Race differences

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MrFun
1) Humans began evolving 2 million years ago in Africa. There never was such a thing as a pure racial group either.

This is far from being a proven fact.

I could tell you what I think happened, but I doubt you would be interested.

2) There were a few civilizations that did not rely on agriculture -- one example being the complex city-based people of Amerindians in the Northwest coast on the Pacific.

3) You cannot ignore the high poverty rate within Chinese ghettos and Chinatowns. It is too often overlooked, and so people often fail to see the poverty of Asian-Americans.

4) There are differences between races that are based on sociological and environmental factors -- not based on the race itself. One group of blacks that lives in one area of the world will be socio-economically and intellectually different than another group of blacks in another part of the world simply because of sociological and environmental factors. [/QUOTE]

True, but as reds4ever said: "Surely it's unrealistic to expect for the only result of 50,000+years of (largley) seperate evolution, to be different skin colour?"

Im not trying to prove my race to be superior, I just think that there are more differences between races than just skin color.

[reds4ever]

and given the one racial difference we do feel comfortable recognizing (ie skin colour) is so obvious and pronounced, that it is virtually certain that there are many less outwardly obvious differences?

[Sava]

Genetics and race play a part in the potential for intellegence, but the environment has more to do with someone's IQ than anything else.

The statistics are flawed because they aren't spread out across income levels. I bet if you took a look at the IQ statistics across the board, the general IQ curve would be similar to the income curve.

Blacks living in the ghetto aren't any dumber than their white trash counterparts. The dumbest people I know are white. It just so happens there is a higher percentage of black people living in poverty than white people.

I also think that if you looked at immigrants, you would see an interesting trend. First-born children from immigrants living above the poverty line tend to be more intellegent than people who's ancestors have been in the US for over 100 years.

[Kropotkin]

I don't plan to get all hystercial but there's a number of statements in that article that are so stupid that I'm not able to take it seriously.

[Tolls]

Oh well.
Ramo beat me to it on all the points i was going to raise!
ie, the problem with using IQ as a guage of intelligence, the complete nonsense about genetic isolation, and how hard life was in Northern Europe!

For the latter one, I will point out that hunter-gatherer societies take the same form wherever they are found (including archaeologically), and failure to organise, cooperate and plan by any such group spells disaster, wherever in the world they happen to be.

He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about on these three things, and since they seem to form the main props for his argument...well, let's just say it looks decidedly shaky from here.

[Eli]

Re: Race differences

but Ashkenazi Jews average 115

[Ramo]

As the author said, its difficult to prove anything either way, but many in society automatically dismiss any study of race and intelligence if the results dont favor what they already believe.

No, it's already been proven by the human genome project, and your thesis has obviously has lost. The differences between "races" are literally skin deep. Period. End of story. You lose.

Surely it's unrealistic to expect for the only result of 50,000+years of (largley) seperate evolution, to be different skin colour?

The idea that there's been 50,000 years of seperate evolution has no scientific basis, whatsoever.

and given the one racial difference we do feel comfortable recognizing (ie skin colour) is so obvious and pronounced, that it is virtually certain that there are many less outwardly obvious differences?

There're only a few genes that control skin color. There are thousands and thousands that control brain functions. And 50,000 years wouldn't be long enough to significantly affect something as substancial as that.

[Tingkai]

Rushton published his research years ago. His "proof" was easily discredited by scientists back then. Nothing in this article indicates that he has done any new research.

His whole theory is based on the size of a person's head, but the measurements for "white" skulls are based on 19th century measurements of British civil servants. The sample size is considered too small for scientific purposes and cannot be extrapolated to represent an average for the "white" race.

He cited research as backing his theories, but the people who did the original research say that he misrepresented their findings.

A bigger problem with his theory is that there is no scientific proof that a larger head means a person is smarter while there is ample proof that this is not the case.

Rushton's ideas are a joke. His research is extremely unscientific. He remains a professor at UWO (my alma mater), only because he has tenure.

[Urban Ranger]

The IQ of East Asians (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) is about 106, of Eurowhites 100, "blacks" in America 85, blacks in Africa 70. He does not in the book deal with Jews, but Ashkenazi Jews average 115. The East Asians have a particular advantage in mathematics.

There are serious problems with using IQ tests as an accurate measurement of intelligence. First of all, what constitutes intelligence? Without a firm clear answer any sort of quantifying measurements will fail to produce reliable results.

Secondly, there are long existing criticisms of IQ tests. If you look at one, it is heavily biased towards urban middle class whites. Clearly, people from other cultural backgrounds will not fare as well.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo


No, it's already been proven by the human genome project, and your thesis has obviously has lost. The differences between "races" are literally skin deep. Period. End of story. You lose.

The human genome project has proven nothing of the sort, despite what the liberal media may report.

[Ramo]

[MrFun]

Caligastia, in regards to the time period of human evolution -- ever hear of radio-carbon dating??

It is not 100% accurate, but unless you can point out a better dating system for fossils and artifacts, radio-carbon dating is the latest method.

[Rex Little]

No, it's already been proven by the human genome project

The human genome project has proven nothing of the sort, despite what the liberal media may report.

I've never seen anything like this about the HGP, in the "liberal media" or elsewhere. Can you provide a source?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh great. Oh lovely. It's this one again..

I do a lot of lurking in white supremacist forums, and this article crops up a hell of a lot. Nearly as often as holocaust revisionism, in fact. The amount of words wasted on this piece of utter crap is staggering.

Look at that first paragraph. Doesn't that make you want to punch the author? Do you, for one second, get the impression that this is an objective commentary? Or, on the other hand, do you get the impression that you're dealing with a vicious little **** who's got an axe to grind?

The brutal fact is that this commentary has flaws so gaping that you could drive a truck through them. Study it for a while and you'll soon decide on what your favourite howler is. My personal favourite is the corrolation drawn between brain size and aggressiveness, leading the author to confidently declare that Asians are massively less aggressive than blacks. Hello! Earth calling Mr Author? Have you ever opened a history book in your entire life? Do the phrases "Rape of Nanking", "Oriental militaristic tradition" and "Banzai! Tora! Tora! Tora!" mean anything to you at all? For sheer wholescale and inventive viciousness the entire black world are mere amateurs in the presence of China, Japan and Mongolia, not to mention Afghanistan, Mughal India and Burma.

Then there's the sheer, bare-faced gormlessness involved with straight equations between brain size and intelligence. Does this prat think Einstein had to employ an army of menial helpers so support his stadium-sized head? Is he entertaining the delusion that Prof. Hawking is confined to a wheelchair due to the terrible, crushing mass of his hippocampus? I'm sorry, my boy, but your grasp of neuro-science appears to be as flakey as your grasp on history.

Then there's the basic, unshakeable flaw with Rushton, which even he acknowledges. "Yes, I know that IQ tests are basically a pile of unreliable crap, but look! Pretty pattern! Nice pattern!". The only possible response is "So what?". If something is a load of crap, it remains a load of crap even if patterns emerge in it. In fact it reamains a pile of crap even if a vision of the Turin Shroud appears in 500 foot high flames in it.

Rushton was a crank, and the author of this article is either a evil git, or far too stupid to be taken seriously on absolutely anything.

[Shi Huangdi]

If there is one black person who is smarter than even one White/Asian person, this entire theory is invalid.