixture stabilized between 30-10 000 years ago in the Far East from two (Paleo)europid (N, O) and one Australoid (C3) lineage, whereas the C3 lineage was probably the original source of the phenotype.
American Indians should be taken as a separate race. Their traditional grouping with Mongolids is very dubious; they actually come from a Central Asian Q-lineage closely related to European Cro-Magnons (R1) that dwelled around the Altai mountains up to 20 000 B.P. Then a part of them headed north-east and took some Mongolid women during the way to America. Here they stayed largely isolated for at least 15 000 years. The remaining Q-people in Asia are today's Kets, Yukaghirs, Nivkhi and Selkups (albeit heavily mixed with N-Mongolids).
Already told you about Sub-Saharan Africa.
The original haplogroups of Ainu consist of a male lineage D and a female lineage Y. The male lineage D belongs to the M-168 group of (mostly) non-African haplogroups E, D, F, C that started to expand from Africa 60-70 000 years ago to Eurasia. D was probably the last one of them that left Africa. It is not anyhow closely related to the "Australoid" lineage C, but rather to the Y-haplogroup E that stayed in Africa. However, it is true that D went the same way like C (along the South-Asian coast). Curiously, it is also present in the Andamanese, some Central Asian nations and in Tibetans.
As for mtDNA haplogroup Y, it is, technically speaking, of Europoid origin, because it belongs to the predominantly Europid mtDNA macrohaplogroup N. How it actually got to East Asia, I don't know so far. It could be brought there by N/O-men 30 000 years ago from Central Asia, but it is not closely related to any mtDNA haplogroup that is currently tied with the presence of N and O in East Asia. As far as I know, it belongs to N9-lineage that also occurs in China, Tibet and in Altaians and Nivkhi. Since D is also present in the same regions, the N9 lineage was very probably an old maternal lineage of the Proto-Ainu, who crystalized somewhere in Northern China/Amur region, where the diversity of this mtDNA haplogroup is the highest.
1. Anything you've written about leftists, Marxism and the like. Accusing the opposition as being "leftists" is a tactic ranking right up there with McCarthyism in it's stupidity and inherent faggotry. Except that white nationalists have used this cop out since before the red scare, while seemingly ignoring the fact that in order to enact or express the political implications of your illogical and unrealistic beliefs you will basically *have* to give way to big government and socialism. Let's not forget that Nazi-era Germany (before the "burning of the jews") was not only fascist and corrupt but staunchly socialist. Any reference to your opposition being "lefties" who can't "face the reality of race" is instant fail. I can tell you first hand that those in control of this country are never going to give you what you think you want because it would be literally setting sail for fail for the entire human race. All races and genders. Genetically, Socially, Politically. I can pretty much promise you that even if you somehow gathered concrete proof- it would mean fuck all to anyone with enough power to control the masses.
I obviously mean modern leftism, spawned by the Frankfurt school. Anyone with half a brain can understand that.
The abolition of traditional racial classification has clearly (Neo-)Marxist political background and was motivated by perceived unsolvable interracial conflicts and social inequalities in many Western states. Hence it eventually turned out that it would be better to pretend that there exist no races at all. Modern Western science is, to an unacceptable extent, a political propaganda. This is clear both in genetics and in psychology, fields revealing unbridgeable racial differences that must be covered for the sake of current dominant ideology. Scientists, who don't have an unshakable scientific reputation, rather don't risk any affiliation with these findings, otherwise they could lose their job. They thus rather swim with the current, as it is usual in history.
If you are so nervous that racial classification may contain inaccuracies, then we can abolish all classifications in all animals. The traditional racial classification in humans was not artificial, but stemmed from genetic differences that were now largely confirmed by population genetics.
What the fuck are you on about with White Nationalism, big government and socialism? What enactment of *my* so called illogical and unrealistic beliefs? You're the fucking idiots who push for a dysgenic nanny state, not I. What's unrealistic about it? Why do you talk about Nazism and the so called 'burning of the Jews?' (Of course it's a rhetorical question, since I know why -- instead of dealing with the leftist roots of race denial in academia, you rant about Nazis) Their corruption, I lol'ed. What corruption? I don't think they had much of that, but then again, I don't have the necessary Pravda sources to prove it. Protip: I'm mostly a libertarian. I hate big government.
Any reference to your opposition being "lefties" who can't "face the reality of race" is instant fail.
Actually, it isn't. It's highly accurate.
Then you go rant about what I supposedly want. LOL. What the fuck? Where is your so called rebuttal of the implications of leftists, Marxism and the like? It's just like the rest of this post, pure drivel.
Also, what's with comments such as the 'human race'? What's that? Do you realise that If you don't cease with retarded leftist speech, I'll call on it. What's so hard to understand? Call it 'human species' or GTFO. It seems that way to someone with such simple thinking, but the truth is...if evolution is manifesting itself it isn't in the form of race.
