A Reality Check on Race and IQ

Well, we already know there's at least 3 types of Caucasoids WHG (Inidgenous European) ANE (Ancient Eurasians) and Near Eastern Neolithic farmers.
Actually Afro-Asiatics might be a 4th one, as they're not exactly very close to the Neolithic Farmers who are best preserved in Sardinians.
Then some South-Asians might represent a 5th one, that we might call as Gedrosia as once again they're different.

 

Well, in all fairness, the Communist tendencies of Mugabe's Zimbabwe seem to have only failed slightly worse than the ultra-Capitalist Libertarian tendencies of most of Africa.

Communism is the worst, but pure Capitalism is nearly as bad.

Luckily almost all White countries have a hybrid system, that's obviously what works best.

 

How about Worldwide MURDER rates rather than who Does/Doesnt get caught!



+

 

Liberal Creationism (Race denial)
If you type the term into google the first thing you will see is the link for an article at liberal Slate Magazine.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=liberal creationism

But when click on the link, you will see it has been RE-titled ("Created Equal") due to the outrage of it's Readers
But it's content absolutely supports and elaborates Racial Differences.

by Willliam Saletan
Slate Mag 2007
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...es/2007/created_equal/liberalcreationism.html

Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic.
It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.

If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."

The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are Liberals.

Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.

I'm for reconciliation. Later this week, I'll make that case.
But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103.
Among Asian-Americans, it was 106.
Among Jewish Americans, it was 113.
Among Latino Americans, it was 89.
Among African-Americans, it was 85.
Around the world, studies find the Same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.
[......]
In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that differential evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on circumstances. The list of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.
[......]
How this happened isn't clear. Everyone agrees that the three populations separated 40,000 to 100,000 years ago. Even critics of racial IQ genetics accept the idea that through natural selection, environmental differences may have caused abilities such as distance running to become more common in some populations than in others. Possibly, genes for cognitive complexity became so crucial in some places that nature favored them over genes for developmental speed and vision. If so, fitness for today's world is mostly dumb luck. If we lived in a savannah, kids programmed to mature slowly and grow big brains would be toast. Instead, we live in a world of zoos, supermarkets, pediatricians, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created.

Not that that's much consolation if you're stuck in the 21st century with a low IQ."..."​

+

 

What if Blacks DID have equal or even Higher IQs?
Wouldn't we be marveling (as we have with other groups, ie Asians/Jews) at how they've overcome generations of persecution?
Yet this has Not happened, and will not happen for the reason we all know.
+

 

um, what reasons are that?

 

About the NFL using an intelligence test, mentioned in the Linda Gottfredson video:
http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/nfl.htm

 

After being 100% rebutted in detail/Silenced in virtually ALL our recent exchanges on the topic, this is rather a strange/obtuse question.
+

 

Blacks in the US and in Africa consistently score lower on IQ tests than whites in the US and Europe, and Asians. Why?
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenandHon...s_in_the_us_and_in_africa_consistently_score/

Psychologists, psychometricians, and all other scientists that study intelligence tend to tread VERY lightly when it comes to this issue. After what happened to James Watson (he was ostracized for stating facts about race and intelligence despite being a Nobel prize winning scientist and one of the most successful scientists of his era) no one in the field wants to be vocal about their findings or the meaning of their findings.

Nevertheless... in my day job, I study things like this... and since I work for a private company in the private sector, I'm not beholden to the PC/SJW ramblings of any Liberal Arts department. So I, and my co-workers, can talk about it. And we do.

I'm going to go over the evidence for not only the existence of a general IQ gap between the races, but the evidence for the fact that intelligence is heritable and the IQ gap is therefore genetic and NOT caused by social issues like test bias, culture bias, or socioeconomic factors. Also, I'm going to go over evidence that shows that general intelligence (aka g) and IQ are valid measures of cognitive ability (despite what the postmodernist non-science liberal arts professors may say) and correlate with things like future success and many other life outcomes. Finally, I'm going to go over a relatively new hypothesis for why Sub-Saharan Africans score lower than other races on IQ tests... the Microcephalin gene.

Sub-Saharan Africans differ from all other world populations in that they do not have any Neanderthal ancestry. When the ancestors of all humans were first leaving Africa, they split into two groups, one stayed in Africa (Sub-Saharan Africans) and the other moved into the Middle East (the ancestors of all other non-Sub-Saharan humans). The second group mated with some Neanderthals, and gained the MCPH1 Microcephalin, which causes a significant increase in brain size during development.

