In this thread:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1181614826/45#45

DT, AN and sprint implied (or stated explicitly) that certain races are inherently (ie genetically) inferior and have a lower IQ. This is not true and is based on prejudice rather than evidence. Where IQ differences have been detected, they have been small and attributable to cultural influences on the test. They have always been insignificant compared to the variation in IQ within a group.

Hi freediver - to repeat my question.
How do YOU account for the list of standards of living I posted ?

By referring you to Jared Diamond's book, "Guns, Germs and Steel"

Because they are the second most stupid race on earth.  I wasnt going to mention Abo's  first but now that you've mentioned it-  The Aboriginal people of Australia are the most backwards people on earth.

My family employs aboriginal people. They are some of the best employees. Your claim is based on prejudice, not fact.

Nothing wrong with recognising a gene that somehow proves that maori's are more prone to violence.

But it doesn't prove that.

The European, Aboriginal and African races are separated by thousands of years of evolution. Pretty big gap between us.

They are not separated, and thousands of years is not significant in evolutionary terms.

I don't particularly think Aboriginals have very civilised genes. IQ differences...

What IQ differences? Are you just making this up DT?

thanks for not answering my question freediver .

It was "How do YOU account for the list of standards of living I posted ?  "
This is the 3rd time.

Sprint, I'm thinking of putting up a book review on my home page, with some details of the concepts outlined in the book. There is too much detail to go into here, but some of the reasons include the presence of many suitable crops and livestock in a form already suited to agriculture, the presence of large tracts of land in an east-west corridor, geographical fragmentation and a head start in creating and adapting to new diseases. If you want more details, read the book. It is really interesting.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 1:11pm:

thanks for not answering my question freediver . It was "How do YOU account for the list of standards of living I posted ?  " This is the 3rd time.

sprint, so r u saying that Europeans have higher IQ's because they have a higher standard of living?

well, the list u posted is countries with the highest living standard today, not of all time - if u go back further in history (say between the 9th to 15th century), the Middle East and Asian had higher standards of living and Europe was in the Dark Ages.

so does that mean back then, Europeans had a lower IQ? or that they had a superior IQ (due to genetics - as some of u claim) but were poorer for other reasons?

Quote:

Europeans have higher IQ's because they have a higher standard of living?

Europeans have a higher standard of living because of their IQ.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 2:32pm:

Quote: Europeans have higher IQ's because they have a higher standard of living? Europeans have a higher standard of living because of their IQ.

Europeans have a higher standard of living now, but not always - there were times in history where the Middle East & Asia were better off.

so what happened back when Europe was poorer? did they have a lower IQ or were they poor for other reasons?

Quote:

well, the list u posted is countries with the highest living standard today, not of all time - if u go back further in history (say between the 9th to 15th century), the Middle East and Asian had higher standards of living and Europe was in the Dark Ages.

And we pulled ourselves out of it didnt we. The middle east and asia fell way behind us, and have only caught up late last century because of our help.


Quote:

so does that mean back then, Europeans had a lower IQ? or that they had a superior IQ (due to genetics - as some of u claim) but were poorer for other reasons?

Europe was ruled by Monarchies, Feudalism works only for the royals and aristocrats.
As soon as Britain formed parliamentry government, the peasants got their voice and amongst these peasants was a man called JAMES WATT, who Invented the steam engine thus kicking off the industrial age. France also lost their monarchy with the revolution of 1789 and from here, developed industry, schooling for all classes and common laws which were adopted by the rest of europe.
The reason why the White race advanced is because we removed kings and queens from power and the restrictions on the peasantry.

Quote:

so what happened back when Europe was poorer? did they have a lower IQ or were they poor for other reasons?

Feudalism.

freediver - don't worry about a huge theoretical abbreviation of someones elses book .
What about YOUR idea ? In simple plain language, about a paragraph long .

gavin, I did not say that, i posed a question. same as before reislamic stuff. I said the koran points to certains actions and it follows by logic that that behaviour is done.

I'ld imagine freedom of speech and action, democratically elected governments, rewards for risk taking is a good pointers for a high standard of living

Ausnat wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 2:41pm:

The reason why the White race advanced is because we removed kings and queens from power and the restrictions on the peasantry.

Okay, so now we've established that the standards of living in countries can be affected by other factors besides IQ. And u can also make the argument that countries in the Middle East are run by kings as well who are placing restrictions on their people.

So therefore, the list of rich countries can't really be used as proof that Europeans have higher IQ's.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 2:47pm:

freediver - don't worry about a huge theoretical abbreviation of someones elses book . What about YOUR idea ? In simple plain language, about a paragraph long . gavin, I did not say that, i posed a question. same as before reislamic stuff. I said the koran points to certains actions and it follows by logic that that behaviour is done. I'ld imagine freedom of speech and action, democratically elected governments, rewards for risk taking is a good pointers for a high standard of living

i directed my query to sprintcyclist, since he gave the impression that countries with higher standards of living were Europeans and that's because of their higher IQ (and countries with lower IQ's were lower down the list).

but good to see that AusNat as cleared up the confusion, so u can still have a high IQ and be poor since other factors besides IQ affect standards of living.  

gavin, my query was why are all the top countries run  and populated by whites and all the bottom countries ran and populated by blacks ?

I do not discount IQ from an answer

monarchy need not be bad. They are hte most efficent form of govt. many are good - eg denmanrk, I think.

Quote:

Okay, so now we've established that the standards of living in countries can be affected by other factors besides IQ. And u can also make the argument that countries in the Middle East are run by kings as well who are placing restrictions on their people. So therefore, the list of rich countries can't really be used as proof that Europeans have higher IQ's.

But the question still stands- why dont blacks have sucessful societies?

Look at Rhodesia.(i refuse to call it zimbabwe) When it was run by whites, it was one of the richest countries in Africa. Now under black rule, its a dump.
Lets not forget south Africa.  Nelson Mandela screwed it.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 2:59pm:

But the question still stands- why dont blacks have sucessful societies? Look at Rhodesia.(i refuse to call it zimbabwe) When it was run by whites, it was one of the richest countries in Africa. Now under black rule, its a dump.

Maybe they have oppressive dictator rulers that are self-serving and only care about themselves and not the people? kind of like when Europe had Kings.

besides, Mugabe is a dictator, so that's probably why Zimbabwe is a dump.


Quote:

Lets not forget south Africa.  Nelson Mandela screwed it.

how did he screw it up??

freediver - don't worry about a huge theoretical abbreviation of someones elses book .
What about YOUR idea ? In simple plain language, about a paragraph long .

What idea of mine are you referring to? I don't recall presenting any ideas on this issue that weren't in the book. If an entire book is to 'abbreviated' what hope do you have with this thread?

So therefore, the list of rich countries can't really be used as proof that Europeans have higher IQ's.

If you want to find out whether Europeans have a higher IQ, test their IQ. It has been done. It was not higher.

They are hte most efficent form of govt.

Since when is efficiency an key ingredient in government? We deliberately introduced redundancy into government to make it better.

Quote:

Maybe they have oppressive dictator rulers that are self-serving and only care about themselves and not the people? kind of like when Europe had Kings. besides, Mugabe is a dictator, so that's probably why Zimbabwe is a dump.

A black dictator. Before Churchill started the Second world War Hitler had a very sucessful country running. White dictator= success.  Black dictator= Disaster.


Quote:

[quote]Lets not forget south Africa.  Nelson Mandela screwed it.

how did he screw it up??[/quote]

By handing over white businesses to Blacks.

By handing over white businesses to Blacks.

You sure you got the right country AN?

Quote:

If you want to find out whether Europeans have a higher IQ, test their IQ. It has been done. It was not higher.

So you believe Blacks are smarter Freediver? ;D

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 3:12pm:

By handing over white businesses to Blacks. You sure you got the right country AN?

Yes, Mandela ordered White business owners to hand their businesses over to blacks as a reparation.

So you believe Blacks are smarter Freediver?

No.

Can you give me a link on Mandela? I thought that didn't happen in S. Africa.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 3:11pm:

A black dictator. Before Churchill started the Second world War Hitler had a very sucessful country running. White dictator= success.  Black dictator= Disaster.

u just mentioned that Kings ruled over Europe and had placed restrictions on the people. and it was such restrictions that made them poor.

do u hold the same view of Stalin, i mean he was white & a dictator. does that make him successful?


Quote:

By handing over white businesses to Blacks.

did that affect South Africa's economy?? i mean did the blacks that took over stuff up those businesses??

Quote:

u just mentioned that Kings ruled over Europe and had placed restrictions on the people. and it was such restrictions that made them poor.

Hitler ran an industrialised country.


Quote:

do u hold the same view of Stalin, i mean he was white & a dictator. does that make him successful?

HELL NO!  Stalin wasnt a pure white, he was half turkish.


Quote:

[quote]By handing over white businesses to Blacks.

did that affect South Africa's economy?? i mean did the blacks that took over stuff up those businesses??[/quote]

It most certainly did! Did you see the protests in South Africa  on the news the other night about workers not being payed enough.  wonder why.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 3:17pm:

So you believe Blacks are smarter Freediver? No. Can you give me a link on Mandela? I thought that didn't happen in S. Africa.

Look it up on the Net.

I just looked it up. As far as I know, businesses and land were not taken from whites and given to blacks in S. Africa. That happened in Zimbabwe.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 3:30pm:

I just looked it up. As far as I know, businesses and land were not taken from whites and given to blacks in S. Africa. That happened in Zimbabwe.

Keep looking you'll find it. It most certainly did happen in Rhodesia. I used to have a friend who came from there.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

Hitler ran an industrialised country.

so dictators place restrictions on people, which prevents the people from taking advantage of their high IQ and that's why they are poor. but they are also rich at the same time because dictators run industralised nations.

that's ur argument summarised, makes sense doesn't it?  ::) ::) ::)


Quote:

HELL NO!  Stalin wasnt a pure white, he was half turkish.

what about Lenin?


Quote:

It most certainly did! Did you see the protests in South Africa  on the news the other night about workers not being payed enough.  wonder why.

no i didn't, it would be good if u had a link.
what i meant was when u look at South Africa's GDP (Gross Domestic Product) - which is an indicator of economic success, did it drop since Nelson Mandela came into power or did it say the same?

Sigh. Mandela was from S. Africa AN.

Quote:

so dictators place restrictions on people, which prevents the people from taking advantage of their high IQ and that's why they are poor. but they are also rich at the same time because dictators run industralised nations.

Hitler didnt. he encouraged advancement.



Quote:

what about Lenin?

Jewish. He murdered alot of people.


Quote:

no i didn't, it would be good if u had a link. what i meant was when u look at South Africa's GDP (Gross Domestic Product) - which is an indicator of economic success, did it drop since Nelson Mandela came into power or did it say the same?

[/quote]

I dont have it. Look at South Africas wealth and how it has dropped. thats an indicator of the GDP.
A countries wealth is determined by the living standard of its people.

AN you can't expect Gavin to go and look up how S. Africa's wealth dropped when you just finished telling me to 'look it up,' only to find that you were talking about the wrong country. Perhaps you should check your facts first and stop trying to waste people's time. If you don't have the evidence you shouldn't make the claim.

Oh shut up freediver. ;)

I think it was mentioned in the other thread that from a genetic perspective, race does not exist. However, I have heard that there is more genetic variation in a single African village than there was in the entire world outside of Africa, prior to recent mass movements out of Africa.

Quote:

DT, AN and sprint implied (or stated explicitly) that certain races are inherently (ie genetically) inferior and have a lower IQ. This is not true and is based on prejudice rather than evidence. Where IQ differences have been detected, they have been small and attributable to cultural influences on the test. They have always been insignificant compared to the variation in IQ within a group.

Okay... here's some stats I dug up...


Source: Richard Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis" 2006 Table 16.2 (indigenous populations)

• Arctic Peoples      91
  
• East Asians      105
  
• Europeans      99
  
• Native Americans (north & south)      86
  
• Southern Asian & Northern Africans      84
  
• Bushmen (southern Africa)      54
  
• Africans (subsaharan)      67
  
• Australians (aboriginals)      62
  
• Southeast Asians      87
  
• Pacific Islanders      85
  

Ausnat
Quote:

Because they are the second most stupid race on earth.  I wasnt going to mention Abo's  first but now that you've mentioned it-  The Aboriginal people of Australia are the most backwards people on earth.

Ausnat's statement can be somewhat backed up by the stats.





Quote:

Nothing wrong with recognising a gene that somehow proves that maori's are more prone to violence. But it doesn't prove that.

How doesn't it prove that, freediver?



Quote:

The European, Aboriginal and African races are separated by thousands of years of evolution. Pretty big gap between us. They are not separated, and thousands of years is not significant in evolutionary terms.

My respose to that is this freediver:


Quote:

According to recent genetic studies, the first humans came out of Africa. This is a widely-accepted theory by all scientists today. It was about 60,000 years ago. Africans / negroes - 60,000 years ago Middle-Easterners to SouthEast Asians - 50,000 years ago - 41,000 years ago East Asians (Chinese, Japanese) - during the period of 40,000 to 36,000 years ago. Native Americans / "Indians" - 15,000 years ago Whites / Europeans - 35,000 years ago All of this data has been confirmed by genetic markers and fossils. Just read Stanford geneticist Spencer Well's two books "Deep Ancestry" and "The Journey of Man." The books are sponsored by National Geographic. You can find the books at any Barnes And Nobles or Borders bookstore near you. 1. Deep Ancestry by Spencer Wells, p. 104-106, 96-102 2. Journey of Man by Spencer Wells, p. 66 and 120

Quote:

I don't particularly think Aboriginals have very civilised genes. IQ differences... What IQ differences? Are you just making this up DT?

See above.

Quote:

Performance IQ and gene link confirmed By Jim Dryden If you're particularly good with puzzles or chess, the reason may be in your genes. A team of scientists led by School of Medicine psychiatric geneticists has gathered the most extensive evidence to date that a gene that activates signaling pathways in the brain influences one kind of intelligence. The researchers confirmed a link between the gene CHRM2 and performance IQ, which involves a person's ability to organize things logically. "This is not a gene for intelligence," said Danielle M. Dick, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychiatry and lead author on the study. "It's a gene that's involved in some kinds of brain processing, and specific alterations in the gene appear to influence IQ. But this single gene isn't going to be the difference between whether a person is a genius or has below-average intelligence." Danielle Dick Dick's team comprehensively studied the DNA along the gene and found that several variations within the CHRM2 gene could be correlated with slight differences in performance IQ scores, which measure a person's visual-motor coordination, logical and sequential reasoning, spatial perception and abstract problem-solving skills. When people had more than one positive variation in the gene, the improvements in performance IQ were cumulative.

http://record.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8918.html

Calculated average IQ of indigenous populations from the book Race Differences in Intelligence by Richard Lynn. Lynn's datasets are criticized as being unrepresentative (Heredity April 2004, Volume 92, Number 4, Pages 359-360).[38] Some of the IQ values are inferred based on a few tests in a nearby country.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/3025/800pxaverageiqmapworlddj3.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

An example of one kind of gap found in the average intelligence of races are these cumulative IQ gaps by race or ethnicity based on 1981 U.S. distributions.[7] According to these findings, WAIS IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) were higher than those for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0); distributions for Hispanics (mean = 91), East Asians (mean = 106), and Ashkenazi Jews (mean = 112-115) are less precise because of overlap and small sample size. These curves only show scores from the 1st to the 99th percentile (covering 98% of the population).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-remains-racist-says-academic/2007/06/15/1181414539797.html

Australia remains a racist society, allowing governments to erode many of the gains made since the landmark Mabo decision, a leading Aboriginal academic says.

"A key barrier in achieving social justice for Aboriginal people ... is the prevalence of racism in Australian society," said Professor Larissa Behrendt said.

"Studies increasingly show that Australians are resistant to the notion that they are a racist society and resent the use of the term 'racism' to describe their attitudes and actions to any sector of the community, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders," she said.

"But it explains why it is that the government can loosely and misleadingly assert that 'they are not going to throw any more money at the situation' and many Australians agree.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2007 at 12:21pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-remains-racist-says-academic/2007/06/15/1181414539797.html Australia remains a racist society, allowing governments to erode many of the gains made since the landmark Mabo decision, a leading Aboriginal academic says. "A key barrier in achieving social justice for Aboriginal people ... is the prevalence of racism in Australian society," said Professor Larissa Behrendt said. "Studies increasingly show that Australians are resistant to the notion that they are a racist society and resent the use of the term 'racism' to describe their attitudes and actions to any sector of the community, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders," she said. "But it explains why it is that the government can loosely and misleadingly assert that 'they are not going to throw any more money at the situation' and many Australians agree.

True

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

Lynn's work on global racial differences in cognitive ability, mostly surveys of other scientists' studies, has been criticized for its associated measurement difficulties.

Leon Kamin accused Lynn in a Scientific American book review (1995) critical of the Bell Curve of disregarding scientific objectivity, misrepresenting data, and racism.[14] Kamin argues the studies of cognitive ability of Africans in Lynn's meta-analysis cited by Herrnstein and Murray show strong cultural bias. Kamin also criticized Lynn for "concocting" IQ values from test scores that have no correlation to IQ.[15] Furthermore, Kamin argues Lynn selectively excluded a study that found no difference in White and Black performance, and ignored the results of a study which showed Black scores were higher than White scores.[16]

Often left unmentioned by champions of Richard Lynn is that he has also been known to argue based on eugenic principles for the extinction of entire cultures based on their "incompetence." In Lynn's own words,

"What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures.[15] But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."

Elsewhere Lynn makes clear which "incompetent cultures" need "phasing out": "Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?" (cited in New Republic, 10/31/94)"

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Differences-Intelligence-Evolutionary-Analysis/dp/159368021X

Secondly, the early evolution within east Africa (p. 225) is poorly argued. The contemporary IQ of 67 is not the one to use, as it factors in present-day malnutrition. In the `environment of evolutionary adaptedness', this would not have been the case, so why not use 80? Lynn then appears to suggest there is a `continual directional selection for intelligence' based on its utility, as if species always got smarter and smarter. However intelligence comes with large costs, in terms of the energy required for big brains, so one would expect instead an equilibrium where a species is no smarter than it has to be. So rather than a drift to smartness in Africa, isn't it more likely that we saw waves of replacement populations radiating from groups who got smarter in more isolated niches where they were stressed more?

Excellent work Donald, Does anyone disagree now? of course there is... THE BIGOTS.

If race can affect how well you can run or swim i cant see why it wouldnt affect how well you can solve puzzles etc...

Almost all of the effects on sporting ability which we usually attribute to race are actually attributable to diet, wealth, culture etc.

genetically black people run and jump better, genetically white people swim faster.

thats what i heard anyway

Why would people from northern europe be better swimmers?

On 'average,' the best swimmers around are Australians, regardless of their ethnic background.

freediver - so what is YOUR explaination why all the runners at the 100 meter sprint for as long as I can remember at the olympics are blacks ?
As well as repeating my previous question for time #4 and counting .

Sprint I'm not going to keep repeating my answer just because you don't understand it.

all the runners at the 100 meter sprint for as long as I can remember at the olympics are blacks ?