Your opinion, you are entitled to it. Enjoy your freedom to be a retard. This would make evolution and very weak force in the genetic adaptability of mankind if this were truly the case.
Because you say so? Obviously. This is one reason why alot of scientists say that your "race biology" is pseudo-science.
Political correctness. Also, there are many that are starting to back away from race denial, especially with new evidence proving it every day, especially since recently. Regardless, I had proven my points in my replies to you. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=139378
Read this and weep. They acknowledge race. The implications of The Bell Curve spell doom for all of mankind.
For your worldview, yes. I'm sorry. Secondly, I'm not questioning the existence of race.
Why are you acting retarded, why did you say 'human race' etc. then?
Why did you say: This is one reason why alot of scientists say that your "race biology" is pseudo-science.
then?
Flip flopping around the issue with contradictory statements, nice. Either that or you don't believe in science. I'm questioning it's social, biological and political relevance.
As you well know by now, it's quite high, due to the heritability described in my second response post. I'm questioning its overall relevance to intelligence, seeing as how intelligence fundamentally has no a priori definition.
Keep pretending to ignore it. While "G" may show correlation to intelligence and success...so do alot of other factors. It doesn't show causation. Which, really is all that fucking matter here.
It's 'g' and it does show correlation and that's enough. Get a fucking clue. BAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW it doesn't matter.
It fucking matters. Nevermind the fact that we still aren't exactly certain what "G" is in an a priori sense of the word.
Read some books/articles about 'g' then, or at least what's described in studies and the Wikipedia article on it. Your ignorance is not my problem, not that I did not expect it. As for how much difference these admixtures make...well I suppose that more depends who's asking and who's answering, doesn't it?
What? No, it depends on genealogical DNA tests. I don't want the abolition of racial classification.
But you said that This is one reason why alot of scientists say that your "race biology" is pseudo-science. The opposite. I think there are more of racial classes and sub-classes and history has shown us that it was only the last few hundred years where we great over-generalized race.
You think is a good word. If you stated it as any other than an opinion I would have to call you a moron. "Whites" and "Blacks" and "Asians" are huge, huge, HUGE over-simplifications for what is going on genetically.
Nope. The only reason this generalization is still taking place is for political reasons, liberal and conservative. If science and truth REALLY had it's way then there would many more classifications of race. Not the just arbitrary five or six that's has been doled out by our "masters".
You're delusional.
The Bell Curve
See my earlier posts. The book was not debunked in any way. Just because angry leftists whine and cry, doesn't mean the data or conclusions get disproved. Also, see response No.2. Same fallacy used again. Thirdly, we are talking about the socio-economic data I used. Where has there even been an attempted rebuttal of that? I see the conclusions being questioned, not the data itself which was never challenged. Fail. This shows you're a de facto fucking idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence (THE ARGUMENT NEVER FUCKING ENDS)
BAWWWWWWWWW, so doesn't Atheism v Christianity et al.
The argument never ends only in the deranged mind of the leftist. Again, see my earlier response post. Also, Wikipedia tends to paint 'facts' from a leftist perspective. It is heritable, determined genetically and hard to change unless you have problems such as malnutrition, illiteracy... Do you dispute that or not? If so, let me see your data.
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/15/12/2025
Yeah, so? Two gene variants previously implicated in the evolution of human brain size apparently don't influence brain volumes in people today. How is that related to what I say? I assume you took this link from Wikipedia. Did you bother to read it, or if you did, did you understand it or not?
tl;dr You're fucking clueless, you haven't rebutted a thing I said, all the things you restated here are already answered in my two part response to you, and this post is essentially content-less. You are right, you ARE trolling me. Thanks for the early warning I guess. Protip to myself: I should have just linked my 2 earlier response posts again.
Name:
LordRiordan2007-10-01 14:22 ID:tneOgtHf
>>126
Human race and human species are interchangeable terms you half-wit.
I haven't been reading the entirety of the thread; however, that is not necessary to sum up the one thing that is known to be true. There are genetic differences between races that often include bone-structure, skin color, and muscle percentage type. It is too hard to measure 'intelligence' due to the effect culture has on people. Right now, for the average black(and now mexican and a lot of white), their culture sucks and promotes being retarded.
Physical brain size has no correlation to intelligence.
Evolutionary order has nothing to do with intelligence.
Also, even if Blacks in general were genetically less capable to do math/science functions, it doesn't mean they don't have some other part of their brain that functions better on average.
So, in short, with culture effecting lab results, there is no way to be sure on this subject. So shut the fuck up and stop arguing about something you can't possibly know or argue to a conclusion about.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-01 15:01 ID:RtKB6dv1
>>127
I'd reply later, but it would be just summing up my earlier posts (they're among the last, so you could read them for yourself without the whole thread)
Also, even if Blacks in general were genetically less capable to do math/science functions, it doesn't mean they don't have some other part of their brain that functions better on average.
