Announcement

**Bugs ****ing Bunny** · July 26, 2007, 17:05

Originally posted by Caligastia
can you please explain why Vanhanen could only be either evil or stupid?

To what extent do you agree with the theory that the major cause of Africa's economic problems is the low intelligence of black people?

**Bugs ****ing Bunny** · July 26, 2007, 17:14

Originally posted by Caligastia

There are problems with the science on both sides of the argument, not to mention lies and distortions. If the issue was as clear-cut as you seem to think it is, why would PBS (for example) feel the need to lie about it?

http://www.amren.com/0306issue/0306issue.html#article1

An opinion piece by a purported biologist unwilling to give a real name?

**Bugs ****ing Bunny** · July 26, 2007, 17:22

Here's a typical weak section from your "American Renaissance" article, Cali.

The “experts” claim there hasn’t been enough time for humans to evolve significant differences with different levels of intelligence, for example. This is an odd argument because physical differences have evolved. The “experts” somehow believe there has been enough time for the striking differences between a Nigerian and a Swede to evolve, but not enough for differences in intelligence.

What he's failing to address is that it's actually entirely rational to believe that race-wide differences in intelligence take longer to evolve than differences in skin tone or a 0.1 second lead over 100 metres. The reason for this is, of course, that whatever your surroundings might be, being really thick probably isn't the best survival trait in evolutionary terms. Ma Nature sorts out the rest.

I'm amazed a "biologist" didn't think of that. Aren't you?

**VetLegion** · July 26, 2007, 17:41

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Which begs the question- how many times do those clinging to the notions of genetic racial/class untermenschen need to be proved wrong before they get the ****ing point hammered into them?

The point being... what?

- that all groups have the same average IQ?

- that African countries don't have lower average IQ scores than European countries?

- that average IQ is unrelated to the level of economic development?

I'll be more than happy seeing you hammering those points into someone. I doubt that you can do it though. You don't have a case.

**Bugs ****ing Bunny** · July 26, 2007, 18:08

Originally posted by VetLegion

The point being... what?

That any number of once-popular theories suggesting that the Irish/Mongols/Chinese/Blacks are a racial underclass typified by genetically-low intelligence have fallen by the wayside. With good reason.

IQ is a factor that's easy to raise.

**mrmitchell** · July 26, 2007, 22:07

Caligastia

Originally posted by Caligastia
Again, you're trying to define race incorrectly. There are no clear boundry lines. Races are groups of people who share common traits and ancestry, but the groups blur at the edges. For some reason this has given you the idea that the groups don't exist objectively. I suppose you think different breeds of dogs are subjective?

A chihuahua and a pit bull are a hell of a lot more different than you and an aboriginal. Now own up and define the races. How are we to start comparing different groups if we don't know who they are?

And until the test reports equal results for all races it is inaccurate?

Circular logic.

Because I totally said that.

skywalker

Don't be mean, Cali and mrmitchell aren't that slow

Something getting you down? Life hurts on the inside after you found out everyone doesn't have six bathrooms?

**Kuciwalker** · July 26, 2007, 22:40

Did you come up with that all by yourself? Clever kid. But I'm not impressed with your sophomoric (I'm being generous here) arguments about free speech.

**Caligastia** · July 27, 2007, 09:07

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

To what extent do you agree with the theory that the major cause of Africa's economic problems is the low intelligence of black people?

Please answer my question.

**Caligastia** · July 27, 2007, 09:09

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

An opinion piece by a purported biologist unwilling to give a real name?

Focusing on the fact that the writer uses a pen name to distract us from the egalitarian lies...good tactic.

**Caligastia** · July 27, 2007, 09:21

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Here's a typical weak section from your "American Renaissance" article, Cali.

What he's failing to address is that it's actually entirely rational to believe that race-wide differences in intelligence take longer to evolve than differences in skin tone or a 0.1 second lead over 100 metres. The reason for this is, of course, that whatever your surroundings might be, being really thick probably isn't the best survival trait in evolutionary terms. Ma Nature sorts out the rest.

I'm amazed a "biologist" didn't think of that. Aren't you?

Nice theory, but then not all environments are equal, are they? And don't you think the more essential survival traits would be more likely to evolve? These sorts of questions aren't settled by any means, but enough distractions - why do you think the PBS egalitarians felt the need to distort the facts?

**Caligastia** · July 27, 2007, 09:35

Originally posted by mrmitchell
A chihuahua and a pit bull are a hell of a lot more different than you and an aboriginal.

Yet they are virtually indistinguishable genetically. What does that tell you?

Now own up and define the races. How are we to start comparing different groups if we don't know who they are?

Don't be so coy. Based on shared traits and geographical ancestry we are able to categorize the vast majority of humans. Self-identified race correlates strongly with genetic structure:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372

Because I totally said that.

Yes, you did actually. I asked you to show me a test in which all racial groups score equally, and you replied that only a test which "removes all cultural bias and when reporting results corrects for all the non-race factors of the tested subjects" would do this. So you are essentially saying that any test of intelligence which shows a racial disparity must have problems with cultural bias etc. You're starting with the assumption that all races have the same average intelligence and going from there.

**Caligastia** · July 27, 2007, 10:19

Back in 1994, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" which shows that ideas on intelligence that are popularly portrayed as "discredited" by the media, are actually agreed upon by a large chunk of academic intelligence experts. This is why we see people who know little to nothing about intelligence working themselves into a righteous lather over statements that are far less controversial among experts.

**Caligastia** · July 27, 2007, 10:26

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
IQ is a factor that's easy to raise.

That's quite a sweeping statement - I presume you are drawing this conclusion based on the downs kids?

**Kuciwalker** · July 27, 2007, 10:42

Yeah, that one is a bit problematic. IQ is dependent on environmental factors, including actual education, largely because intelligence itself is dependent on those factors. That doesn't mean that IQ is easy to raise arbitrarily.

That said, any IQ difference between the West and the rest of the world is almost certainly due to environmental factors.