CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black

[Smallcock]

You should really do some reading.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx
http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/09/intelligence-testing-accurate-or.html
http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/biased.html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1434872?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Providing a pile of links with contents that you don't understand doesn't strengthen your argument.

 

[Smallcock]

I find this post interesting. When I posted about the impact of circumstances and environment on the development of modern western society you responded by screeching I was anti-science but here you are stating essentially what I did - environmental factors played a huge role in societal development.

You must have mis-read what I wrote or what I responded to. Nobody on Earth would argue that environment plays no role. There are only two factors at play, environment and genetics. They BOTH play a role. You and oagre deny the latter. THAT is anti-science.

 

[basketcase]

Your weak attempt to dance around evolutionary theory is comical.

As is your attempt to dance around the English language to.

 

[basketcase]

Providing a pile of links with contents that you don't understand doesn't strengthen your argument.

You should try reading what. I know you won't because they refute your claims. Anyone who's even taken an actual IQ test knows that they are tailored to age, experience, and background.

 

[Smallcock]

As is your attempt to dance around the English language to.

*too*

 

[Smallcock]

You should try reading what. I know you won't because they refute your claims. Anyone who's even taken an actual IQ test knows that they are tailored to age, experience, and background.

They're NOT tailored to experience or background.

An adopted kid will score closer to what his biological parents score on an IQ test, despite being raised in an enriched environment provided by his high IQ adoptive parents. Why? Because IQ is partly genetic.

 

[basketcase]

You must have mis-read what I wrote or what I responded to. Nobody on Earth would argue that environment plays no role. There are only two factors at play, environment and genetics. They BOTH play a role. You and oagre deny the latter. THAT is anti-science.

I am amazed that you can accuse others of misreading while continually not reading and yelling that people are anti-science.

Of course genetics plays a role in individual abilities but your attempts to say western culture could only have come from white people is laughable.

In case you missed it, China had a highly developed society long before we did as did the Persians (or the Babylonians who first developed an equitable legal system). Their societal outcomes were severely impacted by circumstance (the Mongols played a huge role in both). Simply put, the development of Western culture is a result of circumstance far more than any racial intelligence or ability.

If you really want to discus history, I would put western democracy down as a result of incompetent kings who needed help from the little people, not any innate 'white' genetics.

 

[basketcase]

They're NOT tailored to experience or background.

An adopted kid will score closer to what his biological parents score on an IQ test, despite being raised in an enriched environment provided by his high IQ adoptive parents. Why? Because IQ is partly genetic.

These two statements are unrelated and the first one is definitively wrong. Do you really think the IQ test for a 5 year old is the exact same as for an adult?


And yes, there is a genetic component where the parents IQ plays a role but that has little to do with racial views on intelligence.

*too*

Thank you. You can at least get a job as my secretary.

 

[Smallcock]

I am amazed that you can accuse others of misreading while continually not reading and yelling that people are anti-science.

Of course genetics plays a role in individual abilities but your attempts to say western culture could only have come from white people is laughable.

In case you missed it, China had a highly developed society long before we did as did the Persians (or the Babylonians who first developed an equitable legal system). Their societal outcomes were severely impacted by circumstance (the Mongols played a huge role in both). Simply put, the development of Western culture is a result of circumstance far more than any racial intelligence or ability.

If you really want to discus history, I would put western democracy down as a result of incompetent kings who needed help from the little people, not any innate 'white' genetics.

First, you're confusing what I wrote with what Marc Faber said. Don't do that.

Second, it's not surprising that China had a highly developed society, albeit a radically different one.

Third, you confuse genetics to mean intelligence exclusively. Genetics applies to many other facets of human existence such as behavior.

Your original position is that ONLY environment plays a role in societal outcomes, yet you contradict this by conceding that genetics plays a role in individual abilities. One is the microcosm of the other.

Just admit that your stance is untenable. Environment AND genetics impact culture.

 

[Smallcock]

These two statements are unrelated and the first one is definitively wrong. Do you really think the IQ test for a 5 year old is the exact same as for an adult?

IQ tests on very young children are less accurate, due to communication issues (one has to be old enough to understand that they're taking a test etc). However IQ measured later in life is consistent. That is, you can't raise it dramatically. In fact, our IQ slowly begins to decrease with old age.

And yes, there is a genetic component where the parents IQ plays a role but that has little to do with racial views on intelligence.

Great, now extrapolate that family genetic component to a larger population size. Now you have populations with different average IQs.

Thank you. You can at least get a job as my secretary.

I have no shame in doing that but it has to pay well.

 

[Frankfooter]

With all the talk about how,... "we are all the same",... "there is only one race",... "we all evolved equally", etc., etc.,... there can not be any justification for the few here,... who insist on using racist,... as a response to any post.

But I'm sure they will be doing exactly that in their next post.

But I'm still in awe on how racism evolved from down grading some one based on a different colour of their skin,... to covering every thing from religion to disagreeing with oppression in some cultures,... and on and on.
Really quite ridiculous,... on ay level,... but a very simplistic tool,... for the very simplistic.