That has nothing to do with reality, and you can observe Blacks with your own eyes. They suck at everything. This is wishful thinking at best, and your forcing them to be equal in your mind.
So, in short, with culture effecting lab results, there is no way to be sure on this subject. So shut the fuck up and stop arguing about something you can't possibly know or argue to a conclusion about.
Culture does very little to change IQ test results. It's inheritable, determined genetically by at least 70% and hard to change unless you have problems such as malnutrition, illiteracy... Check my other posts.
I will make another post with IQ tests.
But for now, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
Cya.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-01 15:02 ID:RtKB6dv1
>>127
Also, human race is not the same as human species. Races = subspecies or subdivision of species. Only race deniers interchange it like morons.
Human Race (From the dictionary)
all of the living human inhabitants of the earth; "all the world loves a lover"; "she always used 'humankind' because 'mankind' seemed to slight the women"
Human Species (Homo Sapien) = All humans
Brain mass and volume are different things. Those with a heavier brain, more neurons and more connections, will be able to perform better in whatever areas their brain is more developed in. A larger skull/brain doesn't necessarily mean there are more connections and have a higher intelligence. It also matters where mass is more concentrated inside the brain... more so than it's average weight.
Blacks do not suck at everything. There is a supposed difference in muscle type composition that allows them to have better performance in some physical activities.
The IQ test was formulated using random people and thus represents the IQ of everyone including blacks. More studies are needed that duplicate the results in order to have any standing.
Take some biological psychology, read a dictionary, and gtfo.
I obviously mean modern leftism, spawned by the Frankfurt school. Anyone with half a brain can understand that.
I don't give a shit what you mean or what you think you mean, cockbrain. I'm going by what was implictly stated within your posts.
Modern Western science is, to an unacceptable extent, a political propaganda.
And this convientantly excludes any of flakey methodology or "faux-research" (Correlation is Causatation LULZ) used to prop up your antiquated world views?
This is clear both in genetics and in psychology, fields revealing unbridgeable racial differences that must be covered for the sake of current dominant ideology. Scientists, who don't have an unshakable scientific reputation, rather don't risk any affiliation with these findings, otherwise they could lose their job. They thus rather swim with the current, as it is usual in history.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is just like when black people scream: "The man is keeping me down." It's sad and shows a lack of responsibility for your own ignorance. The truth is pretty clean cut and like I said, the world is far too connected and complicated (and FREE!) now to politically express your views the way you desire. Whites are never going to have their own land to themselves, people are going to still be treated on merit, etc. If you don't like it, leave the west.
If you are so nervous that racial classification may contain inaccuracies, then we can abolish all classifications in all animals. The traditional racial classification in humans was not artificial, but stemmed from genetic differences that were now largely confirmed by population genetics.
We are not mere animals and population genetic sample a mere continuum. They hold no bearing on how to treat or classify individuals within a general population.
What the fuck are you on about with White Nationalism, big government and socialism? What enactment of *my* so called illogical and unrealistic beliefs? You're the fucking idiots who push for a dysgenic nanny state, not I. What's unrealistic about it? Why do you talk about Nazism and the so called 'burning of the Jews?' (Of course it's a rhetorical question, since I know why -- instead of dealing with the leftist roots of race denial in academia, you rant about Nazis) Their corruption, I lol'ed. What corruption? I don't think they had much of that, but then again, I don't have the necessary Pravda sources to prove it. Protip: I'm mostly a libertarian. I hate big government.
What don't you elucidate on how you would like your current beliefs to be politically expressed then? Because alot of the data presented here is regurgitated from Nazi-era german science. Also, it's common fact that Hitler took Germany by force and ultra-socialist ideology. "Night of the Long Knives" mean anything to you? Any where are you getting my desire for a "nanny state" from? I'm pretty much an modern anarchist (Libertarianism is for pussies) so I'd like to see what correlation (lulz@1!!) you're going to draw here.
Human race and species are interchangable and me making such a state does not mean that I don't see race as a potential classifier. It's an irrelevant classification, but still a classification nonetheless.
I SAID: "It seems that way to someone with such simple thinking, but the truth is...if evolution is manifesting itself it isn't in the form of race.
YOU SAID: "Your opinion, you are entitled to it. Enjoy your freedom to be a retard.
I SAID: "This would make evolution and very weak force in the genetic adaptability of mankind if this were truly the case.
YOU SAID: "Because you say so? Obviously."
I SAID: "The opposite. I think there are more of racial classes and sub-classes and history has shown us that it was only the last few hundred years where we great over-generalized race. "Whites" and "Blacks" and "Asians" are huge, huge, HUGE over-simplifications for what is going on genetically."
YOU SAID: "NOPE! NOPE! I'M A BIG FAG.
