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

[Smallcock]

Smallcock, I fwd-ed the Wiki page to my sister, who has grad degrees in anthropology and adult literacy and who is a college professor and author of numerous education textbooks.

Her response was: "Yeah. Every so often there are studies which correlate IQ to "race". They vary from study to study. No one in the teaching field considers them particularly important, relevant or useful."

In other words, "big deal".

As I said above, no one in the legal, judicial or social work fields links "race" to IQ. This issue is really just important to righties who want to ground their abhorrent political views on supposed "science".

It may or may not be a "big deal" but the reason it's considered "not particularly important" is because of the potential for being publicly shamed and dehumanized for broaching non-PC findings. In other words, most researchers stay clear of it and of making any statement that could be interpreted as support for a genetic component to intelligence because it means their job and social life could end in a nightmare.

Nobody in the fields you work in may link race to IQ, but the people working in those fields exhibit the role of IQ and race. I look forward to the day when it's blacks and hispanics or Australian aborigines dominating Asians and Jews in all the fields you mention. Don't hold your breathe.

 

[Smallcock]

Try reading the full article and then following the link to the full study.
The study used identical twins raised in different socioeconomic conditions to point out that even socioeconomic conditions can have a massive effect on IQ tests.
They used twins to prove that genetic variation couldn't have been responsible for those IQ test differences.

You failed to read and comprehend.

I'll read it when I have the time. I have little faith in the power of your The Atlantic journalist to undermine the tried and true findings of the social sciences.

 

[oldjones]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_gap_in_the_United_States

Thanks for trying to supply some basis for the science you claim shows that members of the 'black race' have genetically lower IQs. However neither of these shows any such thing.

The authors of the Minnesota study you cited first don't agree amongst themselves, so I'll take the word of the three whose interpretation of the data I prefer, you can stick with the guys you like. But although this study doesn't make the grade itself, it does demonstrate that the science has yet to prove the point you're trying to get us to buy into.

The second study was the one you cited for oagre, and it also fails to make your case and if anything supports the case against it, as I said earlier.

 

[Smallcock]

Thanks for trying to supply some basis for the science you claim shows that members of the 'black race' have genetically lower IQs. However neither of these shows any such thing.

The authors of the Minnesota study you cited first don't agree amongst themselves, so I'll take the word of the three whose interpretation of the data I prefer, you can stick with the guys you like. But although this study doesn't make the grade itself, it does demonstrate that the science has yet to prove the point you're trying to get us to buy into.

The second study was the one you cited for oagre, and it also fails to make your case and if anything supports the case against it, as I said earlier.

You asked for an adoption study so I provided one. That is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the number of studies done on IQ showing racial differences. The differences are not just seen in the US. It's seen globally.

 

[oldjones]

Yes, the link I provided was academic achievement. The same is true for IQ (they're derivatives of each other): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

The other researchers who said there is no "significant difference" didn't state there isn't a difference. That's called a PC response They also have failed to back up their theory that environment is the root of the issue. Likewise, you and your ilk have failed to explain why we can expect all peoples to perform identically.

As for the IQ gap - it's existed since the first IQ tests administered among the races.

And it's called desperate to seize on insignificant differences when valid ones that make your point haven't yet turned up. Neither through your efforts nor the efforts of serious scholars accredited in the field who have done actual research their peers respect and have been persuaded by. Your latest link is no more supportive of your assertion than the others, and the preposterous equality you introduced it with is a gross misinterpretation. Apparently you've been so submerged in Wikipedia that you haven't actually registered the positions others have taken on the subject. You represent them as inaccurately as you have the science.

As for your IQ gap, don't tempt me to personalize. Once you have defined what these races are, or even what the first IQ testers thought they were, only then can you say there's a gap between them.

All this Wiki-ing not to make you case has been a good try, but you've been ducking that fundamental issue all along and you still are. Until you set out the definition of what you call race, and show that you, your researchers, and we are all using the same term the same way, you're talking to yourself.

 

[Smallcock]

I don't think you folks understand how much I wish that all groups of people really were identical. If I were a religious person, I would have prayed for this to be true. So many issues could be put to rest. The complete equality of the races is what Arthur Jensen believed and wanted to prove when he began researching IQ. It turns out that there are differences. So we live in a more complicated world as a result, which really sucks.

 

[Smallcock]

And it's called desperate to seize on insignificant differences when valid ones that make your point haven't yet turned up. Neither through your efforts nor the efforts of serious scholars accredited in the field who have done actual research their peers respect and have been persuaded by. You latest link is no more supportive of your assertion than the others. And apparently you've been so submerged in Wikipedia that you haven't actually registered the positions others have taken on the subject. You represent it as inaccurately as the science.

As for your IQ gap, don't tempt me to personalize. Once you have defined what these races are, or even what the first IQ testers thought they were, only then can you say there's a gap.

All this Wiki-ing not to make you case has been a good try, but you've been ducking that all along and you still are. Until you set out the definition of what you call race, and show that you, your researchers and we 're all using the same term the same way, you're talking to yourself.

What is an "insignificant" difference oldjones? IQ correlates with things like educational and job attainment. An "insignificant" difference can translate into over-representation or under-representation of groups in various fields. This effects income and quality of life. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg of what your "insignificant" differences lead to in the real world.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't think you folks understand how much I wish that all groups of people really were identical. If I were a religious person, I would have prayed for this to be true. So many issues could be put to rest. The complete equality of the races is what Arthur Jensen believed and wanted to prove when he began researching IQ. It turns out that there are differences. So we live in a more complicated world as a result, which really sucks.