The classic example is hutsis and tutus.
Neither are different 'breeds', 'races' or any other genetically identifiable difference.

It was just a forced differentiation by colonial occupiers and it resulted in the largest genocide since the second world war.

British Indian army officer John Hanning Speke was the creator of the racialist hypothesis known as the “Hamitic Theory”. In his writings, Speke suggests that the Tutsis are more European than the Hutus. Their caucasoid facial features, combined with their smoother personalities was proof enough for him that they were more cultured than the Hutus. This theory was basis for all racial and cultural division between the Hutu and Tutsi in later years. It made specific definition as to how one race was superior to the other, therefore giving said superior race much power and influence.


A portrait of John Hanning Speke, the man behind the Hamitic Theory

After World War I, Belgium was given control over Rwanda. The Belgians increased the divide between the Hutus and Tutsis through the use of the eugenics, which was rather popular at the time (i.e. Nazi Germany). Skull measurements showing larger brain size, greater height, and lighter skin tones all reaffirmed the Tutsis’ superiority over the Hutus, by providing proof of their apparent greater purity and closer ancestry to Europeans.

https://modernhistoryproject2012.wordpress.com/history-of-hutu-tutsi-relations/

Is this the kind of differentiation you are trying to explain?

 

[Frankfooter]

You must have mis-read what I wrote or what I responded to. Nobody on Earth would argue that environment plays no role. There are only two factors at play, environment and genetics. They BOTH play a role. You and oagre deny the latter. THAT is anti-science.

Genetically we are all considered the same race.
So that makes it environment only.

 

[Smallcock]

Genetically we are all considered the same race.
So that makes it environment only.

Small differences can be marginal or significant. For example we are 99% genetically identical to chimps. That 1% makes a world of difference.

We need not even look at race. Two randomly selected White kids raised in the same environment with different abilities (because of genetics) means their life outcomes will be different.

 

[Smallcock]

Actually, I'm not wrong.

All the earlier race stereotype "research" has been totally discredited. The intellectual climate of the early and mid Twentieth Century was full of racist ideas. By the 60's, these were considered false and out of date. This contributed to the end of immigration quotas and academic quotas. Cite that stuff if you want to. No one outside your own circle of Far Right guys is going to take it seriously.

It was that type of research that was the foundation for Hitler's ideas and Nazism, but it was also accepted in the English-speaking world for some decades.

I want to add the following because it seems you missed one of the crucial points I made earlier. Most of the IQ testing of the early 20th century holds up to this day. It was precisely this type of IQ data that led politicians to recognize that Asians and Jews were smarter than the average white American. It was this concern of competitive inferiority of the average American white man against these intellectually more dominant immigrants that helped shape immigration policy to limit these groups.

Inevitably the floodgates opened through remarkable and formidable lobbying efforts by Jewish Americans- and what happened? Jews and Asians began to dominate higher education and the professions just like the testing would have predicted and just like those politicians of the early 20th feared would happen. Look around once in awhile.

 

[oldjones]

No oagre, most of that research has NOT been discredited. Findings that are not politically correct cause media outrage and hysteria and the findings and their authors are chanted down as racists, but nobody actually disputes the science. So things quiet down and journalists take a break, and people like you think the findings were discredited.

The IQ gap is not an invention of racists. It's a reality that has existed and been measured for 100 years, and can be measured today with similar results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

You also fail to provide an argument as to why peoples that evolved in different regions of the world would be identical on all metrics.

From the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia entry you cite to 'support' your claim that IQ differences are scientifically attributable to race:

"Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually appear." I added the emphasis.

That directly contradicts your assertion that the connection is long-proven and accepted science. The best you can read into that is that some researchers don't believe that the possibility of such a connection has been disproven.

Of course, your position also depends on 'race' being scientifically established as a matter of genetics. From further down in your cited article:

"The majority of anthropologists today consider race to be a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one, a view supported by considerable genetics research. The current mainstream view in the social sciences and biology is that race is a social construction based on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics." My emphasis.

Thank you for the effort, but it didn't advance your case.

 

[Frankfooter]

I want to add the following because it seems you missed one of the crucial points I made earlier. Most of the IQ testing of the early 20th century holds up to this day. It was precisely this type of IQ data that led politicians to recognize that Asians and Jews were smarter than the average white American. It was this concern of competitive inferiority of the average American white man against these intellectually more dominant immigrants that helped shape immigration policy to limit these groups.

Inevitably the floodgates opened through remarkable and formidable lobbying efforts by Jewish Americans- and what happened? Jews and Asians began to dominate higher education and the professions just like the testing would have predicted and just like those politicians of the early 20th feared would happen. Look around once in awhile.

Ok, lets take a pause here.

Do you really believe that, as you said, 'Asians and Jews' are smarter then the average 'White American'?
Do you believe that to be 'evolutionary', 'genetic' or 'cultural'?

Did you read this part of your wiki page?