FINALLY: Feel free to rebuff any of my conjectures using hard data. Humanity's strength comes for genetic diversity. If one race "won out" (whatever that means) above all others and were the only ones left- we'd die out and become as incapable of surviving in our environment as the Ashkanazi Jew. (As sickly as they are). The samples of the greater genetic continnum we use to deter certain races is politically used by the left and the right. "Whites" didn't exist as "one genetic race" until the 16 hundred when no hard science was done to determine so. All this shit is common knowledge. I'm done with this discussion for now. You need google in your life, seriously.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-02 20:10 ID:ySpnEfsI
>>131
Thank you for offering rebuttals to the trailer-dwelling rednecks.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-02 20:53 ID:+7DWdQFb
OP = fucking retard.
thread premise = pseudo scientific bullshit.
thanks for your time.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-02 20:55 ID:+7DWdQFb
Oh, and the genetic differences between all people? Less than the variation in domestic dogs. More than almost any species on Earth, humans are ALL ALIKE.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-02 21:58 ID:Wk4KVluu
wrong, african's have much smaller frontal lobes, that explains why they always kill us, aboriginals have far advanced memory than anyone else, yet they suck everywhere else
frontal lobes? lulz. that doesn't mean shit. if you set up a society where you assume that i'm always going to kill you, so i should be denying equal rights and social standing, then you shouldn't be surprised if i actually decide that killing is all there is for me. hate makes hate
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-05 17:43
Sorry for the delay.
>>130
The 'human race' meaning human species -- LOL. While it has been used for other non-scientific intents and purposes, in this discussion it only displays ignorance. You can use 'human races' (note the s) as a replacement for 'human species' but using 'human race' for defining the human species is as bad as saying 'dog breed' is for all of the 'Canis lupus familiaris.' Your usage just indicates a lame attempt of race denial, especially in the midst of a discussion on race. If you think race is irrelevant, you should just fucking say human species. Human Race (From the dictionary)
Your dictionary seems to be an unreliable source. http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/human_race http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human+race
Either way, I explained why it is wrong. 4chan board != all of 4chan etc.
Blacks do not suck at everything. There is a supposed difference in muscle type composition that allows them to have better performance in some physical activities.
Huh? We were talking about intelligence, not physical activities (which a cheetah can do better). This is a non-sequitur. But I agree with your point, and that is obviously because of racial differences.
The IQ test was formulated using random people and thus represents the IQ of everyone including blacks. More studies are needed that duplicate the results in order to have any standing.
You have to be joking. Read the link again. It wasn't. LOL.
More IQ test studies are due once people accept my earlier points about IQ and so on. Spoiler: They essentially show the same order, as you well know. :-)
Take some biological psychology, read a dictionary, and gtfo.
Actually, NO U.
- >>131 >>132
You have yet again done nothing to debunk my points, just showed your ignorance.
I talk about current DNA (!) studies, and you claim: Because alot of the data presented here is regurgitated from Nazi-era german science.
This alone should show most people (excluding rednecks like >>132) how ignorant you are.
Protip: Check the studies I linked earlier, it should answer all your on-topic questions.
- >>134 Oh, and the genetic differences between all people? Less than the variation in domestic dogs.
Haha, typical Gould bullshit.
1) First of all, dogs show more variation in size, appearance, and behaviour than any other animal subspecies.
2) Dogs evolved DIFFERENTLY THAN HUMANS (in case you don't know, dogs have a single ancestral species, the gray wolf) through artificial human selection rather than natural selection. They have thus escaped its pressures, hence 1).
3) They have suffered severe inbreeding due to artificial, selective breeding, because of 2) thus leading to 1).
4) Dog breeds (and they ARE classified as breeds), as of late, can be identified by DNA tests with high accuracy. Dog breeds differ in behaviour heavily, and it is well known, as I said earlier. So I don't really see your overall point.
You should have known these things if you went through high school, really (Maybe not 4) though).
-
When >>116 said: If you're impressed by this display you need to LURK MOAR. Better arguments than this have been presently more eloquently and defeated far more soundly.
I thought I would enter a proper debate. Seems not. Can anyone link me the older discussion? Seems interesting. I agree with him on the 'far more soundly' bit, since he prefers to talk about Nazis and minutiae rather than race. Protip: What the Nazis supposedly did does not change science.
Name:
Black Cotton2007-10-05 21:46
The thing with stupid racists is they dont take into consideration the type of education black people in those areas are getting. This is why their IQs are low retard, in white ares of Africa the schools are good because they are rich. In black areas the shcools suck because everybody so damn poor. Learn to love asshole
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 5:59
>>138
And the thing with stupid Marxists/Creationists is that they deny evolution and ignore all the posts ITT.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 8:42
>>139
And the thing with stupid fucking rednecks is that they're trailer-dwelling KKK member pieces of shit.
Fail harder.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 8:52
>>140
And the thing with stupid Marxists/Creationists is that they assume anyone who has a clue about evolutionary biology is a member of the KKK and thus an American (I am ignorant of KKK ever operating in Europe) even though it's pretty obvious I use British English like any European.