Are you sure about that?

Why does Australia dominate the swimming, when we have such a small population? Why do we dominate the rugby? It's because of our environment and our culture. Effects like that completely swamp any genetic difference, if it even exists.

i agree with culture in reagrds to australia being good.

but in countries like the states and england all the best swimmers are white and all the best runners are black.

but in countries like the states and england all the best swimmers are white and all the best runners are black

That is not true.

Who are our greatest runners? Cathy Freeman and Robert De Castella. One black, one white.

we didnt have black runners in the 50s, so there is no comparison there.

besides autrslia doesnt have enough blacks to make a continuel impact thats why i used the states and teh uk as an example.

What's this about the 50's? And did the blacks only acquire the ability to run since then?

Check your facts on the UK and USA too.

you may be right, i am not very knowledgable on the hsortory of race and sports.

A similar stereotype is that asians are small. This may be based on truth, but it has no basis in genetics. As diet improves, the gap closes rapidly. For a variety of reasons, it can take a few generations. For example, a person's size is determined to some extent by the size of their mother's womb. Thus environmental factors that affected your recent ancestors, but not your genes or you personaly, can have a significant effect on you.

yes freediver, I am sure of that. As long as I can remember, the blacks were the sprinters.
Sprinting needs bulk muscle. As do the contact sports they excel at.

As your answer you pointed me to a book. I asked for YOUR answer, not a reference to elsewhere.
Asking time #5.

I gave you my answer, as well as the reference to the book.

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
Medical Research News
Published: Tuesday, 26-Apr-2005

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2007 at 12:21pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-remains-racist-says-academic/2007/06/15/1181414539797.html Australia remains a racist society, allowing governments to erode many of the gains made since the landmark Mabo decision, a leading Aboriginal academic says. "A key barrier in achieving social justice for Aboriginal people ... is the prevalence of racism in Australian society," said Professor Larissa Behrendt said. "Studies increasingly show that Australians are resistant to the notion that they are a racist society and resent the use of the term 'racism' to describe their attitudes and actions to any sector of the community, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders," she said. "But it explains why it is that the government can loosely and misleadingly assert that 'they are not going to throw any more money at the situation' and many Australians agree.

So... Aboriginals IQ's are 62 because we're all wacist towards them...

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds, freediver?

Strawmen always sound rediculous DT. That's the point.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 5:11pm:

Strawmen always sound rediculous DT. That's the point.

Please explain to me what a strawman is. You seem to use that term a lot.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

Your definition of a strawman:

Quote:

In debates, people will often misrepresent the argument of their opposition, then gleefully shoot it down.

How did I misrepresent your view? I Admit I shot it down... but your argument SEEMED to be that 'Aboriginals have low IQ's because of the racism they encounter in day to day life in Australia.' You didn't bother to explain how or why this happens. So I just assumed that was your argument. Your article didn't even specify whether this racism affected IQ levels... thus... I think your argument is ridiculous. My response to the wikipedia article was my article from medical research news... in that...

Quote:

Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

Furthermore freediver, I can't believe you're calling me a strawman when you yourself seem to be a strawman consistently throughout this forum.

Do you recall calling my view a 'conspiracy theory?'

This is a strawman:

So... Aboriginals IQ's are 62 because we're all wacist towards them...

but your argument SEEMED to be that 'Aboriginals have low IQ's because of the racism they encounter in day to day life in Australia.'

No idea where you got that from.

Do you recall calling my view a 'conspiracy theory?'

If you are talking about the conspiracy that is preventing academics from investigating race differences in IQ, your own evidence has shot that down.

i am sitting on the sideline on this one.

I know that in general asians and whites are smarter, but whether this is genertic or cultural i dont know.

Quote:

This is a strawman: So... Aboriginals IQ's are 62 because we're all wacist towards them... but your argument SEEMED to be that 'Aboriginals have low IQ's because of the racism they encounter in day to day life in Australia.' No idea where you got that from.

Sigh... I give up.



Quote:

Do you recall calling my view a 'conspiracy theory?' If you are talking about the conspiracy that is preventing academics from investigating race differences in IQ, your own evidence has shot that down.

Mate... you're such a hypocrite. By using the word 'conspiracy' you're being a so-called 'strawman' yourself by misrepresenting my argument and trying to make it sound like I'm implying that there's a big secret society all working together to prevent genetic research from going ahead. As Auzgurl and I pointed out... there's huge bias and favouritism in Universities towards study that's 'politically correct.' Teachers do what they can to prevent such study from going ahead. Students who are adventurous enough to take alternative views to certain things end up failing due to the teachers bias. This is in MOST cases... not all cases.

The 'evidence' that shoots down my theory doesn't do that in the slightest. It just shows that there are some students/teachers out there that are strong minded enough to work against the system.

By using the word 'conspiracy' you're being a so-called 'strawman' yourself by misrepresenting my argument and trying to make it sound like I'm implying that there's a big secret society all working together to prevent genetic research from going ahead.

A conspiracy does not have to be that sinister or secret. The claim was clearly wrong. Why get into detail about whether it was a wrong conspiracy theory or just wrong theory?

As Auzgurl and I pointed out... there's huge bias and favouritism in Universities towards study that's 'politically correct.'

But the articles you posted indicate the opposite. What you see as bias is just misinterpretation of discrimination against poor quality research.

Quote:

By using the word 'conspiracy' you're being a so-called 'strawman' yourself by misrepresenting my argument and trying to make it sound like I'm implying that there's a big secret society all working together to prevent genetic research from going ahead. A conspiracy does not have to be that sinister or secret.

Probably not... but when you say the word 'conspiracy' everyone immediately gets the impression of a freemason or a stonecutter off the simpsons.



Quote:

The claim was clearly wrong. Why get into detail about whether it was a wrong conspiracy theory or just wrong theory?

It wasn't wrong. What I said in my previous post was largely accurate. If I said something like... "ALL teachers are working together to stifle research about differences in races" THAT'S a bit nutty. But what I said was... "MOST teachers attempt to stop such research from going ahead," that's largely accurate.

IF you don't think so and think that free research is encouraged... then maybe you should go to University and see for yourself. I'm talking from personal experience here.



Quote:

As Auzgurl and I pointed out... there's huge bias and favouritism in Universities towards study that's 'politically correct.' But the articles you posted indicate the opposite.

So what? There's exceptions for everything.



Quote:

What you see as bias is just misinterpretation of discrimination against poor quality research.

What do you mean by that exactly?

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 6:04pm:

i am sitting on the sideline on this one. I know that in general asians and whites are smarter, but whether this is genertic or cultural i dont know.

Feel free to enter the debate. All freediver has to back up his arguments is the 'all men are created equal' argument in the declaration of independence, and articles written about the discrimination of Aboriginals in the SMH.  :P

What do you mean by that exactly?

There are a lot of people trying to 'prove' that certain races are genetically inferior/superior using very flawed research methods. Not financing this is no indication of bias, except for bias against poor quality research.

You posted this in the other thread:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1181614826/30

I highly doubt there is a school/university in the country that promotes the idea of investigating the differences in race... if anything, they focus on trying to prove that there is no such thing as race...

From a scientific perspective, there is no difference between those two approaches. Hence the claim is a dodgy conspiracy theory.

Calm down everybody........ Have some   Patience.

---

Quote:

What do you mean by that exactly? There are a lot of people trying to 'prove' that certain races are genetically inferior/superior using very flawed research methods. Not financing this is no indication of bias, except for bias against poor quality research.

How is it flawed research? Because they didn't consider cultural inluences?


I haven't yet seen research that 'proves' that all races are equal genetically speaking. Can you show me some Freediver?



Quote:

You posted this in the other thread: http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1181614826/30 I highly doubt there is a school/university in the country that promotes the idea of investigating the differences in race... if anything, they focus on trying to prove that there is no such thing as race... From a scientific perspective, there is no difference between those two approaches. Hence the claim is a dodgy conspiracy theory.

What do you mean?  :-?

i dont know whether to laugh or cry at that last picture

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 6:54pm:

i dont know whether to laugh or cry at that last picture

Laugh. ;D

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 6:54pm:

i dont know whether to laugh or cry at that last picture

I know I laughed more than I felt sorry. Those world vision commercials have de-sensitized me.

at first i laughed but then i felt really horrible

How is it flawed research? Because they didn't consider cultural inluences?

I wouldn't know that without knowing the details of the specific proposal. Failing to take environmental factors into account would be the main one. The whole nature vs nurture thing is riddled with flawed research.

What do you mean?

If you try to prove that there is no such thing as race and fail, you will have shown that race does exist.

I haven't yet seen research that 'proves' that all races are equal genetically speaking. Can you show me some Freediver?  

The existence of race is a bit of a red herring.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 6:44pm:

Calm down everybody........ Have some   Patience.

thing about that picture is..its probably true. :(

Quote:

How is it flawed research? Because they didn't consider cultural inluences? I wouldn't know that without knowing the details of the specific proposal. Failing to take environmental factors into account would be the main one. The whole nature vs nurture thing is riddled with flawed research.

Such as?



Quote:

What do you mean? If you try to prove that there is no such thing as race and fail, you will have shown that race does exist.

I still don't get how that explains your last sentence... but correct nevertheless.


I haven't yet seen research that 'proves' that all races are equal genetically speaking. Can you show me some Freediver?  

The existence of race is a bit of a red herring.[/quote]

Once again... can you please explain your last sentence?

It doesn't matter whether race can be determined on a genetic level as easily as it can be determined visually.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:11pm:

It doesn't matter whether race can be determined on a genetic level as easily as it can be determined visually.

I think I understand what you're saying...

...that race only exists because of the way people 'look' and isn't so much to do with 'intelligence' nor 'personality' nor 'physical ability.' It's just the way people 'look' that makes 'races' races.


Is that what you're saying, freediver?

If you can define race one way, by how people look, it doesn't matter whether you can define it genetically. At least, not in terms of this discussion.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:11pm:

It doesn't matter whether race can be determined on a genetic level as easily as it can be determined visually.

not always FD.

Its not always obvious by looking at a lot of black ,white or aisian pple , exactly who they are and where they come from

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:25pm:

If you can define race one way, by how people look, it doesn't matter whether you can define it genetically. At least, not in terms of this discussion.

Please explain further. Your posts are so cryptic.

Whether race can be determined genetically is irrelevant to this debate. It would not change any of the arguments. It is a red herring.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:01pm:

at first i laughed but then i felt really horrible

Why? its a fact of life.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:36pm:

Whether race can be determined genetically is irrelevant to this debate. It would not change any of the arguments. It is a red herring.

Fair enough. So your arguing that there is no debate here and that everything should be taken into account? Cultural factors and genetic factors?

it may be a fact of life but i dont have to like it, especially when i sit here on my computer chair with the heater on.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:50pm:

it may be a fact of life but i dont have to like it, especially when i sit here on my computer chair with the heater on.

HA HA HA HA! ;D  And i didnt finish my dinner- i chucked the rest in the BIN

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 7:50pm:

it may be a fact of life but i dont have to like it, especially when i sit here on my computer chair with the heater on.

Maybe... you can just accept it and count your blessings.

Don't worry about people in Africa. They are bound to fail in every way. They're beyond saving. Look at Zimbabwe. They tried governing themselves and look what happened. The Europeans moved into Africa and look what happened. Let them be. Stop interfering. Things will sort themselves out in the end.

Cruel but true.

Fair enough. So your arguing that there is no debate here and that everything should be taken into account? Cultural factors and genetic factors?

There is debate. Just not about whether race can be detected on a genetic level. Cultural, geographical and non-human biological factors can adequately explain historical trends and the conditions in different countries at the moment, as well as most or all of the measured difference in IQ between races.

The whole nature vs nurture thing is riddled with flawed research.

Such as?

Here is an exaqmple from the research you cited:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1181870633/37#37

Secondly, the early evolution within east Africa (p. 225) is poorly argued. The contemporary IQ of 67 is not the one to use, as it factors in present-day malnutrition. In the `environment of evolutionary adaptedness', this would not have been the case, so why not use 80?

Quote:

The whole nature vs nurture thing is riddled with flawed research.     Such as? Here is an exaqmple from the research you cited: http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1181870633/37#37 Secondly, the early evolution within east Africa (p. 225) is poorly argued. The contemporary IQ of 67 is not the one to use, as it factors in present-day malnutrition. In the `environment of evolutionary adaptedness', this would not have been the case, so why not use 80?

Freediver, can I just point out that this opinion you've listed isn't from a scientist, nor an expert in the field, but a random book reviewer. Hardly proof that there are flaws in Lynn's research.



Quote:

Fair enough. So your arguing that there is no debate here and that everything should be taken into account? Cultural factors and genetic factors? There is debate. Just not about whether race can be detected on a genetic level. Cultural, geographical and non-human biological factors can adequately explain historical trends and the conditions in different countries at the moment, as well as most or all of the measured difference in IQ between race

True. I think environmental and cultural effects can have an influence.

But I think it's nieve to dismiss the genetic differences that have formed from the actual environmental factors and thousands of years of evolution.

As a few of my articles suggest... the IQ gap is too consistent and too severe to ignore. There are many cases to prove otherwise that it's cultural influences that affect IQ alone.

Certain groups of people across the world share certain genes that other groups don't possess. Making certain races excel in certain areas. This is my belief and I'll stand by it.

Freediver, can I just point out that this opinion you've listed isn't from a scientist, nor an expert in the field, but a random book reviewer. Hardly proof that there are flaws in Lynn's research.  

It is a fairly basic error. So is the one about ignoring the tradeoff between intelligence and energy consumption. It calls his grasp of the basics into question.

But I think it's nieve to dismiss the genetic differences that have formed from the actual environmental factors and thousands of years of evolution.

It's also naive to assume the form of those differences. Also, that is not a significant period of time in evolutionary terms, especially given the movement of people around Eurasia through history.

As a few of my articles suggest... the IQ gap is too consistent and too severe to ignore. There are many cases to prove otherwise that it's cultural influences that affect IQ alone.

Well, that is the crux of the argument. Note that it is not just cultural factors. Nutrition is a big one also. I was genuinely surprised that such reputable institutions were taking this seriously so thanks for presenting that research. However, the 'scientific jury' is still out on whether there are inherent genetic differences between races in their IQ, or sporting ability for that matter. A meta-analysis that deliberately excludes results showing blacks have a higher IQ is hardly going to end the debate.

Certain groups of people across the world share certain genes that other groups don't possess. Making certain races excel in certain areas. This is my belief and I'll stand by it.

'Belief' is an unusual term to use in this context.

Quote:

Freediver, can I just point out that this opinion you've listed isn't from a scientist, nor an expert in the field, but a random book reviewer. Hardly proof that there are flaws in Lynn's research.   It is a fairly basic error. So is the one about ignoring the tradeoff between intelligence and energy consumption. It calls his grasp of the basics into question.

If it's such a basic error, can you please quickly find me another opinion on the internet somewhere? -This time make it a scientist of some sort? -Preferably not a political scientist.



Quote:

But I think it's nieve to dismiss the genetic differences that have formed from the actual environmental factors and thousands of years of evolution. It's also naive to assume the form of those differences. Also, that is not a significant period of time in evolutionary terms, especially given the movement of people around Eurasia through history.

Well given that the human species has only existed for about 4 million years... (I think) ... 'thousands of years' is quite a long time, freediver. I mean... civilisation only began 20,000 years ago I think. If it takes that little amount of time to spur such great change.

Look at dogs for example. You can't really say golden retrievers and pittbulls are of the same intelligence. But like humans, they're of the same species. And both breeds (Races) emerged only recently. How can you not say the same for humans?



Quote:

As a few of my articles suggest... the IQ gap is too consistent and too severe to ignore. There are many cases to prove otherwise that it's cultural influences that affect IQ alone. Well, that is the crux of the argument. Note that it is not just cultural factors. Nutrition is a big one also. I was genuinely surprised that such reputable institutions were taking this seriously so thanks for presenting that research.

Thanks for considering it and not laughing it off.



Quote:

However, the 'scientific jury' is still out on whether there are inherent genetic differences between races in their IQ, or sporting ability for that matter. A meta-analysis that deliberately excludes results showing blacks have a higher IQ is hardly going to end the debate.

I think physical ability is a little sketchy... but intelligence and personality.... definitely.

Where has there been bias excluding intelligent blacks?  :-? Is there such a thing as an intelligent black guy?



Quote:

Certain groups of people across the world share certain genes that other groups don't possess. Making certain races excel in certain areas. This is my belief and I'll stand by it. 'Belief' is an unusual term to use in this context.

Well I can't be 100% sure about it... or anything for that matter. Because I'm not a scientist am I? Nor are you. So please keep an open mind. But I think social trends and genetic evidence all points to the differences.

I just don't get why you're so closed minded on this issue freediver. Are you actually scared that there may be something to this argument after all?

If it's such a basic error, can you please quickly find me another opinion on the internet somewhere?

No. I'm off now. Google 'nature vs nurture.' The tradeoff issue is not so obvious, but it is pointed out so frequently by evolutionists that evolution is not directional that he should not have been ignorant of the concept.

Well given that the human species has only existed for about 4 million years... (I think) ... 'thousands of years' is quite a long time, freediver. I mean... civilisation only began 20,000 years ago I think. If it takes that little amount of time to spur such great change.

Most evolutionists take the view that whatever we had in pre-agricultural society is what we are using now to design computers and fly to the moon.

Look at dogs for example. You can't really say golden retrievers and pittbulls are of the same intelligence. But like humans, they're of the same species. And both breeds (Races) emerged only recently. How can you not say the same for humans?

That is the result of extreme pressure that is far from natural. Humans do not accept being part of 'breeding programs.'

I think physical ability is a little sketchy... but intelligence and personality.... definitely.

Personality? How could that possibly develop without very strong cultural influence? Even birth order affects personality.

Where has there been bias excluding intelligent blacks?

In that research you posted - by Lynn.

Well I can't be 100% sure about it... or anything for that matter. Because I'm not a scientist am I? Nor are you.

Belief is an unusual term because it is a scientific issue. Scientists should be the last ones to use the term.

I just don't get why you're so closed minded on this issue freediver. Are you actually scared that there may be something to this argument after all?

No, the implications of this are a different matter entirely. As one of your articles pointed out, it would not alter the need to consider each person on an individual basis, not on the basis of skin colour.

Quote:

If it's such a basic error, can you please quickly find me another opinion on the internet somewhere? No. I'm off now. Google 'nature vs nurture.' The tradeoff issue is not so obvious, but it is pointed out so frequently by evolutionists that evolution is not directional that he should not have been ignorant of the concept.

No... practice what you preach freediver.... if you bring up a point... and I question it.... you look it up. That's how it works isn't it according to the freediver rulebook?  :-? Or have you changed it yet again? ::)



Quote:

Well given that the human species has only existed for about 4 million years... (I think) ... 'thousands of years' is quite a long time, freediver. I mean... civilisation only began 20,000 years ago I think. If it takes that little amount of time to spur such great change. Most evolutionists take the view that whatever we had in pre-agricultural society is what we are using now to design computers and fly to the moon.