But the differences are cultural and socioeconomic, not genetic, biological or 'evolutionary' (whatever you mean by that).
That's what all the studies presented here have shown, including the wiki page you provided.

If you wish for all groups to be identical then you should be arguing for equal treatment and equal opportunities for all peoples, regardless of 'race', religion, economic background, sex or colour.

 

[Smallcock]

But the differences are cultural and socioeconomic, not genetic, biological or 'evolutionary' (whatever you mean by that).
That's what all the studies presented here have shown, including the wiki page you provided.

If you wish for all groups to be identical then you should be arguing for equal treatment and equal opportunities for all peoples, regardless of 'race', religion, economic background, sex or colour.

I do argue for equal treatment and opportunity under the law.

But that's a separate issue from the belief that all differences seen among groups is due only to environment. It's really a ludicrous position.

 

[oldjones]

What is an "insignificant" difference oldjones? IQ correlates with things like educational and job attainment. An "insignificant" difference can translate into over-representation or under-representation of groups in various fields. This effects income and quality of life. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg of what your "insignificant" differences lead to in the real world.

Co-relation of IQ and achievement is well-established, to say what is true of one is true of the other. as you did is preposterous. You dismissed the disagreements among the investigating scientists as mere PC stuff (with no evidence you have any knowledge of their politics) and now you want us to buy your entirely unsupported notions of what differences cause what for whom in society? You should answer your own question about what is a significant difference.

It is significant that you still haven't defined what you mean by race, nor have you produced any evidence that anyone with any scientific credibility believes in the same concept, or has produce useful research or knowledge based on it. Whatever differences statistics can show between any groups of people on any measure, we can begin discussing them in terms of race only if and when you do.

 

[oldjones]

I don't think you folks understand how much I wish that all groups of people really were identical. If I were a religious person, I would have prayed for this to be true. So many issues could be put to rest. The complete equality of the races is what Arthur Jensen believed and wanted to prove when he began researching IQ. It turns out that there are differences. So we live in a more complicated world as a result, which really sucks.

Actually that's what keeps it interesting, instead of boring.

 

[Frankfooter]

I do argue for equal treatment and opportunity under the law.

But that's a separate issue from the belief that all differences seen among groups is due only to environment. It's really a ludicrous position.

As far as IQ or intelligence tests are concerned, its the facts.
Even the page you presented here as evidence states your position is the one that is ludicrous.

 

[Smallcock]

Co-relation of IQ and achievement is well-established, to say what is true of one is true of the other. as you did is preposterous. You dismissed the disagreements among the investigating scientists as mere PC stuff (with no evidence you have any knowledge of their politics) and now you want us to buy your entirely unsupported notions of what differences cause what for whom in society? You should answer your own question about what is a significant difference.

It is significant that you still haven't defined what you mean by race, nor have you produced any evidence that anyone with any scientific credibility believes in the same concept, or has produce useful research or knowledge based on it. Whatever differences statistics can show between any groups of people on any measure, we can begin discussing them in terms of race only if and when you do.

Your lack of understanding about the race question mirrors your inane comments about the electoral college. Start your own threads on both.

It's not a mystery that one has to tread on eggshells, including or especially scientists, when it comes to this topic.

 

[Smallcock]

As far as IQ or intelligence tests are concerned, its the facts.
Even the page you presented here as evidence states your position is the one that is ludicrous.

You mean everything I've said has been confirmed dozens of times over.

 

[oldjones]

Your lack of understanding about the race question mirrors your inane comments about the electoral college. Start your own threads on both.

It's not a mystery that one has to tread on eggshells, including or especially scientists, when it comes to this topic.

The only 'race question' is why people like you imagine there is any such thing. Still no evidence for any of your assertions, and not even a basic definition of your essential concept. Not from you, not from any of those oh so many anonymous scientists you talk of, but whose 'confirmations' you never quote. The only eggshells you're treading on are the already fractured 'arguments' you try to support your phony claims with. You have offered nothing worth understanding, or requiring it.

Perhaps the 'logic' that made you drag the Electoral College into a discussion of the racial basis of intelligence has something to do with that, intelligence certainly didn't. Anytime you want a grown-up discussion of how hair texture, eyelid folds and skin-tone determine cognitive function, (or anything other than appearance) I'm your man.

Love you too, sweetie.

 

[Frankfooter]

You mean everything I've said has been confirmed dozens of times over.

The opposite.
Every claim you've is false.

There is no genetic, biological or evolutionary link to groups of humans intellect.
As far as genetics and biology, we are all the same.

Even the idea that there are 'races' of humans is heavily disputed.

 

[Smallcock]

I’m happy you both feel the way you do. The links and arguments made in this thread stand in their own merits. Readers can come to their own conclusions.

 

[oldjones]

I’m happy you both feel the way you do. The links and arguments made in this thread stand in their own merits. Readers can come to their own conclusions.

The links do stand on their own merits, and as both of us have said, they contradict you. It's your claims that are without merit, and the links give them nothing to stand on.

 

[Frankfooter]

I’m happy you both feel the way you do. The links and arguments made in this thread stand in their own merits. Readers can come to their own conclusions.

The science says you are wrong.
Very wrong.

If you noticed, oldjones and I both were able to provide specific quotes from studies and findings that show that you do not understand the study.
And if you go back through your posts you'll note that you provided one wiki page which said the opposite of what you claimed it did.

If you consider that winning an argument, then good luck in life.

 

[Smallcock]

The links do stand on their own merits, and as both of us have said, they contradict you. It's your claims that are without merit, and the links give them nothing to stand on.

And the electoral college is a sham. Trump didn't really win the presidency. Haha