Keep reading Gould, a man laughed at by almost everyone in academia who was thoroughly and severely debunked on several occasion, and fail harder Marxist/Creationist.
Ad hominems are not rebuttals, redneck.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 19:27
ya blacks are dumb lol k.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 20:00
>>137
What don't you elucidate on how you would like your current beliefs to be politically expressed then?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 20:11
>>143
A distinct lack of Marxism in politics, media and academia.
So do you imply I said that Marx was Black? How did you form that conclusion? You have to let me in on this, it must be the superior leftist logic I keep hearing about. So, we had this going: What don't you elucidate on how you would like your current beliefs to be politically expressed then? A distinct lack of Marxism in politics, media and academia.
And all of a sudden! So, wait. Marx was Black?
It truly must be the superior leftist intellect at work.
In case you did not imply I said that Marx was Black, I require a really good justification for your question. It must be really fun debating like a retard. I think I'm going to try to role-play a Marxist sometime, the typical Marxist appeal to ignorance malarkey looks fun in a debate.
You're making this too easy and you're making yourself out to be quite the faggot.
What I meant was, what does all that shit about genetics and blacks being inferior have to do with Marxism? Am I to believe that the opposite of Marxism is a policy of natural racial superiority by whites? How will calling black people niggers and shutting them out of society due to their assumed and percieved "natural inferiority" defeat Marxism?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 18:50
>>149 You're making this too easy and you're making yourself out to be quite the faggot.
Actually, you are making it too easy. You diverted from the race debate (not that I expect proper debates from leftists, mind you), and are now arguing about other things. Policy is irrelevant to science, and should not taint it like Marxists did.
What I meant was, what does all that shit about genetics and blacks being inferior have to do with Marxism?
The race denial movement is rooted in Marxism/neo-Marxism, and its constant appeals to ignorance: There was no definitive information about race, even though it was pretty much established, so they spread unfounded doubt on it. It's the same modus operandi as Creationists. 'We haven't discovered everything in the world yet, so we can't be sure that we aren't wrong.' This is utterly disgusting, frivolous and retarded.
I wanted to give insight on the race denial movement, but then you carried on about the three posts you copy-pasted from another thread (link it by the way). Now you're going to have to deal with my posts first.
As for the reason why Marxists do it, it's part of their dogma: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
So basically their religion tells them to deny everything else as a cause, and blame 'socio-economic factors' and the White Conspiracy for Black failure. Am I to believe that the opposite of Marxism is a policy of natural racial superiority by whites?
Am I to believe that Marxists can debate without straw man? How will calling black people niggers and shutting them out of society due to their assumed and percieved "natural inferiority" defeat Marxism?
Guess not. Straw man, fear tactics etc.
tl;dr You still failed to debate my posts pertaining to IQ and genetics. Stop your diversions and prove them wrong with your sound, superior leftist logic.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 21:49
"Niggers" are not dumb, people is dumb, including "niggers"
An etnical group can be seen as "dumber" than another due to socio-cultural and economical diferences.
-
Evil is Just a point of view.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 23:36
You know, something I've noticed about the racists here who love to denounce liberals is how they, like all other crackpots, only care about one or a few factors that support their beliefs while ignoring all others.
I couldn't stand to read the whole thread, but I haven't seen a single mention of the different cultural environments in the habitats of different races or the different standards of education (hint HINT?). Of course an African who got inferior education to that of people in developed nations will score lower on an IQ test. The reputation of the families of certain Asians depends on their excellence. That's a lot of pressure compared to what their occidental counterparts face, and affects their attitudes toward education and intellectualism.
You can't claim testing people living in entirely different worlds as far as culture goes is controlled well enough to matter. Show me a study involving many individuals of different ethnicities living highly similar lives (treated the same by peers - no racial bias, they take the same paths in life rather than pitting a black professional athlete against a white physicist, etc.) while still proving an intelligence discrepancy.
I'm not diverting from anything. I'm very clear with what I'm saying, you're just skirting around the issue because you know what the end result is. (Eugenic Fascism, Socialism, Big Government, etc)
If you interpret the genetic data to indicate that blacks are inferior, then how do you believe they should be treated socially, culturally and politically? As equals? Or less than? Or should they just be "left to their own devices" as the rest of the world runs roughshod over them as it has to "all genetic inferiors"? What precisely, should the effects of the your interpretation of the data be on human society?
And please, cut it out with the Marxism stuff. People here aren't responding to it not because they are secretly Marxist who don't want to be outed, but because you really do seem to arguing past us and not with us.
Finally, accusing me of not addressing your interpretation of the data presented in aforementioned posts is pretty laughable given that I laced all of that up fairly well in replies >>124 and especially in >>131.
Agreed, but it's hard to explain to those who correlate this data to mean something absolute that real research allows for all variables and factors and deal more with cause- not correlations.