Well.. as much as I think that's bvll... can you please provide evidence to confirm?



Quote:

Look at dogs for example. You can't really say golden retrievers and pittbulls are of the same intelligence. But like humans, they're of the same species. And both breeds (Races) emerged only recently. How can you not say the same for humans? That is the result of extreme pressure that is far from natural. Humans do not accept being part of 'breeding programs.'

Well... actually we do... it's called racism and wars. -Not 'official' breeding programs but function the same way. -Not to mention huge geographic structures preventing migration... such as the himilayas, Sahara desert and the meditteranean sea.

Quote:

I think physical ability is a little sketchy... but intelligence and personality.... definitely. Personality? How could that possibly develop without very strong cultural influence? Even birth order affects personality.

Well...



Quote:

J. CRAIG VENTER Genomics Researcher; Founder & President, J. Craig Venter Science Foundation Revealing the genetic basis of personality and behavior will create societal conflicts From our initial analysis of the sequence of the human genome, particularly with the much smaller than expected number of human genes, the genetic determinists seemed to have clearly suffered a setback. After all, those looking for one gene for each human trait and disease couldn't possibly be accommodated with as few as twenty-odd thousand genes when hundreds of thousands were anticipated. Deciphering the genetic basis of human behavior has been a complex and largely unsatisfying endeavor due to the limitations of the existing tools of genetic trait analysis particularly with complex traits involving multiple genes. All this will soon undergo a revolutionary transformation. The rate of change of DNA sequencing technology is continuing at an exponential pace. We are approaching the time when we will go from having a few human genome sequences to complex databases containing first tens, to hundreds of thousands, of complete genomes, then millions. Within a decade we will begin rapidly accumulating the complete genetic code of humans along with the phenotypic repertoire of the same individuals. By performing multifactorial analysis of the DNA sequence variations, together with the comprehensive phenotypic information gleaned from every branch of human investigatory discipline, for the first time in history, we will be able to provide answers to quantitatively questions of what is genetic versus what is due to the environment. This good news will help transform the treatment of cancer by allowing us to know which proteins need to be targeted. However, when these new powerful computers and databases are used to help us analyze who we are as humans, will society at large, largely ignorant and afraid of science, be ready for the answers we are likely to get? For example, we know from experiments on fruit flies that there are genes that control many behaviors, including sexual activity. We sequenced the dog genome a couple of years ago and now an additional breed has had its genome decoded. The canine world offers a unique look into the genetic basis of behavior. The large number of distinct dog breeds originated from the wolf genome by selective breeding, yet each breed retains only subsets of the wolf behavior spectrum. We know that there is a genetic basis not only of the appearance of the breeds with 30-fold difference in weight and 6-fold in height but in their inherited actions. For example border collies can use the power of their stare to herd sheep instead of freezing them in place prior to devouring them. We attribute behaviors in other mammalian species to genes and genetics but when it comes to humans we seem to like the notion that we are all created equal, or that each child is a "blank slate". As we obtain the sequences of more and more mammalian genomes including more human sequences, together with basic observations and some common sense, we will be forced to turn away from the politically correct interpretations, as our new genomic tool sets provide the means to allow us to begin to sort out the reality about nature or nurture. In other words, we are at the threshold of a realistic biology of humankind. It will inevitably be revealed that there are strong genetic components associated with most aspects of what we attribute to human existence including personality subtypes, language capabilities, mechanical abilities, intelligence, sexual activities and preferences, intuitive thinking, quality of memory, will power, temperament, athletic abilities, etc. We will find unique manifestations of human activity linked to genetics associated with isolated and/or inbred populations. The danger rests with what we already know: that we are not all created equal. Further danger comes with our ability to quantify and measure the genetic side of the equation before we can fully understand the much more difficult task of evaluating environmental components of human existence. The genetic determinists will appear to be winning again, but we cannot let them forget the range of potential of human achievement with our limiting genetic repertoire. http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_12.html#venter

Quote:

Where has there been bias excluding intelligent blacks? In that research you posted - by Lynn.

How? :-?



Quote:

Well I can't be 100% sure about it... or anything for that matter. Because I'm not a scientist am I? Nor are you. Belief is an unusual term because it is a scientific issue. Scientists should be the last ones to use the term.

Well...  ::)

As a scientist... (As that's what I've always claimed to be ::) )...I can 100% say for certain that races do exist and there's conclusive evidence that supports the physical, mental and emotional differences between races. ::) Did I mention I'm a scientist?  ::)

No... practice what you preach freediver.... if you bring up a point... and I question it.... you look it up. That's how it works isn't it according to the freediver rulebook?

It is common knowledge.

Well... actually we do... it's called racism and wars. -Not 'official' breeding programs but function the same way.

No it doesn't function the same way. If all the wolves from Germany killed all the wolves in France, you would still have a bunch of wolves, no matter how many times they did it.

Not to mention huge geographic structures preventing migration... such as the himilayas, Sahara desert and the meditteranean sea.

Armies and traders have been crossing the mediteranian and the Alps for millenia. Ever heard of the Carthaginians? What about the Mongolians?

Quote:

No... practice what you preach freediver.... if you bring up a point... and I question it.... you look it up. That's how it works isn't it according to the freediver rulebook? It is common knowledge.

If it's so common, show me a link. Or just anything to back up your claims. Perhaps ever a book reviewer? :P



Quote:

Well... actually we do... it's called racism and wars. -Not 'official' breeding programs but function the same way. No it doesn't function the same way. If all the wolves from Germany killed all the wolves in France, you would still have a bunch of wolves, no matter how many times they did it.

So what do humans do in dog breeding programs that are so different?

Nations and states serve as a buffer. Since these states have existed for so long... they play a part.

Look at Europe pre-Rome. Divided into parts resembling today. Latin... Germanic... Slavic.



Quote:

Not to mention huge geographic structures preventing migration... such as the himilayas, Sahara desert and the meditteranean sea. Armies and traders have been crossing the mediteranian and the Alps for millenia. Ever heard of the Carthaginians? What about the Mongolians?

Did Mongolians actually move into the area? The early development of the Great Wall of China was also a factor. Indians barely ever got through the Himilayas... they were too busy fighting among themselves.

Trade going across the meditteranean didn't start until the beginning of the Greek and Roman empires. Before that, nothing was getting across.

They got across the Alps due to a military campaign and improved living conditions and technology. Before that, I highly doubt there was mass migration across that area.

Even though they certain people here and there got across... it doesn't mean there was MASS migration across these areas. The races reproduced faster than people could migrate.

''A more dangerous adversary than the standard Arab muslim is the Black muslim....
It mixes a violent and stupid race with a dangerous and backwards religion''

Aussie Nationalist  2006

DT, the issue we are speaking about is too vague. It is too early in the debate to demand links or evidence. I'm not even sure what we disagree on yet.

So what do humans do in dog breeding programs that are so different?

We create a massive selective pressure over a long period for a single trait or narrow group of traits that would not give a natural advantage. You can create change far more quickly by selecting for traits that give no natural advantage than by selecting for traits which have already been selected for by nature.

Nations and states serve as a buffer. Since these states have existed for so long... they play a part.

In evolutionary terms, they have not existed for a significant period.

Look at Europe pre-Rome. Divided into parts resembling today. Latin... Germanic... Slavic.

This is in no way a reflection of genetic differences in the humans that existed at that time.

Did Mongolians actually move into the area?

Their genes certainly did. They also would have taken genes back. They created a vast trade network from Beijing to Europe.

Trade going across the meditteranean didn't start until the beginning of the Greek and Roman empires. Before that, nothing was getting across.

What makes you think this? Did the Egyptians try to block trade?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2007 at 3:31pm:

DT, the issue we are speaking about is too vague. It is too early in the debate to demand links or evidence. I'm not even sure what we disagree on yet. So what do humans do in dog breeding programs that are so different? We create a massive selective pressure over a long period for a single trait or narrow group of traits that would not give a natural advantage. You can create change far more quickly by selecting for traits that give no natural advantage than by selecting for traits which have already been selected for by nature. Nations and states serve as a buffer. Since these states have existed for so long... they play a part. In evolutionary terms, they have not existed for a significant period. Look at Europe pre-Rome. Divided into parts resembling today. Latin... Germanic... Slavic. This is in no way a reflection of genetic differences in the humans that existed at that time. Did Mongolians actually move into the area? Their genes certainly did. They also would have taken genes back. They created a vast trade network from Beijing to Europe. Trade going across the meditteranean didn't start until the beginning of the Greek and Roman empires. Before that, nothing was getting across. What makes you think this? Did the Egyptians try to block trade?

Actually Minoan culture flourished a thousand years before greece in the meditteranean, they had a trade based econemy.

Phonecia also had huge trade networks 500 years before greece.

Quote:

So what do humans do in dog breeding programs that are so different? We create a massive selective pressure over a long period for a single trait or narrow group of traits that would not give a natural advantage. You can create change far more quickly by selecting for traits that give no natural advantage than by selecting for traits which have already been selected for by nature.

Well... humans are pretty selective of our partners...




Quote:

Nations and states serve as a buffer. Since these states have existed for so long... they play a part. In evolutionary terms, they have not existed for a significant period.

No... but how about 'tribes' etc.



Quote:

Look at Europe pre-Rome. Divided into parts resembling today. Latin... Germanic... Slavic. This is in no way a reflection of genetic differences in the humans that existed at that time.

Well I definitely know as far back as the Romans there were genetic differences between the Romans and Germans... very similar to today...

I've read the famous Roman historian 'Taciticus' book on 'Germania' and he describes them in a very interesting way... I can quote a few good lines if you'd like.



Quote:

Did Mongolians actually move into the area? Their genes certainly did. They also would have taken genes back. They created a vast trade network from Beijing to Europe.

I think the only time throughout Chinese history the mongolians rules China was about 100 years... during the Yuan dynasty.



Quote:

Trade going across the meditteranean didn't start until the beginning of the Greek and Roman empires. Before that, nothing was getting across. What makes you think this? Did the Egyptians try to block trade?

According to my Ancient Civilisations teacher... the Egyptians were a very bigoted people who didn't like outside interference. Self-supporting economy through the Nile. But... I could be wrong.. it's been a while.




Quote:

Actually Minoan culture flourished a thousand years before greece in the meditteranean, they had a trade based econemy.

Where were the Minoans again? Did they cross the Meditteranean much?



Quote:

Phonecia also had huge trade networks 500 years before greece.

And? Where did they trade?


I don't think it really matters anyway. Quite clearly such large land formations like the Alps and the Mediterranean prevented large scale immigration at least. -So a few mere tradesmen got through... big deal... eventually they went back home.

After the meditteranean came the Alps... after that the forests of Germania... next the North Sea... etc etc.

If strong civilisations like Rome and Greece couldn't even get past the Rhine river... what hope did other people have? These land formations... as well as resistance from locals, played a part in evolution.

the minoans were based on the island of crete and traded accross the eastern meditteranean, knosses being their capital.

The phonecians went all the way to spain and set up colonies in north africa like carthage, the were based in Tyre, now lebanon.

Egypt was rather insular as you say.

Well... humans are pretty selective of our partners...  

These days we are, thanks to some odd notions we have. This is very recent. Genghis Khan often pointed out that there is nothing better than defeating an army, killing it's leader, then having sex with his wife and taking her as your own. Rape and pillage was not a euphemism. That's what they did.

Some people blame a European army (Greek I think) for establishing the caste system in India after invading and deciding to hang around.

No... but how about 'tribes' etc.  

They were there from the beginning.

Well I definitely know as far back as the Romans there were genetic differences between the Romans and Germans... very similar to today...  

I've read the famous Roman historian 'Taciticus' book on 'Germania' and he describes them in a very interesting way... I can quote a few good lines if you'd like.  

He describes the genetic differences, or are the cultural differences?

I don't think it really matters anyway. Quite clearly such large land formations like the Alps and the Mediterranean prevented large scale immigration at least. -So a few mere tradesmen got through... big deal... eventually they went back home.

You know what one of the biggest items traded was? Slaves. The Alps did not prevent the first wave of immigration. Or the second. Or the third. Whatever barrier you can come up with, people just walked around it.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2007 at 9:34am:

the minoans were based on the island of crete and traded accross the eastern meditteranean, knosses being their capital. The phonecians went all the way to spain and set up colonies in north africa like carthage, the were based in Tyre, now lebanon. Egypt was rather insular as you say.

Hmm... interesting.

Had no idea there was migration to Spain all the way from Lebanon so early. Perhaps this is the reason Spaniards and other meditteraneans have darker skin tones. Actually... I'm pretty sure Spain has had numerous invasions from other areas... including Muslims sometime after christ... I forget when though...

But the Minoans aren't really a big deal I think... if they traded from Crete to the Eastern Meditteranean... it's not really a long distance. The Phonecians are more impressive I think.


Despite this... I'm confident enough to say that there was little to no migration into northern and eastern Europe from these areas. Taciticus's account sums it up nicely. That's why I think land formations etc prevent such travel from happening.

Besides... it's not like people from the Morocco region ever migrated so early... for example.... I know Cartage was crossing the Meditteranean as early as 200BC but I don't recall any earlier crossings by these people.



Quote:

These days we are, thanks to some odd notions we have. This is very recent. Genghis Khan often pointed out that there is nothing better than defeating an army, killing it's leader, then having sex with his wife and taking her as your own. Rape and pillage was not a euphemism. That's what they did.

Well yeah... I know that's what the Huns and Mongolians did... rape the wives of the leaders... but I don't think they conquered enough land and settled in on a MASS SCALE. Only a couple of hundred rapes here and there wouldn't be a big deal IMO. You can't guarantee pregnancies from that and besides... overtime, the genes would breed themselves out by the larger population anyway.



Quote:

Some people blame a European army (Greek I think) for establishing the caste system in India after invading and deciding to hang around.

I've read that when Megathenes (A Greek explorer who came with Alexander's army) came to India he observed that a caste system was already in place.
That being said though... he also observed weird three-headed monsters... etc.  :P So you cant really be sure of the accuracy of his account. But I think he was telling the truth in this case.



Quote:

He describes the genetic differences, or are the cultural differences?

Nah... he describes their physical appearance, build, intelligence--compared to Romans. But also their culture. It's quite a fascinating account. And it's amazing the traits/cultures that still exist in Anglo/saxon society...



Quote:

I don't think it really matters anyway. Quite clearly such large land formations like the Alps and the Mediterranean prevented large scale immigration at least. -So a few mere tradesmen got through... big deal... eventually they went back home. You know what one of the biggest items traded was? Slaves. The Alps did not prevent the first wave of immigration. Or the second. Or the third. Whatever barrier you can come up with, people just walked around it.

Well I know slave trade was pretty common-place in the southern parts of Europe and areas surrounding the Meditteranean basin... but I don't think it was THAT common in other parts of the world such as Germania and China.

It's not as easy as you think walking into the Northern parts of Europe if you're a black guy.

Despite this... I'm confident enough to say that there was little to no migration into northern and eastern Europe from these areas.

Didn't the ancestors of almost all of Europe's inhabitants come through that region? You seem to be basing your whole argument on an illogical and unsubstantiated assumption that once the first wave of immigrants got through they managed to stop and follow-ups. Remember that until relatively recently Europe was the distant backwater in much the same way that Australia was easy to 'invade' 200 years ago.

Well yeah... I know that's what the Huns and Mongolians did... rape the wives of the leaders... but I don't think they conquered enough land and settled in on a MASS SCALE.

You don't need a mass scale to spread genes.

Only a couple of hundred rapes here and there wouldn't be a big deal IMO.

A couple of hundred? What did they do for the rest of the time, twiddle their thumbs? Remember this is just a 'big' example of what was happening everywhere in many different directions throughout history.

and besides... overtime, the genes would breed themselves out by the larger population anyway.

Why would superior genes breed themselves out? Why would they develop locally in the first place when there was such huge potential for superior genes to spread?

Quote:

Despite this... I'm confident enough to say that there was little to no migration into northern and eastern Europe from these areas. Didn't the ancestors of almost all of Europe's inhabitants come through that region? You seem to be basing your whole argument on an illogical and unsubstantiated assumption that once the first wave of immigrants got through they managed to stop and follow-ups. Remember that until relatively recently Europe was the distant backwater in much the same way that Australia was easy to 'invade' 200 years ago.

No... I'm pretty sure there's theories going around that Europeans came from the easternly areas such as India and Russia.



Quote:

Well yeah... I know that's what the Huns and Mongolians did... rape the wives of the leaders... but I don't think they conquered enough land and settled in on a MASS SCALE. You don't need a mass scale to spread genes.

No... but it certainly limits them.



Quote:

Only a couple of hundred rapes here and there wouldn't be a big deal IMO. A couple of hundred? What did they do for the rest of the time, twiddle their thumbs? Remember this is just a 'big' example of what was happening everywhere in many different directions throughout history.

Sex, sex, sex freedver. Do you honestly think that's all people had to do back then? Do you think there were rapes on a massive nation-wide scale?  They had to compete with the local men who were still alive. Just because they killed all the men in one area doesn't mean there wasn't another area that didn't put up huge resistance.

Further, like I said, this didn't happen with all armies. There was some control.



Quote:

and besides... overtime, the genes would breed themselves out by the larger population anyway. Why would superior genes breed themselves out? Why would they develop locally in the first place when there was such huge potential for superior genes to spread?

Well... as far as I know... certain genes get smaller and smaller each generation and don't have a very big impact. If the genes by a greater population overwhelm it.

For example, I've met 'white' Aboriginals before.

Another example, if a blue-eyed person has kids with another blue-eyed person... it's impossible to have a kid with different coloured eyes. Etc etc.
If I have a kid with a Japanese lady... and my kids have kids with another Japanese person... and so forth... my genes would eventually be like.... 1% of their genetic makeup... almost non-existent. Why do you think Pauline Hanson is like 10% Arab or something like that? But doesn't have the physical appearance of an Arab?

I'm not a scientist freediver, nor are you, but it'sfair to say that even though they do have a small presence of the gene in them... it gets smaller and smaller each generation.

I'm not a scientist freediver, nor are you, but it'sfair to say that even though they do have a small presence of the gene in them... it gets smaller and smaller each generation.

It's fair to say that you are completely wrong

Sex, sex, sex freedver. Do you honestly think that's all people had to do back then?

They didn't have the internet.

Do you think there were rapes on a massive nation-wide scale?

In times of war and conquest, yes.

Further, like I said, this didn't happen with all armies. There was some control.

That's not the impression I get.

Well... as far as I know... certain genes get smaller and smaller each generation and don't have a very big impact.

Really, which ones?

Another example, if a blue-eyed person has kids with another blue-eyed person... it's impossible to have a kid with different coloured eyes.

Colour is pretty complicated, but I think what you are referring to is dominance and recessiveness. That does not mean the genes go away. It would not apply to something as complex as intelligence.

I'm not a scientist freediver, nor are you, but it'sfair to say that even though they do have a small presence of the gene in them... it gets smaller and smaller each generation.

Unless those genes give some kind of advantage.

Quote:

Do you think there were rapes on a massive nation-wide scale? In times of war and conquest, yes.