If you're interested in logic, reason, and science in general... you have to take morality out of the equation when studying issues, especially social issues like race. You simply cannot follow Stephen Jay Gould's example and talk about non-overlapping magisteria or whatever other nonsense he made up to avoid upsetting certain groups of people. Everything overlaps with science. Science is what we use to know the universe and everything in it. Never be afraid to talk about science. You cannot avoid a topic simply because it is politically unpleasant or socially difficult. That is cowardly.

The IQ Gap Between Races

EDIT: I know many "progressive" types are very keen on saying that there's no such thing as race, or that race is a only socially constructed concept... but this is objectively false. Yes, humans DO exist on a genetic continuum, BUT, there are very clear bulges on that continuum. Those bulges are what we call "races", and they correlate with groups who's ancestors lived in the same geographical areas. Secondly... "progressives" are also very keen on quoting this ol' ditty: "OMG don't you know that there's more genetic variation WITHIN 'racial' groups than between them?!". However, that argument is so wrong that they actually gave it a name... "Lewontin's Fallacy". Basically, the point is that it doesn't matter what percentage difference comes from where... what matters is what those differences are, and even if only .0001% of a difference is between "races", if that .0001% is meaningful and descriptive... then it means something. Look it up if you want all the reasons it's bunk. Here's Richard Dawkins on why it's nonsense: "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Now... the IQ gap. For those who don't already know, there absolutely IS an objectively measurable IQ gap between people with ancestors from different geographical areas (aka "races", which is the term I will use from here on out).
Psychologists don't debate this fact. The gap is well known and has been well known for decades. IQ test scores break down like this: on average, East Asians score higher than whites, who score higher than hispanics, who in turn score higher than blacks. The average scores are:
Asian-Americans -106, White Americans - 103, Hispanic Americans - 89, African-Americans - 85.

This means more than one in five American blacks have an IQ below 75; whereas around one in twenty whites have an IQ below 75.
An IQ of 70-75 is considered "borderline retarded" by psychologists.
[........]
The gaps are not limited to the United States either. European whites average - 100, East Asians from Asia - 106, and Sub-Saharan Africans - 70.

The difference in native Sub-Saharan African IQ scores versus American Black's IQ scores can be explained by the fact that American Blacks have, on average, 20%-25% European ancestry. Lynn and Vanhanen's books 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' and 'IQ and Global Inequality' are a good start if you are looking for data concerning the average IQ scores of different nations.

The intelligence gap was first noticed among psychologists in the early 20th century. In the 1960s and 70s, rigorous IQ testing of people of difference races began in earnest, and the IQ gap began to become undeniable. Throughout the 70s and 80s, liberal-minded scientists attempted to close the gap via alterations in the testing apparatus, since they believed that the tests must be biased in some way.
They changed the parameters, made a whole slew of so-called "culture fair" tests, some were nonverbal tests (Leiter Scale), some changed the language of the questions, others were pure math, or pure reasoning, they even made questions that weren't language based at all (like Raven's Progressive Matrices or Kohs block design test)... they did twin studies, adoption studies (like the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study), everything to try to determine some reason (besides the obvious one) why this gap exists... and the studies consistently came back with the same sized gap: 15 IQ points, or 1 standard deviation (SD) between White and Black people no matter what version or type of IQ test was used.

Eventually, in 1994, The Bell Curve was published. The book was extremely controversial, despite being filled with relevant data from valid and repeated studies. Ironically, the majority of the criticisms were aimed at the validity of IQ and general intelligence as meaningful measurements (a topic I will go over in a later section) and NOT on the results of the studies.

Eventually, amid all the controversy about The Bell Curve in the media, a group of 52 well known university professors specializing in intelligence and related fields signed a public statement titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". They saw there was a great deal of misinformation of unfounded criticism of The Bell Curve, so they wanted to set the media straight. The statement consisted of 25 conclusions:
[........]​

+

 

I mean, it could easily be both. You need the IQ to get half the way, and violence to get the other half.

I'm not necessarily a proponent of the race/IQ correlation, because the gap seems to diminish with education, but IQ being the cause and history being the cause aren't mutually exclusive.

