Proof niggers are dumb (IQ, brain size etc)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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)

Heres a link to the article http://www.eugenics.net/papers/rushton.html

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

#5 I saw that show too, I can't explain that unfortunately

>>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.

>>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.

>>7
Facepalm.jpg

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution_and_Behavior
Findings are in the book itself. Don't whine about wikipedia, and I don't have the book with me. It's just copypasta.
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf (short version of the book here)

>>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.

>>9
>>10
>>11
Right on.

IM NOT GOING TO DEBATE THIS IM JUST GOING TO REPEAT FALLACIES FROM THIS LIST HERE PROVIDED FOR ME BY MY JEWISH MASTERS SO I DON'T HAVE TO THINK

>>13
That's a good boy.

intelligence tests don't measure your IQ, they measure how good you are at taking intelligence tests

>>16 it's useful, on average, to see that there are racial differences. Only wishful thinking people deny that.

>>15
………………..,-~’`¯lllllll`~,
…………..,-~*lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯*-,
………,-~llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll-,
……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\
….;`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~~-,llllllllllllllllllll\
…..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
…...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..~-~-,…(.(¯*,`,
…….\llllllllllll,-~…………………)_-\..`*;..)
……..\,-*¯,*)…………,-~*`~.………….../
……...|/.../…/~,…...-~,-~`;……………./.\
……../.../…/…/..,-,..~,.`~……………....\
…….|.../…/…/.*...\...……………………)….)¯~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)*~-,……….../….|..)…~-,
……/./.../…,*-,…..-,…*….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯``*~-
…...(……….)*~-,….`.,-~.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\
…….*-,…….*-,...~,..``.,,,-……….|.,...,*…|…...\
……….*,………-,…)-,…………..,-*...,-*….(`-,…………\
..............f-,………-,/…-,___,,-~….,-*……|…`-,..

>>15
What factors other than intelligence affect how well you do at IQ tests?

Memorization

Cognitive, metacognitive and visual skills.

ITT Racists need their own biologist (Richard Lynn) to explain away years and years of peer reviewed evidence contrary to their beliefs.

>>21
 WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN

>>21
Hah? Show me one piece of evidence of racial equality. One.
>>22
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

>>21
Also, see >>12

>>21

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.

Frank Salter too.

Also, http://www.springerlink.com/content/t0844nw244473143/
Case closed, I hope.

>>25

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]"

>>25
Why isn't that happenning?

>>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.

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.

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.

>>29

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.

>>23

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.

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.

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.

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.

>>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.

100 is supposed to be a mean intelligent quotient. Yet EVERYONE it seems claims to have an IQ of 150-180.

>>38
Anonymous power? ;)
Who claimed that anyway?

40GET!