Probably...  but not all the time. Some armies were disciplined.



Quote:

Further, like I said, this didn't happen with all armies. There was some control. That's not the impression I get.

So where does your 'impression' come from? Just general history books?



Quote:

Well... as far as I know... certain genes get smaller and smaller each generation and don't have a very big impact. Really, which ones?

Genes in general.  ;)



Quote:

Another example, if a blue-eyed person has kids with another blue-eyed person... it's impossible to have a kid with different coloured eyes. Colour is pretty complicated, but I think what you are referring to is dominance and recessiveness. That does not mean the genes go away. It would not apply to something as complex as intelligence.

Fair enough.



Quote:

I'm not a scientist freediver, nor are you, but it'sfair to say that even though they do have a small presence of the gene in them... it gets smaller and smaller each generation. Unless those genes give some kind of advantage.

Well yeah.

Actually... no... I disagree with that. Even if genes are sh1t it wouldn't matter. You'd still get them. Why do we have retards on this planet then?

Quote:

Probably...  but not all the time. Some armies were disciplined.

The RED ARMY ;D

wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 10:57pm:

Quote: Probably...  but not all the time. Some armies were disciplined. The RED ARMY ;D

::)

They raped everyone they came across unless they were old women.


They first sent out their Mongolian units (Who did the raping and pillaging)... then came the slavic Russians.

Quote:

They raped everyone they came across unless they were old women.

Fact.


Quote:

They first sent out their Mongolian units (Who did the raping and pillaging)... then came the slavic Russians.

Yes, they even used their mongol units in Hungary in 1956.

wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 11:34pm:

Quote: They raped everyone they came across unless they were old women. Fact. [quote]They first sent out their Mongolian units (Who did the raping and pillaging)... then came the slavic Russians.

Yes, they even used their mongol units in Hungary in 1956.[/quote]

Yep. I guess the Russians thought of the Mongols as a human shield of sorts.

It was because mongols are brutal.  White russians know some civility.

wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 11:42pm:

It was because mongols are brutal.  White russians know some civility.

Yeah.... the Mongols brutality played to their advantage.

DT, you are very wrong on the 'genes in general' thing. From a Darwinian perspective, we have retards for the same reason we have geniuses - natural selection requires 'random' variation.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2007 at 2:16pm:

DT, you are very wrong on the 'genes in general' thing. From a Darwinian perspective, we have retards for the same reason we have geniuses - natural selection requires 'random' variation.

Go deeper freediver. I don't get it.

Genes don't just 'breed out' of a population for no reason. They do get diluted, which means they spread. It is only when they affect survival that you can predict whether they will disappear or become more prevalent.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2007 at 6:11pm:

Genes don't just 'breed out' of a population for no reason. They do get diluted, which means they spread. It is only when they affect survival that you can predict whether they will disappear or become more prevalent.

Wanna know what I think freediver? I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not exactly an expert, but I know a lot more about this than you, and this is a very basic concept.

cat fight

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2007 at 6:27pm:

I'm not exactly an expert, but I know a lot more about this than you, and this is a very basic concept.

That's a little early to call isn't it freediver?

My understanding of 'darwinism' goes along the lines of simply... 'the strong survive and the weak die off over a long period of time.'

I don't think this is true as we have some of the biggest @ssholes around and we are not getting any healthier/smarter. We help out those who would naturally die off (Ie. Disabled people) and look around you man... all the drug addicts are having kids, all the strongest men are getting sent off to war and dying... etc etc. Natural selction is a crock.


Unless of course, I'm wrong about the Darwinism term.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/LeoLatu-banned-over-racist-remark/2007/08/07/1186252703945.html

A controversial New Zealand rugby league player has been banned in England for making a racist remark to an opponent.

It is not Leo-Latu's first brush with controversy.

The former New Zealand Warrior was sacked by the Sharks last year after appearing in court on an assault charge for breaking the nose of a woman in an altercation at a service station in Sydney.

He was sentenced to eight months' periodic detention but this was reduced to 200 hours community service after an appeal.

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"

By Cahal Milmo
Published: 17 October 2007

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

---

Museum cancels race row scientist's talk

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Museum-cancels-race-row-scientists-talk/2007/10/18/1192300948013.html

London's Science Museum has cancelled a talk by a Nobel prize-winning geneticist who suggested black people were less intelligent than white people.

The 79-year-old geneticist said he hoped that everyone was equal but countered that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".

"We know that eminent scientists can sometimes say things that cause controversy and the Science Museum does not shy away from debating controversial topics," it said in a statement.

"However we feel that Dr Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate and we are, as a result, cancelling his talk."

---

Nobel laureate sorry for attack on Africans

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22616716-2703,00.html

A Nobel Prize-winning geneticist who sparked a furore after claiming that black people were less intelligent than white people moved to quell the row yesterday with an apology.

Dr Watson yesterday withdrew the words attributed to him.

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly," he said.

"That is not what I meant.

"More importantly, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

He claimed to be baffled at the words attributed to him by The Sunday Times Magazine.

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. I can certainly understand why people reading those words have reacted in the ways they have," he said.

A spokesman for The Sunday Times said that the interview with Dr Watson was recorded and that the newspaper stood by the story.

---

Dr James Watson flees UK after DNA race row

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22616834-5001028,00.html

NOBEL Prize-winning DNA authority Dr James Watson cut short a book tour in Britain today and returned to the US over racially insensitive comments attributed to him in a British newspaper.

But he cancelled the rest of his tour to return to the US to deal with the growing controversy and his suspension as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, his publicist said in a telephone interview.

The newspaper also quoted Dr Watson as saying people should not discriminate on the basis of colour.

bump

?

i love how everybody in this thread is posting personal anecdotes about aborigines they have encountered  as if doing so is a good argument

my father is a teacher and thinks abos should be disbarred from schools because imparting any kind of knowledge on them is almost impossible wow that must mean all abos are retarded right

yeah good argument doofwads

abos are so bad

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 10:45am:

bump

What does bump signify?

Bump is a way of letting people know it is a thread which is old, but the poster would like to see more discussion, so he 'bumps' it to the front of the line by clicking on it.

If you browse through all the old threads, and see any you want to discuss you can hit reply and just type bump, and then people know you are interested in seeing it discussed again.
Personally I don't see why they would not just add a comment on the subject, which would serve the same purpose, and may actually help inspire more discussion, but it is common to see bump used in forums.

As far as racial intelligence goes, I think it is of academic interest only, for the criteria for measuring IQ is wildly subjective at best.

Intelligence is a subtle and variable human concept, of which we have little true understanding as yet, and the wild range of IQ scores within any racial grouping is testament to the individual potential for people from any racial background to be dolts, or savants, so we usually see this type of posting from the less intelligent whites who are threatened by the idea of non whites being smarter than them.

Intelligence according to this bloke is having the ability to make an internal model of our world and make predictions to aid survival.  Why do we think natives are less intelligent than us - it's because those we know of have lost the ability to use their survival instincts and predict - although in many older aboriginals their "dreaming" still continues.  It all depends on how we see our internal world and much of that is environmental.

It is now also being claimed that our long term memories are embedded in our DNA - which means many of our natural patterns of behaviour can be linked to our ancestors.  This would apply to aborigines - but the difference now is that many of them are isolated from mainstream and much of their memory is only enhanced by their environment and what little education is offered.  Mainstream education appears not to be very compatible with indigenous DNA and this is no doubt why we think they're less intelligent.


Quote:

Hawkins theory. Intelligence, he argues, is simply the ability to form an internal model of the world and use it to make predictions that abet survival. This again is deceptive simplicity—the idea has deep implications. Such as: There's no fundamental difference between human and animal intelligence. Your cat's world model, for instance, enables it to cleverly predict which of your buttons to push to get fed. In fact, Hawkins argues that lower animals also possess rudimentary powers of memory and prediction—even a one-celled creature has a teensy claim to intelligence as it scours its microworld for nutrients. Hawkins doesn't deny we're special, though. We have uniquely intricate world models and unequaled ability to spin complex predictions by analogy, a facility greatly amplified by language. It's no wonder, he notes, that IQ tests are all about making predictions, with questions like: Given a sequence of numbers, what should the next one be? http://www.onintelligence.org/reviews/2004-10-18.php

Quote:

Personally I don't see why they would not just add a comment on the subject, which would serve the same purpose, and may actually help inspire more discussion, but it is common to see bump used in forums

One would normally 'bump' a thread when they've asked a question and it hasn't been answered, so they want to bring it back into the fore, in case someone else who hasn't seen the thread might be able to provide an answer (or continuation of the discussion). Generally you wouldn't bump something you hadn't been previously involved in discussing.

How IQ tests are made, by whom,  when?

Building Hubble telescopes and stuff.


JC Denton wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 12:13am:

my father is a teacher and thinks abos should be disbarred from schools because imparting any kind of knowledge on them is almost impossible wow that must mean all abos are retarded right

I reckon it is cool how Aborigines are top physicists and astronauts and rocket scientists and stuff. Well, they would be...

But they aren't coz of the colour of their skin and white people keep them down coz of the colour of their skin. Except for Indians. White people chose not to keep them down coz of the colour of their skin.

Effen Whitey, eh? Effen racist scumbags.




tallowood wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 6:17pm:

How IQ tests are made, by whom,  when?

They are made in kilns, by my mum, on weekends.

1) i don't think you understood the intent of that statement at all

2) aborigine iq currently averages at 62 meaning two standard deviations to the right of the bell curve would only only rank in at 92, which is still.. uh, not that great. if the aboriginal bell curve is distributed similarly to any other that would mean aboriginals with an iq of above 92 would represent a minuscule 2% of the population. 'top physicists' are rare even among other races like whites, Asians, etc. so honestly i don't think you should expect to see any top aborigine physicists anytime soon!

at current, it's not impossible; just a statistical improbability. throw in all of the other variables at present and this assertion has some ridiculously insurmountable odds against it my friend ;)

Welcome to OzPolitic Eric. Where did you get the 62 number from? It sounds like BS to me.

I just spliced the last two respoinses onto here from a new thread that was staarted recently.

I bumped the thread because the topic was being discussed in another thread and I wanted them to move it over to here.

It is now also being claimed that our long term memories are embedded in our DNA

What does that mean Mantra?

Hi FD - nice to see you back.

Apparently it has always been assumed that our memory is linked to intelligence and other physiological processes, but recently scientists have discovered this is not the case.

We are born with our long term memories which are linked to our DNA.  Our short term memories develop as we grow and learn, which in most cases are environmental depending on how we live, upbringing etc.  

Most sites require membership - the only other information I can find to explain it - but not simply, is this.

A new study shows that the machinery that regulates gene function during embryo development may be the same apparatus used to form memories—a finding that could pave the way for new therapies for certain mental illnesses.

Neuroscience long held that when a fetus is fully developed, a process called DNA methylation stops. (DNA methylation involves adding a bulky methyl group to a gene's DNA backbone, which obstructs the process of translating it into a protein.) The thinking was that since neurons or nerve cells are no longer replicating, there is no need for genes to be turned off (or on via demethylation), which happens as new cells morph into different roles in the nervous system.

New evidence has been mounting to the contrary, however, since 1987 when an enzyme that carries out methylation was found in the neurons of adults. A study in this week's Neuron provides key evidence that DNA methylation—also known to occur as cancerous cells divide, when tumor suppressor genes are silenced—occurs in adult brains and can be triggered by environmental cues. Study co-author David Sweatt, a neurobiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, says the finding could provide new targets for treating mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and the autism-spectrum disorder Rett, conditions in which improper methylation switches off certain genes during development.

Recent research has shown that structural changes take place in chromatin (the complex that houses DNA in cells) while memories are being created. Methylation is among the so-called epigenetic processes—those not specifically designed to affect the genes—that can alter chromatin. So, Sweatt and study co-author Courtney Miller, a postdoctoral researcher, set about to determine if methylation plays a role in memory formation, homing in on the hippocampus, two curved regions in the mid-brain implicated in episodic memory.

They did this by training mice to fear a certain environment by sending mild shocks to their feet in a closed box. They removed the mice for 24 hours, but when placed back in the box, the mice adopted a frightened, frozen posture, indicating that they remembered their shocking experience there. The researchers removed hippocampal slices as they carried out the study to see whether any methylation or demethylation had taken place. "We had to take an educated guess as to what things might be changing in regards to their methylation state," Sweatt says. The team focused on two specific genes: protein phosphatase 1 (PP1), a known memory suppressor, and reelin, a memory-promoting gene.

Sure enough, within an hour of the exercise, reelin had been demethylated or switched on and PP1 had been shut down. The team repeated the experiment after the mice were given drugs to inhibit methylation. The results: the animals exhibited no fear when placed in the shock box again, indicating that the memory had not been stored.

Sweatt believes that his findings in the hippocampus apply to other regions involved in memory processing, including the cortex, the brain's outermost layer, and the amygdala, two almond-shaped structures in the midbrain. "I would speculate that this regulation of DNA methylation might well be a generic molecular device that's involved in all memory formation," he says. "Neurons everywhere may use this fundamental mechanism."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=memory-machinery-methylation

That does not mean that memory is not linked to intelligence, nor does it mean it isn't a physiological process. Also, the memries are stored in chromatin, not DNA. The memories are not heritable, though I'm not sure if you were implying that. The exact same mechanism could be involved in other learning processes.

Memory isn't necessarily related to IQ. What about those savants with perfect memories of EVERYTHING who are not very intelligent at all.

Then again, smart people generally have good memories also.

And in regards to hereditary memory, I am sure there is a species of butterfly that has hereditary memory. Something to do with going to an exact location that is has never been before that has something to do with its' parents without being led there.

Uncanny Valley wrote on Sep 20^th, 2008 at 3:22pm:

I reckon it is cool how Aborigines are top physicists and astronauts and rocket scientists and stuff. Well, they would be...

Probably one or two.


Quote:

But they aren't coz of the colour of their skin and white people keep them down coz of the colour of their skin.

You actually believe that? You are a moron of the highest order if you really do. Its the Abo's themselves who are ''keeping them down''.
Pfft keeping them down because of skin colour ::) go get a brain scan uncanny.


Quote:

Except for Indians. White people chose not to keep them down coz of the colour of their skin.

What the hell are you talking about? Put down your milo tin of petrol.


Quote:

Effen Whitey, eh? Effen racist scumbags.

Yep its confirmed you are a moron. You just accused whites as racist yet used racism to say it ;D ::)
Stupid Boong.


Quote:

They are made in kilns, by my mum, on weekends.

Maybe you should step into one?

mantra wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 9:41am:

Intelligence according to this bloke is having the ability to make an internal model of our world and make predictions to aid survival.  Why do we think natives are less intelligent than us - it's because those we know of have lost the ability to use their survival instincts and predict - although in many older aboriginals their "dreaming" still continues.  It all depends on how we see our internal world and much of that is environmental. It is now also being claimed that our long term memories are embedded in our DNA - which means many of our natural patterns of behaviour can be linked to our ancestors.  This would apply to aborigines - but the difference now is that many of them are isolated from mainstream and much of their memory is only enhanced by their environment and what little education is offered.  Mainstream education appears not to be very compatible with indigenous DNA and this is no doubt why we think they're less intelligent. Quote: Hawkins theory. Intelligence, he argues, is simply the ability to form an internal model of the world and use it to make predictions that abet survival. This again is deceptive simplicity—the idea has deep implications. Such as: There's no fundamental difference between human and animal intelligence. Your cat's world model, for instance, enables it to cleverly predict which of your buttons to push to get fed. In fact, Hawkins argues that lower animals also possess rudimentary powers of memory and prediction—even a one-celled creature has a teensy claim to intelligence as it scours its microworld for nutrients. Hawkins doesn't deny we're special, though. We have uniquely intricate world models and unequaled ability to spin complex predictions by analogy, a facility greatly amplified by language. It's no wonder, he notes, that IQ tests are all about making predictions, with questions like: Given a sequence of numbers, what should the next one be? http://www.onintelligence.org/reviews/2004-10-18.php

Mantra, that sentence is probably the most important. I don't know about DNA being linked to intelligence directly but I do believe that over generations certain attributes or skills will be inherited or lost depending on their importance to success. For instance it is possible that hunters from subsistance societies have a greater ability to see parts of prey, hidden in foliage. it is a practiced skill for all humans but some groups appear superior to others due to an intrinsic ability. Camouflage is less effective in decieving them. To an aboriginal group, who raised a white european, might consider him slow.

Alternatively, there may be certain abilities that are less natural to individuals from a society newly introduced to a more technologically modern society.

I think these different emphasis on required or desirable skills along with loaded IQ tests are the only reason for group variations in IQ.

For instance it is possible that hunters from subsistance societies have a greater ability to see parts of prey, hidden in foliage. it is a practiced skill for all humans but some groups appear superior to others due to an intrinsic ability. Camouflage is less effective in decieving them.

Are you saying there is evidence for this, or are you just theorising?

Hello everyone, this is my first post on this forum. This is definately a interesting and contraversial topic.
From research that i have read, those from Finland are the smartest in the world.
generally, those from Western Europe and East Asia have the highest IQ's.

Hmm Finland thats interesting.
Hungarians are also one of the most intelligent and are actually related to the Finns.

Everyone knows mixed race is the best. They have a far wider gene pool to choose from so they get the best of both worlds. Mixed race people are generally better looking, smarter and healthier. Something to do with less inbreeding.

Sweet. i'm set! ;D I got plenty of different Euro bloods in me.

Long as you are not arab blood, you will be ok .

Otherwise a paedophillic assassainating threatening donkey of a beast.

easel wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 10:41pm:

Everyone knows mixed race is the best. They have a far wider gene pool to choose from so they get the best of both worlds. Mixed race people are generally better looking, smarter and healthier. Something to do with less inbreeding.

Really? I could have sworn Japanese people, one of the most monoracial and isolated races in the world had the highest IQ and were the longest living according to statistics (Which generally indicates superb health). Where have I been misled Easel?

.......  - agreed, pure breeds have always been the best

they are also the most peaceful and have a greater sense of belonging

Chuck Norris wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 12:59am:

Really? I could have sworn Japanese people, one of the most monoracial and isolated races in the world had the highest IQ and were the longest living according to statistics (Which generally indicates superb health). Where have I been misled Easel?

Cross a Jap with a Dane and see what you get. I bet it is smarter than the average Jap.

Maybe they live a long time because of their fantastic diets which are low in cooked meats, as well as a preventative approach to health care rather than a treat when problem arises approach to health care we have in the west?


Quote:

they are also the most peaceful

Hahaha.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 12:46am:

Long as you are not arab blood, you will be ok . Otherwise a paedophillic assassainating threatening donkey of a beast.

Hell no!!! PURE EUROPEAN! 8-) MAGYAR, GERMANIC, and IRISH [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]

DILLIGAF wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 5:48am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 12:46am: Long as you are not arab blood, you will be ok . Otherwise a paedophillic assassainating threatening donkey of a beast. Hell no!!! PURE EUROPEAN! 8-) MAGYAR, GERMANIC, and IRISH [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]

Gotta watch that Magyar bit. You know what the Mongols did to the Hungarians when they invaded? (mostly to the women) Don't you notice a little touch of an epicanthal fold in your eyes when you look in the mirror?