The majority of anthropologists today consider race to be a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one,[34] a view supported by considerable genetics research.[35][36] The current mainstream view in the social sciences and biology is that race is a social construction based on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics.[37] Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2005) state, "Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. It derives from people's desire to classify."[32] The concept of human "races" as natural and separate divisions within the human species has also been rejected by the American Anthropological Association. The official position of the AAA, adopted in 1998, finds that advances in scientific knowledge have made it "clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups" and that "any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations [is] both arbitrary and subjective.

 

[mandrill]

I want to add the following because it seems you missed one of the crucial points I made earlier. Most of the IQ testing of the early 20th century holds up to this day. It was precisely this type of IQ data that led politicians to recognize that Asians and Jews were smarter than the average white American. It was this concern of competitive inferiority of the average American white man against these intellectually more dominant immigrants that helped shape immigration policy to limit these groups.

Inevitably the floodgates opened through remarkable and formidable lobbying efforts by Jewish Americans- and what happened? Jews and Asians began to dominate higher education and the professions just like the testing would have predicted and just like those politicians of the early 20th feared would happen. Look around once in awhile.

What OJ just said.

NO reputable academic or any professional involved in the social sciences currently accepts the "science" you have provided to this thread.

NO social worker, sociologist, lawyer, judge, teacher, professor, criminologist that I have EVER spoken with since entering university 40 years ago has hinted at / mentioned / brought up / winked at the idea that race or regional origin is a factor in IQ or behaviour. That's 1,000's of people, many of whom were not really politically correct when stating what they feel.

The "science" that you have are the tests and theories that provided an underpinning for Nazism and Hitler. Back then, scientific ideas were totally different than they are now. There was a crazy Italian dude who thought that criminals had oddly shaped skulls, for instance. He used to go to jails and measure heads and then map the shape on a graph back at his office.

 

[mandrill]

I want to add the following because it seems you missed one of the crucial points I made earlier. Most of the IQ testing of the early 20th century holds up to this day. It was precisely this type of IQ data that led politicians to recognize that Asians and Jews were smarter than the average white American. It was this concern of competitive inferiority of the average American white man against these intellectually more dominant immigrants that helped shape immigration policy to limit these groups.

Inevitably the floodgates opened through remarkable and formidable lobbying efforts by Jewish Americans- and what happened? Jews and Asians began to dominate higher education and the professions just like the testing would have predicted and just like those politicians of the early 20th feared would happen. Look around once in awhile.

Aah. The inevitable Jewish Conspiracy Theory.

So is this where the "Jews Will Not Replace US" chant at Charlotteville comes from. I get it now. All you guys on the Far Right are now reading these "science" papers from 1922 and coming up with theories about Jewish takeover of the West.

As I said above, there is no valid argument that Jews are genetically distinct. They have Middle Eastern genetics. And they have lived in Europe and North America and been integrated with those around them for centuries. OTOH, most people would agree that the Jewish family and community environment reinforces the idea of academic, professional and business success very heavily. It's the classic case of environment producing results.

 

[oldjones]

I want to add the following because it seems you missed one of the crucial points I made earlier. Most of the IQ testing of the early 20th century holds up to this day. It was precisely this type of IQ data that led politicians to recognize that Asians and Jews were smarter than the average white American. It was this concern of competitive inferiority of the average American white man against these intellectually more dominant immigrants that helped shape immigration policy to limit these groups.

Inevitably the floodgates opened through remarkable and formidable lobbying efforts by Jewish Americans- and what happened? Jews and Asians began to dominate higher education and the professions just like the testing would have predicted and just like those politicians of the early 20th feared would happen. Look around once in awhile.

At first I thought you'd missed the point about 'whites' being the inferior race. It does you credit that you went to the effort to make sure no one did.

Of course, if that were true it would make race-based restrictions on immigration and other mixing even more stupid and counter-productive, depriving 'whites' of access to better genetic stock and condemning them — as a race — to perpetual isolation and inferiority.

BTW: I know Asians are 'yellows', although many are as pinkish as me, and 'blacks' can be every shade from beige to chocolate, and as unhyphenated American as apple pie. Or Red Indians, or Non-Hispanic 'whites'. But what colour are Jews? And are the Ethiopian ones descended from Solomon and Sheba the same colour as the Italian ones descended from Caesar's tutors? Think of it as a dog-breed characteristics question. What are the proper names of these scientifically-established races you think we should acknowledge?

 

[Smallcock]

From the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia entry you cite to 'support' your claim that IQ differences are scientifically attributable to race:

"Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually appear." I added the emphasis.

That directly contradicts your assertion that the connection is long-proven and accepted science. The best you can read into that is that some researchers don't believe that the possibility of such a connection has been disproven.

Of course, your position also depends on 'race' being scientifically established as a matter of genetics. From further down in your cited article:

"The majority of anthropologists today consider race to be a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one, a view supported by considerable genetics research. The current mainstream view in the social sciences and biology is that race is a social construction based on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics." My emphasis.

Thank you for the effort, but it didn't advance your case.

What you did is called cherry-picking. And even then, your quotes show that there is no consensus among scientists like you would have readers believe.