It's difficult arguing with these people because they are the loudest while at the same time being the most ignorant. Listen: We know you don't know the difference the moment you start crying about Marx and the more irrational you get about arguments (which you ignore as "blaming whitey") that have debunked your shit years before this thread.
I also think one thing with those who believe in racial superiority (as opposed to the racial classification) take for granted is that we currently do not live in a meritocratic society based on Darwinism by any means.
The leaders of our world are sociopaths who, in actuality, owe alot of their success to lack of moral indignation and exploiting their fellow man- which, frankly- you don't really need to be the smartest or the strongest to do.
The idea that the world in it's current state is Darwinism at full force is extremely laughable. Which makes all of the implications of racial superiority sub-atomically retarded.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-09 3:14
An IQ test is a standard score and how you compare to it.
Standardized you fuckers.
Take statistics. It has nothing to do with how educated people are because the results that everyone is tested by include dumb fucktards already.
Name:
LordRiordan2007-10-09 3:33
*Yawn*
Human species and human race refer to the same group of people you ignorant shit head. Human race can refer to both a particular group of people or the entire species. They are interchangeable.
My point about intelligence is that you cannot properly quantify it. I was talking about physical abilities because it is another type of intelligence.
Your junk science about brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. Neurological connections/super highways and density are more precedent. It also depends on where that density is and what functions it serve.
I'm an atheist, an anarchist and a nihilist. One thing you are not: A scientist. This has been debated to death already. You fail. Those who came before you fail. Those who come after you, shall also fail.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 5:19
Also, stop being a huge soaking wet faggot and respond to the following.
Admit that you want socialism and fascism to help you keep niggers "in their place".
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 5:54
>>167 I'm an atheist, an anarchist and a nihilist.
According to you. You believe in the dogma of racial equality though, so how do you explain that? One thing you are not: A scientist.
No, I'm not, your point being? This has been debated to death already. You fail.
As I read the thread, I do not think your side has debated at all, you just trolled around with fallacies and incorrect, unbacked assumptions. Your side claims that intelligence is not "measurable," which is like another poster has pointed out, old and disproved bullshit. Current psychometrics holds that "g" (general intelligence) is real, and only very few people have challenged it, like Gould (who has been debunked easily). Most of academia accepts and supports "g."
Not surprisingly, you have not posted any studies to prove your point, other people did for theirs.
Furthermore, to say that IQ is not highly heritable is at best laughable. You'd have to be totally clueless to think that, or say "correlation is not causation" in this case.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Craig, I. W., & McGuffin, P. (2003). Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & McGuffin, P. (2001). Behavioral genetics (4th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
These recent studies put it at 80%, easily. Those who came before you fail. Those who come after you, shall also fail.
I know, it is impossible to debate religious people.
>>168 Not sure what you mean, I just came here. My posts ITT are are >>164,>>166 and >>169. Fail more faggot. But to respond to your request, I won't admit it because I don't want it. I live in an almost nigger-free country, thankfully.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 6:03
These recent studies put it at 80%, easily.
I should add, so you don't get any ideas:
It is 80% in adulthood, where it matters.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 20:42
wow i can't believe my thread is still going strong, advantage whites!!!
You still fail. Racial inequality is just as dogmatic as Racial equality. Nothing that you say matters, because it's not proven casually in nature as (like I said before) we do not live in a Darwinsitic society based on Meritocracy and we haven't for a good 2000 years.
You rail against Marxist fascism and Socialism, meanwhile those very concepts are what are needed to preserve a "racially unequal" society, which, apparently is your utopia. What you want, is for people to be judged based on this quaint notion of "g". Sorry, faggot, Kurt Vonnegut pointed out the latent faggotry in that ideal in "Player Piano." -- Your old shit is old and still shitty.
As for me? I care about this in the same way I care about some 10 year old kids wrestling close to any of my expensive shit. I don't care why you're fighting or what you believe in at this point, seeing as that as far as I'm concerned anyone who puts too much emphasis on something they had no control over for their "identity" is a rube waiting to get taken advantage of, or taken out if the game of life completely. This is how my fellow sociopaths who control this world look at it and you'll do well to realize it as the reason you struggle day in and day out.
If I'm not making money or deriving happiness from it and you're putting my shit in jeopardy, then I'll be forced to (A) Point out the irrationality of your actions and hope that'll keep your from fucking too much shit up. Or (B) Use your stupidity to my advantage at the expense of your ideals and maybe even your life.
Furthermore, the studies you listed prove nothing and there's numerous articles on google, wikipedia, in scientific journals that chalk "g" up to environmental factors as well as genetic. The matter, unless something more absolute is presented, will always be up opinion and what political beliefs you want the science to support. You're not fooling anyone by crying "science science science". You started calling black people "niggers" long before you looked up the inheritability of IQ. I know it, the other posters here know, and deep down you know it.
There's a reason why when other posters ask you what social or political changes you seek from the interpretation of the data that you continue to ignore the question or answer with vague terms and nebulous calls to arms.