- of course maybe your ancestors were good runners.

Chuck Norris wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 12:59am:

easel wrote on Sep 28th, 2008 at 10:41pm: Everyone knows mixed race is the best. They have a far wider gene pool to choose from so they get the best of both worlds. Mixed race people are generally better looking, smarter and healthier. Something to do with less inbreeding. Really? I could have sworn Japanese people, one of the most monoracial and isolated races in the world had the highest IQ and were the longest living according to statistics (Which generally indicates superb health). Where have I been misled Easel?

It does make sense. With the Japanese, that is mostly down to culture rather than genetics. They have this thing about only eating until you are 80% full. Barring an unfortunate inherited disease, any genetic advantage you inhereit is going to be swamped by your lifestyle choices, like drugs, diet, exercise and exposure to chemicals. People used to die regularly of flu, childbirth, dysintery etc, but not any more. However, being of mixed race probably would help with that sort of thing.

These days it is more culture rather than genes that define 'nationalities' or 'races'. Unless your ancestors were tucked away on some island having sex with their cousins, any notion of 'racial purity' is just wishful thinking.

muso wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 7:17am:

Gotta watch that Magyar bit. You know what the Mongols did to the Hungarians when they invaded?

My ancestors fought very well against them actually. My line comes from Chief Bogat and because my family line/tree is readable back to 1032 AD i can assure you no mongols mated with my ancestors 8-).


Quote:

Don't you notice a little touch of an epicanthal fold in your eyes when you look in the mirror?

Nope. Round eyes, normal cheekbone location. :)


Quote:

- of course maybe your ancestors were good runners.

Sure were- when Chasing the enemy 8-)

My line comes from Chief Bogat and because my family line/tree is readable back to 1032 AD i can assure you no mongols mated with my ancestors.

So how many ancestors does that come to if you go back that far, assuming no inbreeding? Are you aware of how common cuckolding is?

DILLIGAF wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 5:13pm:

My ancestors fought very well against them actually. My line comes from Chief Bogat and because my family line/tree is readable back to 1032 AD i can assure you no mongols mated with my ancestors 8-).

My lineage goes back to French/Welsh royalty if you take it back as far as you just did.

Do I win?

Nah.

:P

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 5:24pm:

My line comes from Chief Bogat and because my family line/tree is readable back to 1032 AD i can assure you no mongols mated with my ancestors. So how many ancestors does that come to if you go back that far, assuming no inbreeding? Are you aware of how common cuckolding is?

There was no inbreeding as all the wives and from which family they came is documented.

easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 5:30pm:

DILLIGAF wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 5:13pm: My ancestors fought very well against them actually. My line comes from Chief Bogat and because my family line/tree is readable back to 1032 AD i can assure you no mongols mated with my ancestors 8-). My lineage goes back to French/Welsh royalty if you take it back as far as you just did. Do I win?

Sure why not, but it is of no consequence. We were nobility also and were close knit with many Hungarian Kings.

Hey, phil.....can you match the prodigious male weapon that is Frogen's?

DILLIGAF wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:02pm:

easel wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 5:30pm: DILLIGAF wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 5:13pm: My ancestors fought very well against them actually. My line comes from Chief Bogat and because my family line/tree is readable back to 1032 AD i can assure you no mongols mated with my ancestors 8-). My lineage goes back to French/Welsh royalty if you take it back as far as you just did. Do I win? Sure why not, but it is of no consequence. We were nobility also and were close knit with many Hungarian Kings.

Most important part there.

Wow, easel, can you match the prodigious male weapon that is Frogen's?

easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:04pm:

DILLIGAF wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 6:02pm: easel wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 5:30pm: DILLIGAF wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 5:13pm: My ancestors fought very well against them actually. My line comes from Chief Bogat and because my family line/tree is readable back to 1032 AD i can assure you no mongols mated with my ancestors 8-). My lineage goes back to French/Welsh royalty if you take it back as far as you just did. Do I win? Sure why not, but it is of no consequence. We were nobility also and were close knit with many Hungarian Kings. Most important part there.

As i said, it is of no consequence now.

Quote:

Cross a Jap with a Dane and see what you get. I bet it is smarter than the average Jap.

How's about a cross between Jap and African? Reckon that'd be smarter?



Quote:

Maybe they live a long time because of their fantastic diets which are low in cooked meats, as well as a preventative approach to health care rather than a treat when problem arises approach to health care we have in the west?

Either way, the  pure breds are still living longer than the mongrels. Their established and long-standing culture is just proof that a stable, mono-cultural society created by people with very little racial admixture can live longer than an alienated, confused, chaotic, multicultural society created by people of racial mixture.



Quote:

[quote]they are also the most peaceful

Hahaha.
[/quote]

Why's that funny, Easel?

There was no inbreeding as all the wives and from which family they came is documented.

All of them? How many people are documented in this family tree?

We were nobility also and were close knit with many Hungarian Kings.

Doesn't this contradict your 'no inbreeding' claim? European royalty are one of the most inbred groups around. When your geneologist uses the term 'close knit', this is a euphemism for your great granddady having sex with his sister.

Aaaagh, ferk off Donald, I am doing the sarcasm here, 'cause my dick is bigger than yours, okay?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:06pm:

How's about a cross between Jap and African? Reckon that'd be smarter?

Probably smarter than the average African.


Quote:

Either way, the  pure breds are still living longer than the mongrels. Their established and long-standing culture is just proof that a stable, mono-cultural society created by people with very little racial admixture can live longer than an alienated, confused, chaotic, multicultural society created by people of racial mixture.

Get me a Jap and stick him on a western diet for life, and get me a whitey and stick him on a Jap diet for life, and see who lives longer. Culture has absolutely nothing to do with race, I don't know why you brought it up. People like you confuse culture with race, and it is racist. People like you cannot claim to be protecting Australian culture when you clearly see appearance, something which is unchanging and which you have no choice over, as representative of the person.

Culture culture culture! Not race.


Quote:

Why's that funny, Easel?

Japs have throughout history shown themselves to be a cruel, sadistic culture.

Either way, the  pure breds are still living longer than the mongrels.

Do you actually know that? Even Japan would have varying levels of 'inbredness'. There are no doubt plenty of part continentals living there and sharing the culture. Saying the pure breds live longer than the mongrels, while ignoring the confounding factors, is meaningless.

Their established and long-standing culture is just proof that a stable, mono-cultural society created by people with very little racial admixture can live longer than an alienated, confused, chaotic, multicultural society created by people of racial mixture.

Sure, and you could also prove that the opposite is possible. But does it mean anything of value, beyond stating the obvious - that it is possible?

...

Japs have throughout history shown themselves to be a cruel, sadistic culture.

I've noticed a pattern that most Island peoples are like this, or at least that it is far more variable. I suspect that living on a larger block of land with more people gives a more uniform moral code.

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:07pm:

There was no inbreeding as all the wives and from which family they came is documented. All of them? How many people are documented in this family tree? We were nobility also and were close knit with many Hungarian Kings. Doesn't this contradict your 'no inbreeding' claim? European royalty are one of the most inbred groups around. When your geneologist uses the term 'close knit', this is a euphemism for your great granddady having sex with his sister.

Now you, FD, give credit to these claims by addressing them.

Now, here is a scoop...............did you know that The Indian Bride's Grandma was Anastasia?

Yep. True.  

All that crap from Olga about Anastasia's demise is just bullshite.

The Indian Bride is living proof, and there she is, in the kitchen preparing a great curry!

:D

So she can trace her ancestry back to her grandmother? Isn't that an unusual name for an Indian?

He's baiting you FD.

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:19pm:

So she can trace her ancestry back to her grandmother? Isn't that an unusual name for an Indian?

Nah, lots of Indians have the name Anastasia.  It is well established that the Romonoffs just stole the name.  Arseholes, they were.  Like, you can just hear how 'Anastasia' would just roll off the Hindi/Urdu tongue!

No respect, those Russians.

;)

easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:23pm:

He's baiting you FD.

No way, easel.  No bloody way!!!

::)

easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:11pm:

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 6:06pm: How's about a cross between Jap and African? Reckon that'd be smarter? Probably smarter than the average African.

Would the African/Jap be smarter than a regular Jap?



easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:11pm:

Get me a Jap and stick him on a western diet for life, and get me a whitey and stick him on a Jap diet for life, and see who lives longer. Culture has absolutely nothing to do with race, I don't know why you brought it up. People like you confuse culture with race, and it is racist. People like you cannot claim to be protecting Australian culture when you clearly see appearance, something which is unchanging and which you have no choice over, as representative of the person.

Uh, Easel, I don't think you realise who you're talking to. For years, I've been protesting that anti-wacists and multiculturalism supporters confuse culture with race and use the 'if you don't support multiculturalism you're a wacist' line. I'm all for distinguishing the difference between race and culture. But you can't deny that the Japanese are the healthiest but at the same time are mono-racial. Either way, it puts a dent in your argument that crossbreeds are healthier and smarter.

I believe that their (Japanese) consistent and non-changing culture can be attributed to no disturbances and little racial admixture over the years. A connection can be made between little racial admixture and stable cultures.



Quote:

Culture culture culture! Not race.

Very nieve of you to think that way, Easel.



easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:11pm:

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 6:06pm: Why's that funny, Easel? Japs have throughout history shown themselves to be a cruel, sadistic culture.

Are you aware of Japanese history before WWII, Easel?

But you can't deny that the Japanese are the healthiest but at the same time are mono-racial. Either way, it puts a dent in your argument that crossbreeds are healthier and smarter.

No it doesn't. Generalising the cross-breds are smarter does not mean that it swamps all other effects, like diet. That's like saying that exercise doesn't affect your weight because people who eat a lot are fat.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:37pm:

Would the African/Jap be smarter than a regular Jap?

Possibly not. It would certainly be physically superior to a Jap.


Quote:

Uh, Easel, I don't think you realise who you're talking to. For years, I've been protesting that anti-wacists and multiculturalism supporters confuse culture with race and use the 'if you don't support multiculturalism you're a wacist' line. I'm all for distinguishing the difference between race and culture. But you can't deny that the Japanese are the healthiest but at the same time are mono-racial. Either way, it puts a dent in your argument that crossbreeds are healthier and smarter. I believe that their (Japanese) consistent and non-changing culture can be attributed to no disturbances and little racial admixture over the years. A connection can be made between little racial admixture and stable cultures.

Yet, you write about mixed-race and multiculturalism in the same paragraph in a previous post. Pull the other one.


Quote:

Are you aware of Japanese history before WWII, Easel?

I would say I was aware but not informed. I know about such things as Russo-Japanese war and Samurai but not in detail.

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:42pm:

But you can't deny that the Japanese are the healthiest but at the same time are mono-racial. Either way, it puts a dent in your argument that crossbreeds are healthier and smarter. No it doesn't. Generalising the cross-breds are smarter does not mean that it swamps all other effects, like diet. That's like saying that exercise doesn't affect your weight because people who eat a lot are fat.

He ignored that part of my previous post I think.

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:07pm:

There was no inbreeding as all the wives and from which family they came is documented. All of them? How many people are documented in this family tree?

Hundreds. The book(S) is in VOLUMES.



Quote:

Doesn't this contradict your 'no inbreeding' claim? European royalty are one of the most inbred groups around. When your geneologist uses the term 'close knit', this is a euphemism for your great granddady having sex with his sister.

Close knit but not related other than giving away daughters. It was a funny system, where the royals were allowed to wed the daughters of noblemen whilst the nobles could not marry into the royals! Well i guess it kept us free of that common inbreeding as you believed.

Hundreds. The book(S) is in VOLUMES.

That's not very many. Didn't you say you had all of them?

It was a funny system, where the royals were allowed to wed the daughters of noblemen whilst the nobles could not marry into the royals!

Were the Nobles inbred? Also, who did the noble daughters marry? Other nobles? Their cousins?

Well i guess it kept us free of that common inbreeding as you believed.

How so?

How many fingers do you have?

If your family were nobility around 1000 years ago, your family was inbreeding. No doubt about it.

Back to crossing a Jap with an African, check this link out.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17490140-13762,00.html

We might have found the recipe for the master race! Cross high intellect/low testosterone with low intellect/high testosterone.

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:56pm:

... Were the Nobles inbred? Also, who did the noble daughters marry? Other nobles? Their cousins? How many fingers do you have?

Are they the candidate questions for an IQ test?  :D

easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:46pm:

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 6:37pm: Would the African/Jap be smarter than a regular Jap? Possibly not. It would certainly be physically superior to a Jap.

Physically superior in what way? Jumping and running?



easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:46pm:

Back to crossing a Jap with an African, check this link out. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17490140-13762,00.html We might have found the recipe for the master race! Cross high intellect/low testosterone with low intellect/high testosterone.

Gee Easel, looks like you've got it all figured out.  ::)

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 9:57pm:

easel wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 6:46pm: ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 6:37pm: Would the African/Jap be smarter than a regular Jap? Possibly not. It would certainly be physically superior to a Jap. Physically superior in what way? Jumping and running? easel wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 6:46pm: Back to crossing a Jap with an African, check this link out. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17490140-13762,00.html We might have found the recipe for the master race! Cross high intellect/low testosterone with low intellect/high testosterone. Gee Easel, looks like you've got it all figured out.  ::)

Physically superior in a physical way, as in body type, muscle mass, average fitness, strength, you know, physical stuff. I guess that would extend to running and jumping.

The link was a joke. I think if you crossed superb physical attributes lacking in mental attributes with superb mental attributes lacking in physical attributes, you would get something completely average.

While we're on the topic, I thought I might just add my own famous distant relative.  -I see no resemblance though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lawson#Later_years

I haven't traced my families history back as far back as Phil's though.

My great, great grandfather was a Scottish sea-captain though. He was supposed to go back home after he came to Australia, but he liked it so much here he decided to stay.

Hi DT - nice to see you back here again.

Where's the connection with Henry Lawson and your Scottish great great grandfather?  Lawson's father was a Norwegion miner.  I vaguely remember you saying once that one or some of your ancestors were from Central Europe?  I could have it wrong though.

easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 10:02pm:

Physically superior in a physical way, as in body type, muscle mass, average fitness, strength, you know, physical stuff. I guess that would extend to running and jumping.

Just an observation. Whilst I agree to a large extent that a Japanese cross African would be physically superior in terms of jumping and running, I've noticed that Japanese are quite simply better workers and can handle monotonous work for longer hours compared to impatient Africans. Japanese people can endure more pain and suffering, I believe.

Further, I believe that Africans are simply more lazy than Japanese people. No, I don't think it's cultural. I think it's genetic.



easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:46pm:

The link was a joke. I think if you crossed superb physical attributes lacking in mental attributes with superb mental attributes lacking in physical attributes, you would get something completely average.

Well, IMHO, I think the Japanese person would be losing out big time. A Japanese person would gain nothing by mixing with an African 'genetically speaking' accept of course the ability to lift more rocks and win more Gold Medals at the olympics. Whether you think they're 'good looking' is another story. But just my personal opinion, I don't find them very appealing, particularly the ones I've seen in real life as opposed to the 'glorified' ones shown in the media.

Healthier? Perhaps. All boils down to what races are mixing with what races though. It's good to see you've given into the fact that Africans are clearly of lower intelligence than that of other races, Easel. Well done.  ;)

Is this the kind of 'physical superiority you're speaking of, btw?  :D :P
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MwticniZV4M&feature=related
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PJeOMih5ceM&feature=related

Another two candidate IQ questions:
Where is the centre of Europe and how long will it take to get there from the centre of the universe?

Those are trained fighters. Skill has nothing to do with physicality. Not to mention they are top athletes who would train everyday.

Are you being facetious DT?

mantra wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 10:33pm:

Hi DT - nice to see you back here again. Where's the connection with Henry Lawson and your Scottish great great grandfather?  Lawson's father was a Norwegion miner.  I vaguely remember you saying once that one or some of your ancestors were from Central Europe?  I could have it wrong though.

Thanks Mantra.

My mothers side is from central Europe and my father's side is the Anglo/Celtic side.

My Grandma on my fathers side has Henry Lawson and  my Grandfather on my fathers side is the Scottish sea-captain. That's the point at which it separates.

On my mothers side, I guess I'm just from a line of central European peasants and farmers.  :P

easel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 10:52pm:

Those are trained fighters. Skill has nothing to do with physicality. Not to mention they are top athletes who would train everyday. Are you being facetious DT?

Yes, I was being facetious (Ie. Mucking around). Hence the smiley>>>  :P :D

DILLIGAF wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 6:53pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 6:07pm: There was no inbreeding as all the wives and from which family they came is documented. All of them? How many people are documented in this family tree? Hundreds. The book(S) is in VOLUMES.

ROTFLMAO ;D ;D

To go back to the 12th Century, you'd need to consider the following people:

2 Parents
4 Grandparents
8 Great Grandparents
16 2nd Great Grandparents
32 3rd Great Grandparents
64 4th Great Grandparents
128 5th Great Grandparents
256 6th Great Grandparents
512 7th Great Grandparents
1,024 8th Great Grandparents
2,048 9th Great Grandparents
4,096 10th Great Grandparents
8,192 11th Great Grandparents
16,184 12th Great Grandparents
32,768 13th Great Grandparents
65,536 14th Great Grandparents
131,072 15th Great Grandparents
262,144 16th Great Grandparents
524,288 17th Great Grandparents
1,048,576 18th Great Grandparents
2,097,152 19th Great Grandparents
4,194,304 20th Great Grandparents
8,388,608 21st Great Grandparents
16,777,217 22nd Great Grandparents
33,554,432 23rd Great Grandparents
67,108,864 24th Great Grandparents

Now do you really think that a typical record of birth would say "mother was raped by an invading Mongol" ?

Let's face it mate, you can't handle the inevitable truth.

Should scientists study possible links between race and IQ?

Neuroscientist Stephen Rose says No.  
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457786a.html


Psychologists Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams say Yes.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html


Comments here http://network.nature.com/groups/naturenewsandopinion/forum/topics/3871
and here http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/02/steven-rose-wrong-on-science-of-race.php

People won't study it cause they're pussies and don't want to get called racist. It's pretty obvious that

Hispanics seem to adapt better.
Blacks are more physicaly capable.
Whites are more intelligent.

These ofcourse aren't absolutes. There's always exceptions, but on average it's just expected.

Equal under the law does not mean physicaly or socialy equal.

Quote:

Should scientists study possible links between race and IQ?

I personally think that they should. The problem with leaving a gap this wide in our tapestry of accumulated knowledge is that there is just.. so much regarding the nature of the world that we can't understand without it. The race/IQ connection is such a succinct way to explain so many phenomenons that can only be poorly (and rather perniciously) explained in other ways. For instance, the failing of aboriginals and black people in industrial civilizations, in the absence of the race IQ hypothesis, leads to incredibly destructive and hurtful theories such as  that all white people are simply oppressing them and preventing them from reaching a socioeconomic parity with the Asian and white communities. This leads to widespread self-loathing and self-flagellation of whites, and an entitlement mentality among blacks.