 

Blacks in the USA and in Africa consistently score Lower on IQ tests than Whites in the US and Europe, and Asians
Why?
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenandHon...s_in_the_us_and_in_africa_consistently_score/

 

IQ has nothing to with it, Inherent genetic savagery is what causes the crime and violence.

 

Were the white German Nazis inherently savage?

How about William Tecumseh Sherman?

 

No...Now you are talking about War... They were both terrorists, who used terrorism tactics against civilians in a war.

 

Um..
The two are Not mutually exclusive. A Culture of higher intelligence has an awareness that violence is counterproductive and self-destructive. While lesser IQ/lesser socialized, more tribal, are still tribal/more backwards in their evolution.
1/3 of Black men hav been in the Penal system and one in five of all Blacks have IQs below 75. (bordeline Retarded)
They commit 'stupid' crimes and don't have the IQ to fathom the conequencs of it.

But there IS also the fact of the higher Black Testerone AND/OR receptors for it.
Higher T, Lower IQ: Recipe for Crime.
+

 

You violate your own standards and use people outside the field of psychology to debunk psychology studies because you're hung up on one dead man that you just cannot get over who you say in part is a fraud because he's outside the fields where he comments.

And I'm sure you're still ALL over the internet doing it.

 

You are aware that October 2016 was months ago right? Why do you come here for a hit and run after months long hiatus to respond to my posts? You have a board where you are a moderator and can abuse your powers to your heart's content. You aren't brave enough to debate me on a science board. You start flame wars here and constantly get your posts deleted then leave. You need to admit that you have a problem and move on. Your personal vendetta against me is played out.

 

I tend to disagree.

Low IQ may lead to lower living standards and perceived or real abuses leading to higher crime rates, but imho most savagery is probably learned, as with dogs. Dogs that are handled abusively and inconsistently are more likely to be vicious than those given loving care.

Another nature versus nurture observation that comes down on the side of nurture is that people of all colors raised in the country on small farms seem more likely to be more gentle and responsible and happier than people raised in inner cities, and unfortunately, fewer and fewer people are being raised on small farms or in small farming communities.

No stats or links, but lots of experience in both environments.

 

I don't have a vendetta against anyone. You see, I'm not obsessed like you are so I come and go to different forums and don't linger to get into endless pissing matches. You, however, have spent several years dedicating your online life to attacking a dead white man. The difference here is that I accurately point out you're obsessed with Rushton and as a "response," you try to throw the obsessed line back in my face by concocting a total lie. This is a common tactic of yours, as is changing the subject when I point out you constantly violate your own standards that you try to impose on others like you just did.

I've never started a flame war here, but I realize you have internalized the cultural mindset of eternal victimhood. YOU invited me to this forum and now tell me I'm too cowardly to debate you on another forum. That's funny.

I'm actually starting to lose track of how long it's been since you failed to defend Nisbett from his critics. You promised to start a thread here more than once, and you are still dodging, retreating to another gambit to hide behind as the previous one was demolished by incoming fire. I think this spring it will be 3 years now.

You were serially flagging my posts because you couldn't defeat me and wanted to get rid of me and posts you couldn't respond to. I get it, it's a longstanding tactic of yours. Anyone that watches you long enough learns this.

I have no problem. Even now your posts toward me are enraged. Why? Because I keep interrupting your attempts to run propaganda cons on white people about the equality myth. So if I stick around a bit and debunk you, you get mad. If I leave a while and respond to a post of yours in my inbox where you were railing at me, you get mad. So either way, no matter what I do, you're mad.

I already knew that.

 

I'm not mad. I'm simply tired of the same pathetic and dishonest debate tactics from you. It's the same thing over and over. You accuse others of being obsessed when you show obsessive tendencies yourself. Rushton is dead, yes. But others continue to cite him. People are constantly coming to my Youtube channel and 90% of the time when they talk about Race & IQ they bring up Rushton. Not me them. So yes, since I read his book and spent some time debunking him I am able to respond to those posts. You're the one who brought up Rushton in this particular exchange and you also brought up Nisbett. You argue about the same thing over and over. I have moved on to discuss other subjects. The reason I didn't bother to write the Nisbett thread is because you keep disappearing. So why bother?