I just found out my school has Lexus Nexus. I could post some articles from actual science journals in support. But I get this feeling it's like arguing with creationists in that no matter the evidence it won't be enough and they'll just start siting White Civil Rights or what not.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-11 7:41
>>172 You still fail.
Only in your twisted mind. I cannot change that, obviously, I can only ridicule you with science. Racial inequality is just as dogmatic as Racial equality.
That's just as saying evolution is just as dogmatic as creationism. I can show studies, and you "refute" it in your mind with whining. Nothing that you say matters, because it's not proven casually in nature as (like I said before) we do not live in a Darwinsitic society based on Meritocracy and we haven't for a good 2000 years.
That is irrelevant to my post and this thread.
Readers should note how the egalitarian brings politics into this when there should be studies proving his point. You rail against Marxist fascism and Socialism, meanwhile those very concepts are what are needed to preserve a "racially unequal" society, which, apparently is your utopia.
Again, whining about irrelevant politics. As for Marxism, Fascism and Socialism being needed to preserve a "racially unequal society", I lol'ed heartily. Marxism and Socialism helping racial inequality? HAHAHAHAHA. This creationist probably thinks natural selection came with a government system. What you want, is for people to be judged based on this quaint notion of "g".
Again, spreading doubt about "g." It is widely accepted in academia and no one in their right mind denies it. I don't care about your morality-based shortcomings on it. They have to do with your ideology rather than science. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf
Read these, especially the second one where it explains g in layman terms. Just be clear, what you're saying is that psychometrics is essentially a lie (based on moral reasons)? Sorry, faggot, Kurt Vonnegut pointed out the latent faggotry in that ideal in "Player Piano." -- Your old shit is old and still shitty.
Tell me you are fucking joking. As for me? I care about this in the same way I care about some 10 year old kids wrestling close to any of my expensive shit. I don't care why you're fighting or what you believe in at this point, seeing as that as far as I'm concerned anyone who puts too much emphasis on something they had no control over for their "identity" is a rube waiting to get taken advantage of, or taken out if the game of life completely. This is how my fellow sociopaths who control this world look at it and you'll do well to realize it as the reason you struggle day in and day out.
Politics, politics, politics. If I'm not making money or deriving happiness from it and you're putting my shit in jeopardy, then I'll be forced to (A) Point out the irrationality of your actions and hope that'll keep your from fucking too much shit up. Or (B) Use your stupidity to my advantage at the expense of your ideals and maybe even your life.
Same reply as above. Furthermore, the studies you listed prove nothing and there's numerous articles on google, wikipedia, in scientific journals that chalk "g" up to environmental factors as well as genetic.
Are you trying to be funny or is that a real argument? I never said "g" is solely determined by genetics. I just looked again at >>169 , the post you are responding to, to make sure I did not make a mistake. Guess what... :-) The matter, unless something more absolute is presented, will always be up opinion and what political beliefs you want the science to support. You're not fooling anyone by crying "science science science".
That's just what Creationists say, and it's called "argument from ignorance." From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance): * Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true. * Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
But that's despite all the recent evidence against them. You started calling black people "niggers" long before you looked up the inheritability of IQ. I know it, the other posters here know, and deep down you know it.
Huh? That's funny, now you're starting with conspiracy theories.
This being my 4th post in this thread, all I can wish you is "9/11 Truth!" :-) There's a reason why when other posters ask you what social or political changes you seek from the interpretation of the data that you continue to ignore the question or answer with vague terms and nebulous calls to arms.
And there is a reason why scientific research should be free from politics. What the fuck is your point? As for the data I'm ignoring, yeah, like there's a lot of data to ignore coming from you. Moralism is not data, you fucking retard.
Your post, despite what >>173 claims, was hardly "great" because you had no data to back it up. Fail more creationist.
>>173
Please go on, but isn't Lexis Nexis (sp? -- I think mine is right) more related to law than anything else? Either way, do it. As for arguing with me being like arguing with creationists, are you kidding? You're part of the retards saying that evolution just decided to skip affecting people's cognitive abilities when they moved from Africa to a completely different environment, so some 21st century faggots' egalitarian ideology wouldn't lose it's credibility.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-11 8:57
You guys are completely full of shit.
First off, IQ doesn't directly relate to future job prospects. Education helps, but not as much as having the skillset your boss actually wants. Even then, many people do get on very well without multiple degrees or any higher education at all (especially the skilled trades like HVAC (the guy who fixes your air conditioner), electricians, carpenters, etc. If fact it's somewhat common and even cliche to find a person with degrees (up to pHD in some cases -- and you can't get a pHD with an IQ of 70-) how work essentially dead end jobs.
Secondly, the IQ test is based on an outdated model of intelligence. The test measures your ability to do basic mathematical skills and skill with analogies. That isn't the definition of intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to adapt to a new situation, to come up to a problem that you've never seen before and figure out the solution. The test measures specific skills, and moreover, the more you practice those specific skills, the better you get. Just like any other set of skills.