I don't think IQ is the be all and end all, but to deny its obvious importance in handling positions of incredible complexity would simply be foolish. Because industrial, and increasingly, post-industrial civilizations depend heavily upon the dissemination and understanding of complexity, IQ is going to remain an incredibly important skill in the workplace, academia, and elsewhere (as it always has), and those who are cursed with lower IQs (aka the majority of the aboriginal community, a large proportion of the African American community in the USA, etc.) will continue to see their labor and ability to contribute to such a society that is predicated upon complexity become more and more irrelevant. We should not be stigmatizing those with lower IQs than us, nor should we keep up with the nonsensical charade that they are, in the spectrum of abilities that depend heavily upon the g factor, intellectually our equals. No, instead we should be focusing on trying to create a society that will give everybody a chance to achieve their maximum potential, work in a profession that is both challenging (but not beyond their physical or cognitive means) and rewarding to them (and these professions are not solely concentrated at the top of the income distribution) and try to , in some way, ameliorate the accretion of the societal (not economical) value of the intelligence quotient.

There are some exceptions to this, however. I think we should be cautious in just who we let into the country. For those, i.e the aboriginals, who are already here, we should at least try to help them achieve the parameters that I laid forth there. We're probably never going to see (without of course preferential treatment and the incredible lowering of academic standards, and that would be smacking horrible; read about the affirmative action programs in the U.S.A for instance if you want to trudge through a steaming bayou of poo) an abundance of aboriginal lawyers, neurosurgeons and chemists, but that doesn't mean that there aren't professions out there within the reach of the average aboriginal. I think we can at least help them out with this.

You have an new i7 cpu machine running DOS at the moment, your IQ is considered to be low.
You have an i5 cpu machine running Win7, your IQ is considered to be above normal but not that good.
You have an Atom based netbook running DOS, your IQ maybe out of the range of this discussion.

beer wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 9:30pm:

You have an new i7 cpu machine running DOS at the moment, your IQ is considered to be low. You have an i5 cpu machine running Win7, your IQ is considered to be above normal but not that good. You have an Atom based netbook running DOS, your IQ maybe out of the range of this discussion.

Exception - If your most commonly type command is

C:\Games\Warcraft2\warcraft2.exe - console

, then your IQ is probably much much lower than average because your brain is shot.

Who is DOS? ;)

mozzaok wrote on Jul 5^th, 2010 at 2:08pm:

Who is DOS? ;)

More like "what." Don't you know what DOS is? It means Disk Operating System. ::) :D

DOS is just a poor cousin to Linux. It allows all programs to have automatic root privileges, thus making it possible for computer viruses to overrun your system.
Linux doesn't have such a weakness. Linux is free, as is Gnome, but you have to pay Microsoft for DOS and its various top-heavy GUI's such as Windoze.


I'll answer that even though I know Mozz was making a joke.

I think it is "four" in Spanish.

Guardian says blacks are thicker than whites
Rod Liddle Wednesday, 30th June 2010
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/6112923/guardian-says-blacks-are-thicker-than-whites.thtml
An interesting piece in The Guardian which suggests that people in warmer, hotter, more southerly countries (they mean Africa but dare not say it) might have lower IQs than people in the north, on account of some mysterious process by which the body devotes too much energy and resources to fighting infectious diseases and not enough to the brain. Right. In the same piece the very right wing chap Richard Lynn turns the argument on its head by saying if they weren’t so thick they’d have got rid of the infectious diseases in the first place.
   
This is the first time I’ve read an article in The Guardian – or in any other national daily newspaper – which implicitly accepts that people in, uh, warmer, hotter, more southerly countries (Africa, then) might indeed have lower IQs than those elsewhere, on average. They have done so on this occasion in order to explain it away as a consequence of some exterior factor. I am not sure they are right in either case; IQ seems to me to be culturally sensitive. While it is true that almost all IQ studies show east Asians at the top and Africans at the bottom (quite hot and infectious in Cambodia, though, isn’t it?) and that these tests broadly correspond with educational achievement in various western states with high levels of immigration, the differences in IQ between races is far less marked than the differences within them.

Also, descendants of Africans living in the USA have markedly higher IQs than those still in the, uh, dark continent – which suggests that average IQs are far more quickly affected by environmental factors than would be the case if IQ was a straight-forwardly genetic phenomenon. I think the Guardian is racist and we should all boycott it. If we weren’t already.    

Boy, I hate the Guardian. I can't believe they published that article though. I'm amazed that they're acknowledging that IQ differences between groups exist at all; even if they still reach for the politically correct answer.

I don't think anybody is saying that serious, incapacitating diseases, intenstial parasites, malnutrition, lack of education, etc. don't have any serious impact on test scores, or differences between groups. Culture onlyists like the Guardian are trying to present the controversy as a conflict between two positions, one of which is a misrepresentation. Saying brain development doesn't depend upon environmental conditions is nonsense and I don't think anybody seriously argues that. The only people who do argue an "all" position are the sort of chaps who write for papers like The Guardian, hacks like Richard Nisbett and serious, respectable (but I think self-deceiving) academics like James Flynn.


Quote:

Richard Lynn turns the argument on its head by saying if they weren’t so thick they’d have got rid of the infectious diseases in the first place.

Lynn was probably suggesting the virtuous cycle problem or something. I'm more skeptical of Lynn than most scholars but really he's no more dishonest than culture-only writers and academics who receive copious amounts of glowing commendations from the popular press. Want to know how to get rich? Come up with some lame theory about test achievement gaps and then write a book about it. The New York Times or The Guardian wil pick it up and you'll get on the best-seller list pretty quickly. I guarantee it.


Quote:

Also, descendants of Africans living in the USA have markedly higher IQs than those still in the, uh, dark continent – which suggests that average IQs are far more quickly affected by environmental factors than would be the case

African Americans have about 20% white admixture on average, which theoretically should put them at a mean score of 76. The most comprehensive testing of African American IQ was conducted in World War II. It was the most thorough, inclusive and representative sample of their population group ever created. The mean score found was 78. Some other sampling was conducted in rural areas and found to have much lower mean scores than the usual 85 with high predictive validity. If it is true that the black-white IQ gap in the United States is only about 78 or lower, then that would mean (and I would be very surprised if it was true) that the enviromental advantages of living in an industrialized society like the United States have conferred almost no benefits to their population in IQ. It may suggest that almost all gains made have been the result of admixture. More research is needed to clarify whether this is the case.


Quote:

I think the Guardian is racist and we should all boycott it. If we weren’t already.

I boycotted the Guardian a long time ago because it was crap.

Soren wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 3:05pm:

Guardian says blacks are thicker than whites Rod Liddle Wednesday, 30th June 2010 http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/6112923/guardian-says-blacks-are-thicker-than-whites.thtml An interesting piece in The Guardian which suggests that people in warmer, hotter, more southerly countries (they mean Africa but dare not say it) might have lower IQs than people in the north, on account of some mysterious process by which the body devotes too much energy and resources to fighting infectious diseases and not enough to the brain. Right. In the same piece the very right wing chap Richard Lynn turns the argument on its head by saying if they weren’t so thick they’d have got rid of the infectious diseases in the first place.     This is the first time I’ve read an article in The Guardian – or in any other national daily newspaper – which implicitly accepts that people in, uh, warmer, hotter, more southerly countries (Africa, then) might indeed have lower IQs than those elsewhere, on average. They have done so on this occasion in order to explain it away as a consequence of some exterior factor. I am not sure they are right in either case; IQ seems to me to be culturally sensitive. While it is true that almost all IQ studies show east Asians at the top and Africans at the bottom (quite hot and infectious in Cambodia, though, isn’t it?) and that these tests broadly correspond with educational achievement in various western states with high levels of immigration, the differences in IQ between races is far less marked than the differences within them. Also, descendants of Africans living in the USA have markedly higher IQs than those still in the, uh, dark continent – which suggests that average IQs are far more quickly affected by environmental factors than would be the case if IQ was a straight-forwardly genetic phenomenon. I think the Guardian is racist and we should all boycott it. If we weren’t already.

Gets bloody hot in Australia too. Lucky you're from Denmark :P

Anyone who thinks IQ tests are a reliable way to compare "intelligence" across geographic boundaries, is a first rate ninny, with almost zero comprehension of what IQ tests actually test.

I had the highest IQ score in my school, and the fourth highest at the Uni I went to, and I am a total moron in many aspects of my life.

IQ tests are "cognitive problem solving ability tests", and cultural "knowledge" is critical to being able to do them well, and the black americans suddenly being much "smarter" than their african equivalents, is all about education, and community, not bloody temperature.

The flippin nits that come up with these hare brained ideas are bloody drongoes of the first order, if there rationale was right, then the first space program would have been developed by the eskimos.

They are pushing an agenda, that's all.

Quote:

IQ tests are "cognitive problem solving ability tests", and cultural "knowledge"

IQ tests are measurements of a higher order construct called g. "Cultural knowledge" (particular subtests may include things like vocabulary, which is more legitimate across cultural boundaries depending upon the language used than you would expect) would not whatsoever be used when measuring African intelligence because lack of education would be considered an obvious factor that would depress cognitive test results. The very low IQs found within African samples (Wicherts argues that it is higher; Lynn prepared his response later) are concluded on the basis of simple, chronometric measures or to some extent "culture free" tests. Cultural knowldge is not a factor here. It need not be a factor at all within samples that have reasonable levels of education either.

There are lots of IQ test batteries. Which one are you familiar with? There are plenty of batteries from which you can extact the g factor without drawing from one's cultural knowledge.



Quote:

They are pushing an agenda, that's all.

Well, it IS the Guardian.. ;)

Soren wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 3:05pm:

the differences in IQ between races is far less marked than the differences within them.

I would like to see some comparison of how IQ results are spread [b]within each race compared.

The standard deviation for IQ scores is 15 points. Is the standard deviation larger for smaller for certain different races? The answer is that we don't know but I don't think it is.

A standard deviation is a unit that, say, allows us to make a cross-comparison between two sets of varying things so we can say just how exactly "extreme" something is for its set. If the average penis was 5 inches long, and the standard deviation is approximately 1 inch, and my penis was 7 inches long, I could say that my penis is 2 standard deviations above the mean. When it comes to IQ, 2 standard deviations above the mean for your group means that only 2% of people within your group are "smarter" than you, or at least, have a higher IQ. So if you can imagine that if a group has a group mean of about 70 points, a person who scores exactly two SDs above that group mean is on par with the mean score of a group that scores 100.

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/ToolBarTopics/Articles/Featured_Authors/strom,_kevin/kevin_strom_works/Kevin_Strom_2005-2006/KAS_2005_2006_Art/20060122_Multiracialists_are_Crazy,_Part_3_IQ_graph_racial.jpg

United States.

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 8:37am:

The standard deviation for IQ scores is 15 points. Is the standard deviation largeror smaller for different races? The answer is that we don't know but I don't think it is. A standard deviation is a unit that, say, allows us to make a cross-comparison between two sets of varying things so we can say just how exactly "extreme" something is for its set. If the average penis was 5 inches long, and the standard deviation is approximately 1 inch, and my penis was 7 inches long, I could say that my penis is 2 standard deviations above the mean. When it comes to IQ, 2 standard deviations above the mean for your group means that only 2% of people within your group are "smarter" than you, or at least, have a higher IQ. So if you can imagine that if a group has a group mean of about 70 points, a person who scores exactly two SDs above that group mean is on par with the mean score of a group that scores 100.

That graph may be true, to a degree, however you'll also need to factor in the level of education of both groups...

In the United States, unfortunately, the educational standards and access for African-Americans is far lower than it is for European-Americans.......which does affect the IQ test scores....

What do you mean to a degree? The graph is true. Nobody seriously arguing this actually denies that there is a gap. The second point of your post got more to the point in that it accepted that there is a gap, but some milleu factor is causing it.

I don't think education is causing it at all. The children of highly educated, high-income negroes are routinely outperformed by the children of socioeconomically disadvantaged Asians and Whites on standardized IQ proxy tests. Test items that show the most marked differences between negro and white performance tend to be the most heritable and g-loaded, with the exception of test-items that are more amenable to achievement. I really don't know what education has to do with chronometry, block designs or otherwise.

I'd question the impartiality of such tests. To balance the tests, you'd have to carry out testing on people of similar socio-economic background - preferably middle class subjects.

IQ tests are a reflection of environment, especially the older studies which used mainly linguistic tests rather than the modern symbolic type.

In the case of Asians generally , there has always been a cultural respect of education.  It's a status symbol for a poorly educated father to have a doctor or a lawyer as a son in many Asian societies eg Vietnamese.

So the factor that has been omitted is that of motivation, parental or peer pressure. That motivation can be positive or negative.

Differences between Asians and Whites actually occur on tests that are not particularly influencable by education or routinely studied at all. Asians are by far the highest scoring major population and their edge on European populations is bourne via sub-tests that fall into the perceptual organization category. This is true everywhere you find them; even severely malnourished Korean children adopted into Belgian homes, who assumed the characteristics of their population group and not those of their adopted families. Their mean was very high, regardless of the socioeconomic category that they found themselves in.

Some verbal tests approximate the factor g even better than "symbolic" tests like the RPM. The single best measure has always been vocabulary, and this is because as a test it captures the very essence of what it attempts to measure. The very high factor load from vocabulary came as an enormous surprise to those who formulated the Wechsler scales. They initially objected to its inclusion for the same reasons you were hinting at.

I'm assuming some of my posts are incoherent when I talk about this subject; I try to explain it as best I can, but I don't think I'm very good at getting my point across or expressing myself.

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 9:38am:

What do you mean to a degree? The graph is true. Nobody seriously arguing this actually denies that there is a gap. The second point of your post got more to the point in that it accepted that there is a gap, but some milleu factor is causing it. I don't think education is causing it at all. The children of highly educated, high-income negroes are routinely outperformed by the children of socioeconomically disadvantaged Asians and Whites on standardized IQ proxy tests. Test items that show the most marked differences between negro and white performance tend to be the most heritable and g-loaded, with the exception of test-items that are more amenable to achievement. I really don't know what education has to do with chronometry, block designs or otherwise.

So the graph is based solely on negro and white subjects from precisely equal socioeconomic and educational backgrounds???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 9:12am:

In the United States, unfortunately, the educational standards and access for African-Americans is far lower than it is for European-Americans.......which does affect the IQ test scores....

I think you should rephrase that. It is not about access. The highest stanard of education is accessible to all. Black Americans choose to apply themselves less, for shorter period.  Absolutely nobody forces them to have the attitude they have. The evidence is the successful blacks. The social organisation in the US, Australia and Europe is  calculated to enhance social mobility on the basis of effort and talent. How you apply yourself to your studies, to your community, is entirely your responsibility.

Quote:

So the graph is based solely on negro and white subjects from precisely equal socioeconomic and educational backgrounds???

No, that's an overall measure.

http://liberalbiorealism.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/800px-1995-sat-income21.png?w=500

http://liberalbiorealism.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/1995-sat-education2.png?w=500

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

Quote: So the graph is based solely on negro and white subjects from precisely equal socioeconomic and educational backgrounds??? ??? Look at the graph again and tell me what the two axis lines indicate and what the trend lines indicate.

And that is what I mean...IF the graph is based on population numbers (i.e pick 1000 individuals with in a certain area) then if the negro population contains a higher number of under-educated, or even uneducated individuals....

Then the results will be skewed....

To show a fair comparison of IQ range, it would need to be based on equally educated groups....

Professor Steve Farron also lays out a lot of information here. Dalrymple fans take note that this conference was attended by Dr. D-Daddy himself.

http://vimeo.com/5104173

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 1:00pm:

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 10th, 2010 at 12:54pm: Quote: So the graph is based solely on negro and white subjects from precisely equal socioeconomic and educational backgrounds??? ??? Look at the graph again and tell me what the two axis lines indicate and what the trend lines indicate. And that is what I mean...IF the graph is based on population numbers (i.e pick 1000 individuals with in a certain area) then if the negro population contains a higher number of under-educated, or even uneducated individuals.... Then the results will be skewed.... To show a fair comparison of IQ range, it would need to be based on equally educated groups....

I misread your post. Edited it.

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

Quote: So the graph is based solely on negro and white subjects from precisely equal socioeconomic and educational backgrounds??? No, that's an overall measure. http://liberalbiorealism.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/800px-1995-sat-income21.png?w=500 http://liberalbiorealism.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/1995-sat-education2.png?w=500

You should have posted the SAT score graphs first...
Those are a much better indicator..

Whatever you might think about "indication", the point of my initially posting of that graph was to provide a response to Soren's question. It was perfectly within context.

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 1:01pm:

Dalrymple fans take note that this conference was attended by Dr. D-Daddy himself. http://vimeo.com/5104173

Indeed, and I have the video to prove it:

http://vimeo.com/5104173



Farron makes some astonishing points - or rather, once you think about it, he makes points most of us finds unsurprising, yet we are astonished that he makes (that is, dares to make) them.

That whites from the lowest socio-economic stratum have higher average scores in a law school entry test than blacks from the highest stratum is atonishing and cannot be waived away by the usual 'whites are racists, blacks are oppressed' bromides.

The real disturbing thing is the thought of the son of a black multi-millionaire receiving preferences over the genuinely brilliant child of an impovished Armenian/Moldovan/Romanian immigrant. Asians receiving preferences as well is an absurdity, and goes to show that even populations that are genuinely high-achieving aren't reluctant to shake down Whitey for freebies when they can.

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:

Whatever you might think about "indication", the point of my initially posting of that graph was to provide a response to Soren's question. It was perfectly within context.

LOL I was agreeing with it, not questioning it...

SAT is the university entrance qualification isn't it??

Which means that all the people taking it have completed much the same level of education, so it's a fairer comparison than just IQ tests..

Well, I wasn't saying you were disagreeing or agreeing. Just explaining my rationale for posting the graph.

The SAT or Scholastic Aptitude Test (I don't think they're even allowed to say that's what the acronym stands for anymore) is indeed the university admissions test. It is different however from the typical tests that we run in Australia in that it is not content specific. It's very formulaic and hasn't changed that much in the past fifty or so years, though in recent times it has become somewhat more like the entrance tests that we run in our highschools. It is valid to say that it is a pretty damn good measure of the thing that professional IQ tests measure, though the people that make it explicitly claim that it isn't and has nothing to do with "IQ" (they just don't want to get into trouble. ;) )

Quote:

nothing to do with "IQ" (they just don't want to get into trouble. Wink )

Imperium

I think that they actually just do not wish to add further to the misconception that IQ tests are a valid method of determining, and quantifying, "Intelligence".

People hold massive misconceptions about what the word, "intelligence" actually means, and attach an importance upon it which is disproportionate to it's real value.

As Forrest Gump quoted, very wisely, "stupid is, as stupid does".

IQ tests, like almost all tests, can help to get an understanding about people's individual strengths, and weaknesses, but to make the kind of assumptions about people that we see from those who link IQ testing to characteristics of racial superiority, is fraught with danger of misrepresenting whole groups of people, on the basis of flimsy, and questionable evidence.

