Of course there is. Asians rank the highest, followed by Western-Europeans.
Nice to see my homecountry of Holland rank 7th :whoo:
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
Nice to see my homecountry of Holland rank 7th :whoo:
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
There are differences but they are cultural and socioeconomic.
That's the key statements by all the research except the shoddy stuff funded by the Pioneer Fund that smalldick refers to as sources.
There are no genetic differences between groups, or 'ethnicities', either.
Claiming that a) there are races and b) some are smarter then others, is just not supported by the facts and instead is used to justify eugenics and racist policies.
The only reason it looks like I'm 'droning on and on' is because smallcock repeats claims that are contradicted by the sources he used and science in general.
As soon as he accepts a statement as clear as,
which is from the group he uses to justify his claims, then I won't need to keep 'droning on and on'.
Let me try a guess: They were all highly educated and active in the fields that Alfred decided to give prizes for (that'd be culture and environment) Those who didn't win Nobels, not so much.
But you don't keep your herd of cattle and your family alive and increasing through year after year of African drought by being stupid. Wasn't there a Nobel winner who had to be reminded to eat?
As for your physicists, those new insights you list needed more than brainpower. A particle accelerator here and a radio telescope there had more than a little to do with them. Not to mention reactors and abandoned nickel mines. Again culture and environment.
But thanks for a simple but very clear example of exactly the sort of circumstantial evidence and illogical thinking that so far is all we've seen for the claim that race — whatever that is — somehow determines intelligence — whatever that is.
For the porpoises of discussion among us TERBian intelligentsia.
Umm, You do realize that Einstein and his colleagues of his era did not have access to particle accelerators and radio telescopes?
The thing is that Jew is not a race, in some circumstances it can be treated as race but when it comes to pure genetics Jews are arabs. IMHO Jews in Israel are genetically most identical to Iranians and how many Iranian's have won nobels?
Another issue to consider is that if Jews are genetically more gifted in terms of IQ, then you can attribute other characteristics to their genetics. Are Jews more money hungry than other races? Are they cheaper than other races? Are they more ruthless when it comes to business? Was hitler right in measuring the noses of Jews as a measure their Jewishness?
To me IQ is not the metric that we should use but so far it is best measurement we have, if we could quantify creativity then that should be what we should use but no such test exists. It is the creative spark that drives all great things, not IQ.
Why do you keep saying this? Consider an Inuit, a Scandinavian, a Pygmy, a Japanese. The obvious differences are not caused by climate or diet. They are genetic.
Because its no more important then saying that all smallcocks children might have tiny dicks.
Variation happens but its just as big within any one family then it is within a group. Groups interbreed and there are no hard and cut lines between a child from an Inuit and Scandinavian then there are between a Japenese/African kid. Multiply that difference with one family to a neighbourhood and then compare the differences with other neighbourhoods around the planet. There's not enough homogenity within any one 'race' to confirm the defining characteristics genetically or even just physically.
Indeed I do. Nor did Archimedes, Newton or DaVinci. Did you have a point?
Since you're keeping some kind of score, perhaps you wish to discuss whether those who use more technologies than Alfred (Nobel, not Einstein) had available were enjoying an unfair advantage? Or perhaps building their renown on the efforts of hundreds of anonymous underlings who provided them?
The further we get from the preposterous idea that anyone's intelligence is defined by their race (which is yet to be defined, by anyone) the happier I'll be. Never mind ethe logivcal fallacy that a count of prizes by 'race' proves anything.
Except that someone could count.
Not buying it. Consider two isolated groups of people such as the Inuit and some jungle dwellers from Borneo. How can you still make this claim?
Weak. What unfair advantage? As the article said, some of these people were hindered by serious persecution and discrimination. You haven't given a credible explanation of why Jewish people won these prizes in disproportionate numbers. You downplay the significance of these prizes, but I doubt that most people would.
I think this summarizes your position. It is what you want to believe.
Because Frankfooter belongs to the school of libtard logic. He and oldjones can dance around the truth all they want. I've dissected and trounced every last tedious kernel of their sad PC arguments.
They're running on empty. Frank has been neutered but he still thinks he has balls in the game.
No, it's not. It's based on mainstream science. Cranial size correlates with brain size and brain size correlates with IQ.
You must have been a poor student. It's difficult teaching you the simplest things.
You fail at logic and comprehension. An individual's intelligence is not "defined" by their race. We're talking about measured GROUP AVERAGES, NOT INDIVIDUALS. There are geniuses and retards in ALL groups. It's the AVERAGES in groups that differ. It's pronounced and has been thoroughly measured and replicated throughout thousands of studies on tens of millions of people over the past century.
Right... and "no overall generalization about them was appropriate" is an OPINION - a politically motivated one. Using the SAME data two centuries ago, scientists would have a very different opinion about whether any generalizations would be appropriate.
Is any of the logic I'm trying to drill into your head sinking in yet?
When you supply the definition of any of these groups, I'll be ready to believe there's a study that says something about averages within it.
But that's hugely different from a claim that intelligence — or an intelligence gap — is racially determined. Start by defining the races on either side of that gap of yours.
Races cluster around geographic regions - Ameridians, Asian, African, and European.
So you test members of one group and compare them with tests results from the other, and voila, you get your gaps.
Since your drilling is as ineffective as the quotes you pasted to do it, it's no wonder you haven't yet made your point in 18 pages.
It was your own source which you cited as an authority for your generalization, if it doesn't say what you hoped, don't blame me.
I don't see much relevance to your supposition about the possible thinking of scientists in 1817. Please quote one and clarify.
So I take a group of a thousand clustered around the geographic region of Mobile, Alabama and that gives me which race? Amerindians? And when I compare them with a similar group of a thousand around Tel Aviv? is their race Ethiopian, African, Russian, Polish, American or Jewish?
Never mind what your word cluster is supposed to describe. Quote a definition from one of these studies of yours; it'll be easier and more convincing.
You're being laughably obtuse. I'm embarrassed for you.
This is real life, not a movie. Suspension of disbelief need not apply.
Oh, I've made my points succinctly. If you don't understand them, alongside the supporting links of data and evidence I've provided, then shame on you. I didn't know that beating you with the club of logic could make you more disoriented.