This is one of the big problems that AI runs across. You can "teach" a computer AI specific skills, but even if a computer can learrn from mistakes, it can't adapt to a completely new situation. Big Blue can learn how to play a great chess game. It wouldn't have a clue about even a simple game of monopoly unless the machine was reprogrammed. It would fail at Halo for the same reason -- you're asking it to adapt to a new situation without first telling it exactly what to expect. So even if I could program a computer to ace any IQ test I throw at it, that doesn't mean that it's intelligent, just that it has that particular skill.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-11 9:22
Hey, >>175 . Please read the two PDFs linked in >>174 .
YOU SAID: That's just as saying evolution is just as dogmatic as creationism. I can show studies, and you "refute" it in your mind with whining.
Anything can be dogmatic if there's a political reason or bias behind it. Why you continue to believe you have no political bias or agenda pertaining to your interpretation of the data presented is just "cute" at this point. Clearly people are supposed to do something with this so-called truth you think you've uncovered. Why don't you stop mincing around and tell us what? Because numerous people here have shown you studies that refute your bias and you've displayed cognitive dissonance over and over.
It's also very interesting that you think the fact that we haven't lived in a full-on Darwinistic and Meritocratic society for the last 2000 years is irrelevant to the ideal that certain races are "naturally inferior" due to the process of evolution. Is it only irrelevant because it basically nullifies the relevance of your interpretation of the data you tout as absolute truth? Please explain why Darwin and Meritocracies have nothing to do with genetic intelligence or your supposed "evolution at work".
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-11 13:00
Did I say that *g* doesn't exist? That isn't what I'm saying at all. *G* exists, but considering that we have no fucking idea what *g* is, we can't measure it.
What we're good at is what is called *weak AI* -- we can teach a machine how to learn to play chess, however we have no idea how a machine could be made to learn everything. We've been faking it.
A Biological Assumption - That at some level people operate in a digital manner
A Psychological Assumption - All thought is calculation
An Epistemological Assumption - That all knowledge can be formalized
An Ontological Assumption - That our world is comprised of context-free facts
That's the way we think about intelligence. But it doesn't work that way in the real world. You don't make decisions based on algebra, most of the time you do what's called lateral thinking -- you go to a solution that can't be thought out in pure logic. And not everything we know can be (strictly speaking) formalized. I can't give you the formal logic of how to write a song. It doesn't exist.
Yet that's what the IQ test tries to measure. It makes the assumption that being able to quickly find the word that completes an analogy, or the shape that doesn't fit necessarily means that the person in question has a high *g*. I don't think it does. As I said before, IQ tests don't measure *g*, they measure skills that the test makers believe corelates to *g*. I think intelligence is a lot harder to define and measure. If we really knew how intelligence works, we should be able to explain how to built a strong AI that can reason just as well as any human.
>>178
But that isn't how g is measured. G is just the first factor extracted from any large heterogeneous collection of measures. That's the beauty of g - it isn't dependent on the measures or any specific item or type of item. G works best at a predictor when the thing it's predicting is cognitively complex. But, it's vague.
Someone who consistently scores high on highly g-loaded tests won't necessarily be able to write a beautiful song. Creative accomplishments such as that are probably born out of a perfect storm of intelligence (something like g), motivation, experience, and some chance. However, someone with high levels of g would probably perform better at a cognitively complex task or occupation than someone who consistently performs poorly on highly g-loaded tests.
Still, measuring traits and making predictions from them on an individual level is next to impossible right now. There is too much measurement error. This isn't a brick wall, it is just the current state of things. Over time, psychological traits will be mapped on to physiological and neurological patterns, and things might change.
Right now, knowing the mean of certain traits of large groups is useful in predicting related outcomes. However, even the best groups of predictors can only capture about 50% of the variance in outcomes. G is probably the best predictor for a variety of occupational, social, and interpersonal outcomes, but it's not perfect by any means. It captures the largest proportion of variance, but it still misses a lot.
The annoying thing about these debates is that most people who are passionate about the subject don't understand this and think that g predicts everything or nothing, when it is actually somewhere in between, and it works best on the group level. It's a controversial topic that people on both sides love to hijack for their own agenda, when the people actually working in the field understand (usually) that this is a muddy area and there is still a lot of work to be done.
Be skeptical of anyone who says something like "intelligence has been debunked" or "intelligence has been proven". No reasonable scientist would say anything like that. If you feel very strongly about your position in this area, I encourage you to read more, but avoid reading any books meant for the public. Read peer-reviewed articles. Read the responses to those articles. Read articles by people you hate. Replicate their analyses. Report your results. Otherwise, shut up.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-12 4:18
oh, I'm sure it had nothing to do with white people breeding dumb and strong niggas for 150 years.