You know that you can "train" people to do well in IQ tests by concentrating on teaching them the basic elements covered in the tests, which would tend to support that IQ can be "learned", partially at least, which puts a mighty big dent in arguments about racial differential testing actually showing us very much at all.

Quote:

I think that they actually just do not wish to add further to the misconception that IQ tests are a valid method of determining, and quantifying, "Intelligence". People hold massive misconceptions about what the word, "intelligence" actually means, and attach an importance upon it which is disproportionate to it's real value.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of intelligence testing is that so much of the controversy regarding it is its appropriation of the term "intelligence", which is a highly value-laden term. Intelligence as a trait is valued very highly in society (particularly amongst liberals, and they're always the first to say how it "doesn't matter") to the extent where people say it is the second most desirable trait that they want in a potential partner, behind "good health". Everybody seems to have their own definition on what it is. How can IQ testing measure "intelligence", then?

Let's stop focusing on the term intelligence when we talk about IQ testing. Whatever traits and attributes a person might place into their conceptulization of "intelligence", it hardly changes the fact that IQ tests do indeed measure something significant and real. IQ tests, as I have said dozens of times before, measure a "statistical" entity, a concept called g. g was discovered by a British mathematician called Charles Spearman who noted that a multitude of mental abilities were significantly positively correlated. A theoretical model was constructed using a complex mathematical method called Factor Analysis where "g" was considered to be the common core of all mental abilities. What this means is that mental abilities, as diverse as calculating how much change a customer needs to discerning why the words "revolution" and "evolution" might be different in meaning (among many) all draw mainly on the same ability, the same mental factor. This is the prevailing orthodox view in psychometrics and psychology.

The mental factor is not merely a statistical artifact; during the decade of the brain it was discovered to be related to a multitude of morphological traits and processes within the brain itself. g is a multi-process phenomeon that arises from internal brain architecture. Whether or not you don't think intelligence is merely g does not change what g is or what g does. It is the general ability to learn, conceptualise, synthesise, relate, categorize, memorize, verbalize and process information rapidly. It is a vital trait because it is so heavily involved and entwined with the skills that civilization is built upon. Of course, it doesn't guarantee that you're not going to be a smacking sh*t either. Most of our politicians are very smart people.. they're scumbags too. Nobody is saying this, Mozzaok.

The people who operate the College Board definitely would understand that the SAT measures the same factor as IQ tests do, and you can convert IQ test scores to SAT scores and vice versa via a conversion formula with great accuracy. This is too controversial to admit, so the matter is one of mokita**


Quote:

IQ tests, like almost all tests, can help to get an understanding about people's individual strengths, and weaknesses, but to make the kind of assumptions about people that we see from those who link IQ testing to characteristics of racial superiority, is fraught with danger of misrepresenting whole groups of people, on the basis of flimsy, and questionable evidence.

I'm not interested in establishing any sort of idea of racial superiority or inferiority. Most people who talk of racial superiority or inferioirty don't need the test results from Raven's Progressive Matrices to justify themselves. They just do.


Quote:

You know that you can "train" people to do well in IQ tests by concentrating on teaching them the basic elements covered in the tests, which would tend to support that IQ can be "learned", partially at least, which puts a mighty big dent in arguments about racial differential testing actually showing us very much at all.

Yes, of course I am aware that IQ tests can be taught to a limited extent. This is not important at all. When this happens, you merely denude the test of the g factor. You make the test useless. The ability for the test to say anything about an individual is utterly dependent upon that factor. People who memorize all the words on an IQ vocabulary sub-test have not become geniuses; they are no better at doing anything they have done before. The IQ score now misrepresents their true ability. Take g out of the test and it becomes a cute little novelty.

**Word in a Papuan New Guinean language for "truth we know but don't talk about". It's a great word.

I like to use Jensen's conceptualization of intelligence myself. It avoids the problems you carefully pointed out. I just made this Venn Diagram and it'll need more explaining, but I'm running out of time:

http://i31.tinypic.com/2j2gtpk.jpg

IQ testing has never extricated itself from the charge that it is examining anything but acquired knowledge because that's what it uses. Additionally, the Flynn Effect has shown that IQ's have been increasing at a rate inexplicable by genetic inheritance. This in itself points to it testing acquired knowledge as opposed to anything native.

Quote:

IQ testing has never extricated itself from the charge that it is examining anything but acquired knowledge because that's what it uses.

A spectacular indictment indeed, and one desperately deserving of thorough scrutinization!

While it is true that IQ testing does include "acquired knowledge", it is a misrepresentation to suggest that just because it does, therefore it is incapable of measuring anything deeper beyond acquired knowledge, or surface content of its tests. The surface content, or acquired knowledge included in the tests, is merely a tool employed in ferreting out the construct that underpins the mental ability required to do well on the test -- g. Surface content and acquired knowledge are merely included because they can be useful in tapping into the mental g factor, and therefore, the cognitive processes and specific physiological structures that give rise to it.

The surface content is relevant only in its ability to pinpoint g -- this is one of the fundamental principles of mental testing. It is ubiquitous amongst critics of IQ testing to decry the inclusion of vocabulary in test batteries for instance and even the original creators of the Wechsler IQ tests were hesitant to include vocabulary in their test batteries because they felt it could only be a measure of acquired knowledge, and therefore sensitive to the socioeconomic milleu. It is not. Vocabulary itself produces the single largest correlation between all IQ sub-tests and the full scale IQ, the g factor. Vocabulary produces very high correlations between itself and sub-tests superficially unrelated to itself; Vocabulary correlates more highly with the ability to mentally visualize patterns and then reproduce them with blocks or reason mathematically than it does with mental abilities you would expect it to, like the comprehension of written passages and paragraphs. This is seemingly anomalous until you understand that these closely correlated results are not being produced by acquired knowledge or test familiarity but an underlying mental factor that brings them into existence.

The second and more obvious point to contend against your reasoning is that IQ test batteries clearly do not just measure "acquired knowledge". A cursory inspection of most IQ test batteries will indicate
that a large number of sub-tests are involved with esoteric, unfamiliar mental exercises that few, if any people, train for. In their rawest and most simplistic form, mental tests merely involve the ability to press a switch when a light comes on; the time to mentally react to the stimulus is timed and then entered into a battery matrix with similar tests and then correlated with IQ test scores. You can produce very accurate measures of mental ability across educational and cultural backgrounds from this method alone. Even tests that do involve "acquired knowledge" can, via cursory examination or self-testing, be easily shown to draw from far more than merely information contained in the long term memory. You'll be surprised at what you can and cannot do if you experiment on yourself.


Quote:

Additionally, the Flynn Effect has shown that IQ's have been increasing at a rate inexplicable by genetic inheritance.

Because the actual cause(s) of the Flynn Effect is/are unknown, even you cannot state this with any certainty. Scholars have proffered that it is being caused by heterosis or hybrid vigour, not of the kind that would result from miscegnation, but of the dissolution of isolated rural communities. Another explanation preferred does not point to "acquired knowledge" (as you have suggested) but an improvement in nutrition, while another suggests merely earlier maturation (as a result of nutrition). Secondly, the Flynn Effect is not a 'g or 'Jensen effect' -- the secular rises on IQ sub-tests are not on the g factor at all, but may in fact be the result of the enhancement of the other, minor factors that are not related to g, or factors which are specific to the sub-tests that are rising. This only indicates that the Flynn Effect is not of very much importance because it does not represent an enhancement of broad mental ability but of specific mental abilities that have little predictive value beyond themselves.

I'm sorry, there is no way the current IQ test can be said to measure innate as opposed to acquired knowledge. And entangled with that is wealth and privilege. Not even Hernstein , Murray or Jensen can dismiss an enviromental explanation. The trend of increasing IQ cannot be explained by genetic changes. The trend is worldwide , and it is occuring even more in test such as Raven matrices which were thought to be untaught.

What scholars are you referring to for your hypothesis.? It sounds far-fetched to me. What evidence is there for it? Exactly how different were people in rural communities? One might opine from your perspective that country folk were a different "race"- miscegenation ?But let me say here that there  are  a host of scholars who reject the very notion of "race". "Race" has been dropped from mainstream science because it lacks real biological foundation.  Race is an arbitrary contruct based on a few phenotypical features. The rest is social myth which has been unravelled in the halls of science. Of course, there are pockets on the fringe and obviously on message boards who have not given up the ghost of Darwin's cousin- Galton.  And the term "miscegnation " belongs to a backward racist vocabulary fit for hillbillies and not any genuine discussion.

With respect to 'g' it is just a hypothetical construct which has been competing in the psychometric community with multipole factors. It was based on a rough correlation, and with the sophistication of computer analysis sub-correlations have been streaming out of the woodwork supporting all manner of multiple factors. Indeed it's looking more like religion than science.  It's  like monotheism v polytheism in a different garb together with desperados trying to claim  that they are 'g's chosen people.

You might be aware of Robert Plomin's worldwide project which has been ongoing since 1995 to discover particular genes responsible for high intelligence. It's 2010 and nothing has really been found. And many are asking right now whether the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Let me pause on these statements of yours:

Secondly, the Flynn Effect is not a 'g or 'Jensen effect' -- the secular rises on IQ sub-tests are not on the g factor at all, but may in fact be the result of the enhancement of the other, minor factors that are not related to g, or factors which are specific to the sub-tests that are rising. - Imperium

'g' is a hypothetical construct existing amongst others. It is not known, and has not been demonstrated to have any real foundation.


This only indicates that the Flynn Effect is not of very much
importance because it does not represent an enhancement of broad mental ability but of specific mental abilities that have little predictive value beyond themselves.- Imperium

How does it do that? It doesn't even logically follow. Moreover, Jensen, Rushton,  Hernstein, Murray, Lynn amongst others think the Flynn effect is very important.

Until it's satifactorily explained, it stands as  a major refutation of the hereditarian model and a refutation, to say the least,  of the gaggle of racists who have latched onto it. Whilst I'm lingering here,  I'll mention that Flynn also cited the Eyefert case study which further undermines racist pseudoscience.

Quote:

The trend of increasing IQ cannot be explained by genetic changes. The trend is worldwide , and it is occuring even more in test such as Raven matrices which were thought to be untaught.

You still have not presented any evidence that the Flynn effect is resulting due to improvements in education, as you suggested in your previous and current post that IQ tests only measure "acquired knowledge" and nothing else. It follows logically from this argument that an enhancement in educational, instructional instruments, etc. are improving test results on certain domains. However, when subjects are grouped by level of schooling, more or less the same level of gains is seen across every group. I personally think most proposed causes of the Flynn effect are questionable. Enhancement in tests like the Ravens Progressive Matrices would follow from improvements in nutrition, not to mention the fact that the Flynn effect is almost entirely concentrated within the left end of the IQ distribution, where nutritional deprivation has been most severe. The Flynn effect is likely being caused by a myriad of complex factors that we are not entirely sure of, but using it in to try to attempt to discredit the hereditarian hypothesis is mendacious at worst.

Saying that the Flynn effect "disproves" that intelligence or Spearman's g, whatever you want to call it, has a heritable component, requires you to argue against a strawman position; that hereditarians argue that intelligence is entirely under the control of genetic influences. Nobody is arguing this, and improvements in certain environmental and nutritional influences should in fact be expected to enhance phenotypic intelligence.


Quote:

What scholars are you referring to for your hypothesis.? It sounds far-fetched to me. What evidence is there for it? Exactly how different were people in rural communities? One might opine from your perspective that country folk were a different "race"- miscegenation ?

You are miscomprehending. "Miscegnation" has little to do with this potential cause of the Flynn effect, and my previous post explicitly attempted to distinguish it from "miscegnation" due to the concept of heterosis being commonly associated with miscegnation. The paper is here, and it is authored by Michael A Mingroni:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ769811&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ769811

Maybe you will not be able to access it; I should have a copy of it somewhere if you would like to read further. If heterosis of this kind is a contributory cause to the Flynn effect, it is likely not large at all, but it is a worthy avenue of enquiry.


Quote:

But let me say here that there  are  a host of scholars who reject the very notion of "race". "Race" has been dropped from mainstream science because it lacks real biological foundation.  Race is an arbitrary contruct based on a few phenotypical features. The rest is social myth which has been unravelled in the halls of science. Of course, there are pockets on the fringe and obviously on message boards who have not given up the ghost of Darwin's cousin- Galton.

 

Perhaps then, you would like to explain to me in your own words why you believe that race is a "social myth" that has been "unravelled in the halls of (dialectical?) science." Present the underpinning arguments for this bold claim in a terse bullet point form if you like, and I will be more than happy to address them one by one.


Quote:

And the term "miscegnation " belongs to a backward racist vocabulary fit for hillbillies and not any genuine discussion.

I see. I am sorry, I did know that I was violating any laws, antiquated, politically incorrect expression officer. I will try to be more careful in future. What kind of hillbillies use expressions like "miscegnation" anyway? Did a plane carrying crates filled with the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica crash land in Appalachia or something?


Quote:

With respect to 'g' it is just a hypothetical construct which has been competing in the psychometric community with multipole factors.

IQ test batteries are typically broken down into a multitude of factors like specific task factors, group factors, etc, with the g factor underpinning them all and contributing still to the greatest amount of variance between test results. You cannot make the g factor go away by breaking it into multiple factors. You only disperse it throughout whatever multiple factors you propose should replace it; as Richard Herrnstein used to say, you can "make g hide, but you cannot make it go away". g theory is accepted because it provides the simplest model and best model to explain an observed phenomeon. g is not the only factor that contributes to variance in test scores, but it is the master factor.

Secondly, your attempt to debunk my arguments by simply attacking and questioning the reality of a general factor will not work. My arguments were concerned only with your argument that IQ tests measure "nothing" other than "acquired knowledge" (presumably by this, you mean contained information and skills stored in long term memory and applied from there).

Whether IQ tests are underpinned primarily by a major g factor that accounted for the majority of the variance between results and several other smaller factors or a hundred and fifty factors does not invalidate my statement that IQ tests measure something "beyond" their surface content, which you suggested. Whether results are determined by a thousand test factors or just a few says nothing about what gives rise to these factors; your arguments do not support your conclusions.


Quote:

You might be aware of Robert Plomin's worldwide project which has been ongoing since 1995 to discover particular genes responsible for high intelligence. It's 2010 and nothing has really been found. And many are asking right now whether the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Or maybe you must be patient and understand that intelligence is a complex, polygenic attribute that is given rise to, likely, by a sizable portion of the genome. Intelligence is most certainly not physiologically unitary or the result of a single process but due to a multitude of complex dependent and interdependent processes. Finding all the genes that these processes are dependent upon is a gargantuan task, but one that continue in some form or another (Some Chinese scientists for instance are very interested). Some may have already been identified;


Quote:

Working with researchers at the Harvard Partners Center for Genetics and Genomics in Boston, the Feinstein team from the Zucker Hillside Hospital campus examined the genetic blueprints of individuals with schizophrenia, a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by cognitive impairment, and compared them with healthy volunteers. They discovered the dysbindin-1 gene, which they previously demonstrated to be associated with schizophrenia, may also be linked to general cognitive ability. "A robust body of evidence suggests cognitive abilities, particularly intelligence, are significantly influenced by genetic factors," said the study's primary author, Katherine Burdick, noting existing data already suggests dysbindin may influence cognition. "We looked at several DNA sequence variations within the dysbindin gene and found one of them to be significantly associated with lower general cognitive ability in carriers of the risk variant compared with non-carriers in two independent groups," she added.

Quote:

'g' is a hypothetical construct existing amongst others. It is not known, and has not been demonstrated to have any real foundation.

Just because it is a hypothetical construct does not make it worthless, on an equal level of plausibility with other proposed factors and theories. As for your suggestion that it has not been demonstrated to have any "real foundation", I do not believe that the controversy has been concluded at this point, but I could "count the ways" in which the g factor really does represent a real quality in the head. g has a multitude of physical correlates that do not diminish when analyzed in a within-family context. This distinguishes these physical correlates with its other physical correlates, which disappear when examined within family groups. I feel that psychometric science has not fully matured at this stage, but it becomes more sophisticated with every passing year and soon, we will solve the great mysteries that it still currently contains. Perhaps you could direct your pointed criticism at the existence of James R. Flynn's "X factor", truly a hypothetical construct, "existing among other competing theories to explain an observed phenomeon", that has not been demonstrated to have "any real foundation" (and unlike g, there are no leads whatsoever).

"Hypothetical constructs" are used all the time in science. Explanatory models are proposed all the time to provide avenues of enquiry and explantions for observed phenomeons, and include but are not limited to: the electromagnetic field, gravitation, quarks, etc.


Quote:

How does it do that? It doesn't even logically follow. Moreover, Jensen, Rushton,  Hernstein, Murray, Lynn amongst others think the Flynn effect is very important.

The Flynn effect is important. The question here however is just how translatable gains on certain IQ sub-tests and certain IQ tests are to other applications of mental ability. Are we experiencing (or have experienced) a true cognitive renaissance, or merely an improvement in the domain of the taking of certain tests? There is a significant difference between the two and we must analyze ability measures beyond the observed IQ gains in order to answer it. Only then can we ascertain just how important the Flynn effect really is.


Quote:

Until it's satifactorily explained, it stands as  a major refutation of the hereditarian model

It is not a refutation of the hereditarian model at all. It could be construed as a refutation of a model that posits that variances in intelligence are entirely under the control of genetic differences, but who is proposing such a model?


Quote:

I'll mention that Flynn also cited the Eyefert case

Yes, the Eyferth study, that ubiquitous, fifty year old, ace-in-the-hole piece of research that is ineluctably drummed into every single discussion on this subject. Let us afford it the scrutiny that it deserves:

1) One third of the children tested between the ages of five and ten; intelligence is notoriously unstable at early ages, two thirds were between ten and thirteen years of age
2) 20-25% of the "Africans" who fathered children in the study were North African Caucasians
3) The U.S Military runs, effectively, an IQ test for soldier selection; 30% of African Americans are denied service in comparison to 3% of whites due to their poorer performance on this test, meaning that the black GIs in the Eyferth were rigorously to some extent, selected for
4) No post-adolescent followup making the results ever more ambiguous

Other speculations and objections are pointed out here:


Quote:

1. Smarter whites may be (or at least might have been back in the 1950s) less likely to join the military. The military didn't offer the kind of educational incentives it does today. This would narrow IQ scores between races further. Also, the parents of smarter blacks might have seen the military as a more practical alternative to pursuing an education during that time. 2. It might be that selection for IQ within the military is important but ignored. In addition to passing intelligence tests to get into the military, eligibility for certain occupations is dependent on IQ. You must have a higher IQ to become an intelligence interrogator or a member of special operations unit than to become a regular infantryman, cook, or supply clerk. There may even be measurable differences in intelligence between soldiers in more and less accomplished infantry units. I would imagine that the choice of MOS and the unequal distribution of those occupations among different bases will tend to equalize IQ scores among different races at each locale beyond that achieved by entrance tests. It is similar to the way you would find a more narrow range of IQs among engineering majors than among all students admitted to a certain university. To the extent that personnel of different military specialties tend to be stationed at different bases, IQ scores for GIs of different races at particular bases might be more equal than predicted from overall intelligence scores among all GIs. 3. The behavior of having illegitimate children is probably highly correlated with IQ. In response to the observation that illegtimate children of black and white GIs had the same mean IQs according to the Eyferth study, John Ray has argued that German women might have been less likely to select less intelligent blacks. Alternatively, I would guess that less intelligent soldiers of either race were more likely to impregnate local women.