I have never serially flagged your posts to silence you. You initiated a flame war and the moderators deleted your posts. You do this all the time. You don't have any credibility when it comes to honest, civil discussion. When I debated you on Stumbleinn you started the flame war there and when I retaliated you flipped out, banned me, posted my IP address and email address (which is a serious violation of privacy which most boards respect). So yes, you are a coward. You don't know how to debate fairly when you have power, you have made false accusations against me on this board and refuse to take this discussion to a science message board to prove that your arguments have any validity. You probably stopped posting here frequently because the moderators weren't tolerating your trolling and flaming.

You spend plenty of time on Stumbleinn....

 

My tactics that you hate are that I keep calling you on your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) fallacious arguments and crap-quality source materials. You can't defend them which is why you STILL can't and we're almost at the 3 year mark.

You can't debunk a guy you claim is a fraud by using another guy that's been busted as a fraud. You're using junk science. It's personal for you. You heard about Rushton and went off on an obsessive tear.

I bring up Nisbett because he's your main source and you can't defend his poor arguments. If you'd stop using the debunked old goat as a weapon, I wouldn't bring him up. Stop using bad sources and nobody will say anything.

Yes you have serially flagged my posts and previously admitted to it. I've also seen you do it to others when they anger you. You've quite a reputation for this. I have initiated a "flame war" with nobody. You call it that because I held your feet to the fire and angered you, thus you began to lash out. I already know your victim mentality.

If you can't handle your source materials being dashed to the four winds, stop bringing them up on forum after forum after forum after forum like you've been doing for years. You are simply enraged at me because you cannot defend your source materials from scrutiny. That is what ALL of your sniping is coming from.

I came here after being gone since October and I find this childish snarky crap from you in my quote box so I responded to it. I expected something snarky from you to be there after I got back here, so it's no surprise. And there will be more.

 

You're delusional. You haven't discredited a single source of mine. You don't even know how. You can't see who flagged posts so how do you know who flagged what? Just because a moderator deletes your posts for mindless rants and personal attacks doesn't mean I flagged them. Why you don't you run back to Stumbleinn where you can feed personal information to stalkers when you get beaten in debate? This board isn't the place for you and you are too much of a coward to debate on a science board.

 

More lies. Just defend Nisbett against his critics and stop the dog and pony show. You've nearly hit the 3 year mark of failing to do and evading with these personal attack tangents.

You're a stuck record.

You told me to come here to debate you, so I did. I'm not following you around elsewhere. Man up.

 

First of all, I don't need to defend Nisbett's research from his critics. He is a highly respected scholar whose book received a lot of praise and his research is quoted by other experts in the field. In fact I even made a thread where I showed that he is even quoted favorably in a book that you cited which also supports the 100% environmental cause for racial differences in IQ. I already proved that Rushton is a quack and that is one of the primary critics a long with James Lee. I am willing to give a review of Lee's article in defense of Nisbett's research however you keep disappearing from the board and I am busy with other things so I didn't bother. But I tell you what, if you officially agree right here and now to participate in a debate on Nisbett I will make the thread. I will contact you by private message when I am done with the thread and we can have the debate. No more hit-and-run attacks. You have to actually debate. Since you won't show up on a science message board and you banned me from Stumbleinn of course we can do it here. I will not however waste my time on a part-time poster which is what you have become. If you don't show up that says a lot about you but agree to a debate and I will make the thread.

 

Of course you do when you continue to hold it up as factual while you demand others defend their source materials. Your problem is that Nisbett can't defend his own work from critics so you screwed yourself by putting your eggs in his basket. How many times have you bashed others for posting sources they can't defend from scrutiny? And here you are.

There is no "debate on Nisbett." He can't defend his claims, thus you can't do it. Remember : You said people arguing outside their fields of expertise are fraudulent, therefore you by definition are not able to defend his work. Vaguely mentioning someone lauded him isn't a defense of his work though you endlessly try to use external praise to validate it. Your argument isn't with me at all. It's with science and Nisbett's shoddy work. You may as well be trying to defend Ward Churchill as a legitimate scholar.

Have fun working around that one. Lee pointed out numerous specific faults with Nisbett's work that you could not possibly tackle on your own, and Nisbett has proven a brick wall via your own posted emails. Nisbett should have responded with a scholarly article in kind to defend his work and he has failed to do since the Lee review came out in 2009. As I said, Rushton at least always responded to his critics in scholarly fashion.

I've never once done hit-and-run on you. You said you were going to make a Nisbett thread about a year ago, never did it citing you haven't read his stuff yet and made a vague promise to get to that once you read his stuff on some vague future date.