More information is included here on gnxp, a web-page that I frequent constantly: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000638.html

So I wouldn't be too reliant on the Eyferth study. It's a very ambiguous piece of work, though it is interesting.

It's nice to know where you're drawing from. I don't put much stock in the GNX site. And  the reasons you have listed against Eyeferth were tackled and refuted by Flynn.

Let me re-iterate- 'g' is a hypothetical construct amongst others that favor a multi-factorial approach- which have as much correlation to support their case as the proponents of 'g' can advance.

No hard biological evidence has been found to date to support the racist drivel from IQ proponents. IQ testing is fraught with circularity, it has not moved beyond operationalism, it tests nothing more than education, and existing rankings therein, in a disguised format. It's only use in my opinion would be to identify the need for remedial training. And that's what it was originally intended for by Binet. There are no grounds to believe that IQ taps native intelligence or that it has anything useful to say in that respect.

For something new- Jensenism was refuted in the 70's.

You have not identified your scholars but I know who you are drawing on. The likes of Hernstein, Murray, Rushton, and Lynn have been thoroughly critiqued for their racist attitudes, poor sampling, shoddy conclusions , fraud and paid opinion by the racist organisation known as the Pioneer fund.

There have been various studies  under careful controls which have either demonstrated no gap between IQ's between black or an increasing convergence- reflecting equalising opportunities. Of course, people such as yourself, will only focus on anything that strokes their ego.

Anyone these days, in my opinion, that uses something like IQ tests to buttress a racist outlook is no better than some extremist spouting that they belong to the chosen- chosen by 'g'- totally crass and obnoxious. ::)



.

You might find this disconcerting Imp-

"African-Americans and Whites were asked to solve problems typical of those administered on standard tests of intelligence. Half of the problems were solvable on the basis of information generally available to either race and/or on the basis of information newly learned. Such knowledge did not vary with race. Other problems were only solvable on the basis of specific previous knowledge, knowledge such as that tested on conventional IQ tests. Such specific knowledge did vary with race and was shown to be subject to test bias. Differences in knowledge within a race and differences in knowledge between races were found to have different determinants. Race was unrelated to the g factor. Cultural differences in the provision of information account for racial differences in IQ"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4M1D04P-3&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1411253601&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=67879a1e184d7001ac2e0ae099346ded

Oh my, cultural differences explain the difference. This study was conducted in 2006. And please note again, nothing has been found by way of genes to date by the Plomin project.

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

The real disturbing thing is the thought of the son of a black multi-millionaire receiving preferences over the genuinely brilliant child of an impovished Armenian/Moldovan/Romanian immigrant. Asians receiving preferences as well is an absurdity, and goes to show that even populations that are genuinely high-achieving aren't reluctant to shake down Whitey for freebies when they can.

That's about the point where I switched off on this thread. It's agenda driven.

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2010 at 10:06am:

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 10th, 2010 at 1:31pm: The real disturbing thing is the thought of the son of a black multi-millionaire receiving preferences over the genuinely brilliant child of an impovished Armenian/Moldovan/Romanian immigrant. Asians receiving preferences as well is an absurdity, and goes to show that even populations that are genuinely high-achieving aren't reluctant to shake down Whitey for freebies when they can. That's about the point where I switched off on this thread. It's agenda driven.

Well that is a bit precious muso.
We know what Imp believes in this area, but the fact that he is attempting to form cogent arguments to support his position is at least worth respecting, and responding to, and if he actually processes the new information he receives, he may very well be able to adjust his ideas accordingly.
Anybody can be led down the wrong path by spurious "experts", as you are well aware from your discussions with people on climate change, and being dismissive and judgemental, no matter how valid that approach may seem, does nothing to promote greater understanding.

I always value and respect your opinions on scientific subjects, as your knowledge in these areas is so much greater than my own, and even though Ziggy is new to this site, he also brings a valuable degree of relevant knowledge to his posts that I appreciate in the same way.

I like to think that I am a lot like Ziggy, except that he actually seems to know what he is talking about, lol.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 4:07am:

Well that is a bit precious muso. We know what Imp believes in this area, but the fact that he is attempting to form cogent arguments to support his position is at least worth respecting, and responding to, and if he actually processes the new information he receives, he may very well be able to adjust his ideas accordingly. Anybody can be led down the wrong path by spurious "experts", as you are well aware from your discussions with people on climate change, and being dismissive and judgemental, no matter how valid that approach may seem, does nothing to promote greater understanding. I always value and respect your opinions on scientific subjects, as your knowledge in these areas is so much greater than my own, and even though Ziggy is new to this site, he also brings a valuable degree of relevant knowledge to his posts that I appreciate in the same way. I like to think that I am a lot like Ziggy, except that he actually seems to know what he is talking about, lol.

Well since it's a mutual admiration society, you know what you're talking about too Mozz.  ;D

I don't have a problem using cogent logical arguments, but this is ignoring even the suspect data and saying that because a population is skewed, you should regard everybody in that population as somehow sub-standard. That's not how it works.

Personally I don't think there is a significant skew. It depends on the study, who is funding it,  and the agenda that the researchers are pushing.  

I remember a situation several years ago where one person was put in a particularly hostile work group, and his overall performance suffered as a result. The work group claimed that his English was terrible and that he made bad decisions and was a bad communicator. There was a suggestion that he wasn't very bright.

He was transferred to a more supportive workgroup and it became obvious that there was nothing wrong with his English and they had no performance issues whatsoever with him. In fact he contributed to the team more than most.  

I'm not going to come down to the level of this group and say where he came from, but he was born outside Australia.

Look, since I'm a "man against the world" here (or at least, a "man against OzPol") it is difficult for me to make responses in my usual, lengthy style as I often have to spend such a large amount of time writing things out. When more than one person enteres into the thread, the amount of work I have to do to respond increases considerably. The controversial nature of my positions however ensures this, so I am not compliaining, but my recent health problems as of late rendered me incapable of making a reply to this thread sooner. Muso and Mozzaok have weighed in, and I will respond to them together before I address Ziggy.

Let me start.

Quote:

We know what Imp believes in this area, but the fact that he is attempting to form cogent arguments to support his position is at least worth respecting, and responding to, and if he actually processes the new information he receives, he may very well be able to adjust his ideas accordingly.

I would like to query you on what you think I believe before we begin, as I absolutely cannot stand to misrepresent anybody's position. It distresses me a great deal and I spend a lot of time reading over other people's posts attempting to comprehend them exactly as they are stated so the biases of my thought processes, which may inevitably lead to miscomprehensions, are ironed out. However, I want to get these responses underway immediately, as I am in an intense amount of pain at present. So from what I gather what you think my positions here are:

1) Imperium believes that there is a black-white gap (in the United States and elsewhere. I do not really consider this a matter of belief as at least beyond discussions between lays people and the unitiated, there is absolutely no dispute on this fact.

2) He believes that the gap is genetic in origin. Differences between blacks and whites in the United States, and globally, are a result of genetic differences between blacks and whites, and white people are endowed with particular genetic attributes that confer to them higher intelligence than blacks.

For the first, I really cannot continue an argument with you here if you wish to debate me on it. Because frankly, I have much better things to do with my time then debate this elementary point. There is no dispute whatsoever on the existence of a Black-White IQ gap and Black-White school achievement gap compared group to group.

The second, the gap is genetic in origin. Do I believe that the gap is genetic in origin? Yes. Do I believe that is entirely genetic in origin? Perhaps not. Do I believe with absolute certainty, sureness of myself and my positions, that the gap is genetic, even partially, in origin? No.

As for blacks in Africa, do I believe that the IQ gap between blacks in Africa and whites is genetic in origin? Yes. Do I believe that it is entirely genetic in origin? ABSOLUTELY NOT. The environmental deprivations of living in Africa are intensely severe in nature. As Muso himself has pointed out, the West simply does not know what poverty is; I agree wholeheartedly. I will not get into what environmental influences are so widespread in Africa that are significantly depressing their IQ scores, but they are numerous and serious.

I am enormously apologetic if you do not think these are my positions. I don't have time or the patience at this point (given my present physical and mental state; I have had a very rough last few days and am seriously depressed) to await a response from you.


Quote:

Anybody can be led down the wrong path by spurious "experts", as you are well aware from your discussions with people on climate change, and being dismissive and judgemental, no matter how valid that approach may seem, does nothing to promote greater understanding.

Look, I don't want to sound harsh or insulting here, but I am getting sick and tired of this. I am no expert on Global Warming (and have only begun my delving into it as a subject), but from my general impressions, particularly as discussed between Muso, Paella, and the denialists on this forum, it looks like a bit of a massacre. I am aware of the scientific consensus on Global Warming. Point is, when it comes to the race-IQ debate, it is not that clear cut; your analogy with global warming is faulty  on tthis discussion. I don't speak as an expert on global warming, nor do I desire to impugn or insult its skeptics. I am speaking only from a position critical of Mozzaok's analogy (and from this, I must accept for the basis of this discussion that Global Warming is an issue characterised by only one side presenting serious arguments).

The interesting results of a study (or poll) conducted by a professor and a Harvard researcher are here.

http://i25.tinypic.com/24l9btl.png

I'm not interested in arguing from consenus or authority here. I am merely trying to present an argument which disputes your comparison, with AGW.

Perhaps Mozzaok, since he is clearly very knowledgable on Global Warming, would like to discuss its critics, who may not be of a very high quality in comparison to those that argue in favour of the existence of AGW (as I would expect from his analogy). Look, global warming skeptics, I'm no Global Warming expert, I'm just accepting that the arguments of AGW critics are not of particularly high quality for the purpose of addressing this analogy. I just don't think you're being fair here. It's like you're proposing that the scholars who argue for my positions are this tiny minority of f*ckwitted crank-cases not worthy of taking seriously; a band of racist demagogues attempting to obfuscate what is essentially a very clear issue with an obvious conclusion. I am just saying that it is not that simple.

Moving on to Muso now, the next part of the series.

Quote:

I don't have a problem using cogent logical arguments, but this is ignoring even the suspect data and saying that because a population is skewed, you should regard everybody in that population as somehow sub-standard. That's not how it works.

I am really.. not sure what you mean by this. Trying to make sense of it here:

1) Saying that a population like African Americans is "skewed" means that they score 15 points, or one sigma, below white Americans, as a group.

2) From this, it is believed that everybody in the African American population is sub-standard (relative to whites). Now, let me address this..

Firstly, maybe you are merely uncertain or ignorant of the information here, but this is a horrible, gross mi-representation of anything I have ever argued. Muso, if you want to know the truth, I probably regard you as the cleverest member here (and from somebody who understands the subject of intelligence, or at least, feels that he has some reason to believe that he understands it better than most, this may mean quite a lot) beyond Coral Sea (though he does not post here anymore), but this is horribly unfair, and completely muddle-headed. In my previous post, the post that prompted you to respond that this was an "agenda driven" issue, I was concuring with Soren the absurdity of many of the things that Steven Farron elaborated in his book.  Maybe if you would like a copy of some of the literature which discusses the inherent unfairness and ridiculousness of many aspects of the American affirmative action program, I can mail you it. I however, am not sure how what you said about skew, and population sub-standards, connects to that previous post, unless they were simply unrelated. I will address your statements about skew and sub-standard populations now as if they were unrelated.

There is nothing to this matter and comparisons between populuations beyond the gaussian distribution; the normal curve. Six million African Americans (if my math is correct, not bothering to actually check up on it since I just did it in my head) are in fact, more intelligent than the average white American. This is something I frequently have to point out.  Nobody except extremists, casual racists and the uninitiated believe that a population is some monolithic, homogenous entity that exhibits exactly the same characteristics across the entire breadth of its set. I certainly don't think so. There are however, averages, and given your mathematical chops, I'm sure you know that this implies, depending upon the size of the sigma, the group in question will primarily cluster around the mean.

Quote:

Personally I don't think there is a significant skew. It depends on the study, who is funding it,  and the agenda that the researchers are pushing.

Well maybe you think that, but I think that the body of research, at least, every normalization sample of IQ tests, and the gargantuan samples (some as large as 6 million) collected from an enormous variety of sources shows the one sigma gap between the general population of Blacks and Whites. I don't think you of all people would be willing to contend that there is this massive racist conspiracy between a large number of interacting forces, forces that would have to be extremely varied in their collective scope, to produce this gap of one sigma. This is a bit of an absurdity. I'm really not interested in discussing the existence of the one standard deviation gap, as I said to Mozz before.

Now again, maybe I am being unfair, so please reprimand me if I am, but I do get this impression from you Muso, among many others, that there are sinister motives at play here, at least, only, amongst those that argue the things that I do. I have generally avoided discussing motives, biases, and the personal characteristics of my opposition, or the scholars from which their arguments are predicated, because I frankly do not see the relevance. While I can indeed be a bit of a prick sometimes, deep down I don't like "fighting dirty". I would rather discuss the arguments at hand here rather than the alleged agendas of those that argue, but if I am correct about what you think, perhaps you would do well to do some serious reflection on the biases that may be influencing the arguments of your own camp. And many, a great many, scholars involved proposing the egalitarian hypothesis, are absolutely blinded by their guiding ideologies (and that is to put it nicely).  Beyond the Stormfront crowd, I have seen a sh*tload more respect and congeniality on the hereditarian side then the egalitarian side. The nasty, nasty things that student protesters did to poor Arthur Jensen (a peaceful, mild-mannered man who shows nothing but respect to his critics, not the loathesome, wicked creature he is painted to be), and the outright mendacity of a certain Harvard biologist, that I will not name, come immediately to mind. It is so completely unfair, if this is what you are doing, to pretend as if the "agendas" are on one side. This is the general impression that I have gleaned from you, and if I am wrong on it, then I am extremely sorry.

Of course, I am to an extent influenced by an agenda myself on this matter. It appears to me however, that you are as well, as well as many others. Karnal once pointed out to me that my posts were coming from somebody not possessive of an "opened mind", that everything I thought on this issue was based solely upon a "guess". This is more unfair treatment, and I am objecting to it finally, instead of usually being quiet about it as I normally am. Simply put, I see nothing but bias on this issue and disturbing examples of binary-thinking disorder on BOTH sides. I certainly don't pretend to know everything, and if I have given this impression, I am sorry. I am not certain of anything I think or say on anything, and especially, not on this matter. I have come to see good arguments on both sides. I generally like to see the kind of arguments coming from men like James R. Flynn rather than those typical of the kind of people who write for the New York Times; listening to his debate with Charles Murray was a wonderful experience, as it showed two highly intelligent, well-versed scholars engaged in nothing other than a respectful, friendly debate. There was no motive questioning, no accusations of racist; simply, discussing the data at hand, and what conclusions should be drawn from it. Flynn, the kingpin of the arguments of many egalitarians , and the most prominent IQ researcher on the culture side (and a great bloke no doubt; from New Zealand too! Well, an immigrant there), sees his opponents as legitimate, serious researchers. In regards to Arthur R Jensen, Flynn said that Jensen's interactions with his critics has been nothing other than a "massacre". Flynn, and many of the other scholars that egalitarians predicate their arguments upon, do not think the same whatsoever as these egalitarians do. They see that there is a debate here, and it is far, far, from over.

I'm going to get around to Ziggy's posts later. The necessary literature that I do not have memorized but will allow a greater delving I require is not at present available to me (and has required my friend shipping to me), so I will have to wait before I can respond.  Additionally, I think this series of posts has taken a lot out of me, and I am not feeling good at all. I don't mean to whine anymore, so I will be quiet.

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 9:45pm:

Firstly, maybe you are merely uncertain or ignorant of the information here, but this is a horrible, gross mi-representation of anything I have ever argued. Muso, if you want to know the truth, I probably regard you as the cleverest member here (and from somebody who understands the subject of intelligence, or at least, feels that he has some reason to believe that he understands it better than most, this may mean quite a lot) beyond Coral Sea (though he does not post here anymore),

I'm not particularly bright. I don't make any claims in that department.


Quote:

There is nothing to this matter and comparisons between populuations beyond the gaussian distribution; the normal curve. Six million African Americans (if my math is correct, not bothering to actually check up on it since I just did it in my head) are in fact, more intelligent than the average white American. This is something I frequently have to point out.

Ok, the studies don't all agree with each other, but as long as you understand that, perhaps I am tarring you with the same stick that I reserved for true bigots.

As other people pointed out, I don't think IQ tests are the be all and end all, and I take people for what they say and do rather than the colour of their skin.

I've met plenty of thick people, and they come in all different colours and sizes.  If you go to Sub-Saharan Africa, you'll find people who live on their wits a lot more than in this land of comfort - and it's not always for honest purposes.

I've also met some extremely intelligent people who do the stupidest things. Sometimes intelligence and common sense don't go well together. I find that new graduates need a few years to get their common sense back after a few years in academic circles.

I always thought that the French were far more racist than the South Africans.   The French ex-pats in Senegal have a little joke that they tell:

What's the difference between a tourist and a racist?
- About 2 weeks.

Quote:

I'm not particularly bright. I don't make any claims in that department.

I beg to differ. Your mastery of obviously highly complex, abstract material moves far beyond mere parrotry of facts, as exemplified by your off-the-cuff responses in the environment forum. You generalize information about your specialized subject material to address a variety of novel claims, and finally, people who are involved with the hard sciences tend to be on average much higher in intellectual ability than those involved with the humanities... (no offense  :P)


Quote:

As other people pointed out, I don't think IQ tests are the be all and end all

I'm not entirely sure I ever said they were; other apsects of the personality are also of utmost importance, and a high IQ, as I explained to Mozzaok before, dodx not guarantee at all an intrinsic goodness, quality, or.. supremacy. Though I may think that deep down, pragmatically I have certain other designs.


Quote:

Ok, the studies don't all agree with each other, but as long as you understand that

The means put forward are aggregates of every study. A population is not some monolitic entity but a set that clusters around a mean (how dense that cluster is depends upon the sigma, or standard deviation).

I do have rather unconventional views, at least, for this time and place; I'm not disputing that. I think however that there is a lot more nuance to them then perhaps you or anybody else here may think, and far more nuance beyond the impression that I admittedly sometimes give off. Not arguing that either  ;)


Quote:

I've also met some extremely intelligent people who do the stupidest things.

The Unabomber had an IQ of around 165 :P and Goering, who was tested, had an IQ of 138. I, to some extent, like to think of a high IQ as not a guaranatee of infallibility, but if controlled for certain other factors of personality, is something that does decrease the probability of doing something incredibly stupid relative to a person with a lower IQ. While I would agree with the obvious uselessness of many high IQ academic types, I've also met a whole sh*tload more people who can barely verbalize what they had for lunch.