Origin of the Racist Myth "Blacks are Less Intelligent"

In general when it comes to trying to change a bigoted racist opinion this cartoon is probably very accurate.

 

That's great bro.

You don't have access to scientific data but you can copy assertions from a privately owned newspaper.

You're a real independent thinker.

 

And it can also be said that there are a select few in our society that go to great lengths to try and find proof that their skin color makes them superior to people with darker skin. When it is proven that their whole belief is a lie, they cannot come to terms to the truth. Some even get mad when people use big words that they don't understand....it really is laughable if it wasn't so sad....this thread is an accurate portrayal of their flawed thought process. I guess they would have a better chance in swaying people's minds in their favor if they were more intelligent, or better yet...received some education, but then you would not have the racists you have today if they were educated, for it has been shown that higher educated people are more tolerant to other races than uneducated people.

 

This is psychological projection.

You didn't prove your side.

The only thing you proved is that you don't have access to the latest scientific journals.

 

I am not a degreed psychologist but I did take several courses in psychology while in college. I can offer an opinion but to my knowledge it is not backed by clinical research related to racists although it is supported by clinical research in a general context.

Those with inferiority complexes overwhemingly seek to identify someone that they can look down upon. They seek "relative superiority" by claiming to be superior to someone else. By way of example men with inferiority complexes often believe that women are inferior to them. They may not come out and say it but their actions reveal it. This is often associated with spousal abuse of women by men. The men simply don't see the woman as being their equal because if they did they wouldn't feel that they have the right to abuse a woman. Only if they believe the woman is "inferior" can they rationalize abusing them.

It would be my believe that most racists also have an inferiority complex so they "choose" to be superior to other races. There isn't any real foundation for them to assume superiority so they are very selective in the information they're willing to accept. If it doesn't maintain their "relative superiority" then obviously it's "lies" or "garbage" because they're "absolutely sure" that they're superior. If they accepted contradictory evidence then they would lose self-esteem even though that self-esteem is based upon lies.

Of course that's just my opinion as to one reason why they refuse to entertain any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Their own self-esteem is at risk if they do accept any contradictory evidence and they dare not risk that. It really is sad and I feel sorry for them.

 

Based on your "conclusions", you were obviously robbed. I'd ask for my money back.

 

Ad hominem nonsense. Blacks have a lower IQ. That's a fact. Sadly, slanderous personal assertions do not change that fact.

 

If we are going with this iq argument, which I believe is no true reflection of intelligence anyway since un-intelligent white ppl believe it is, then it is stated that so -called white ppl in america are actually at the stage of becoming retarded as opposed to so- called black ppl in america who are at a progressive stage. This means that soon, in terms of iq so-called white ppl will have a lower iq. This is assuming so- called black ppl decide to stay in america, there could be a mass exodus given the so- called intelligent white american society collapsing faster than (wow! "than", really?, "than?". Are you sure that isn't "then"? ) a set of dominoes.

 

What this actually means is that you make up nonsense.

 

White racists have lower intelligence than the average of every race, fact. Goodnight and don't let the boogey man bite.

 

The most aggressive and obstinant racists I ever met were hillies with less than a high school education and dumb as a post.

 

It really looks like you are the one making up non-sense, since you seem to think that idaltu would sire black people in Africa and southern Asia, but not in Europe. We see no trace of a thought process here. Not even an attempt to defend your position with any data from the fossil record.

 

that is subjective, where is the smoking gun with the information you presented?

 

No, I don't think that and never stated it. You are just trying to change the subject and making up slander because you lose this debate.

 

No, you didn't prove your side. Your claim is that "blacks are less intelligent" is a myth. IQ has been shown to be a valid measure of intelligence, and blacks have a lower IQ. Furthermore the consistent pattern indicates a genetic etiology. Not only did you not prove your side, we indicated the opposite.

 

Oh dear. "Racists r stupid." That isn't a scientific argument, or probably even true.

 

Once again a half-truth which is the foundation of racist propaganda.

Blacks score lower on standardized IQ tests which are used to evaluate the potential of an individual related to educational goals as that is what these tests were designed for. That does not imply lower overall human intelligence and there are numerous reasons behind lower scores including motivation which can lower the test score of an individual by 20 points on these tests. This has all been documented with creditable links from experts in the field. Racial discrimination and denial of equality in opportunity that results from racism has a huge impact on the motivation of blacks when it comes to the goals of education and that is reflected by the IQ test scores.

 

While not all racists are "stupid" there are clinical studies that do link racism to low intelligence.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Racist won't admit it, they will call the studies lies or garbage or attack Live Science (a highly creditable scientific source) which published a summary of the studies but it is still a documented fact that has not been rejected by peer review in the scientific community.

 

Once again those who have access to the latest scientific journals, unlike Shiva, can look at "Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments" 2012 to see that IQ correlates with a range of life outcomes and not just educational achievement.

Shiva goes on about "invidious discrimination" but has to provide one example of a black with equal academic achievement not getting a job. In short he is making stuff up.

He has not demonstrated a 100% difference in the motivation of blacks and whites. He has not demonstrated any difference.

Shiva is making things up. One minute it's "motivation", next "discrimination". This is easy when you do not base your opinions on scientific data, just on whatever you want to make up to support your predetermined conclusion that everyone is "equal".

 

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1076586&postcount=12

 

Seriously? A highly reputable source (Live Science) provides a summary of a clinical study that links low intelligence and racism and the rebuttal is an annonymos poster on another forum idenified as "Angler - Strength Through Hate" that's an obvious racist. Is it any wonder that people would see this as being a laughable attempt at rebuttal. This is unquestionably the most obsurd attempt at "rebuttal" on this thread IMO. I'm literally ROFLMAO over it.

 

You have no substantial arguments and can only claim "my source is better than yours" rather than address the points made. This is rich coming from someone that cannot access scientific journals. Besides this whole tangent is an ad hominem. Since I have proven you wrong about the validity of IQ tests you now try to insult me by presenting a shoddy non-peer reviewed source claiming "racists are less intelligent." Well, many so-called "racists" are published scholars, while many prominent "anti-racists" are drop outs, so I won't take your personal attack too seriously.

You cannot think for yourself and must only parrot what you believe to be "authorities."

The funny part is that you are referencing blogs.

Anytime you want to subscribe to some academic journals and get back to the debate I'll be waiting.

 

Live Science and the APA are not blogs nor have I cited any internet blogs. Does an internet blog really need to be defined?

http://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/blog/

Websites that offer reports and/or summaries of clinical studies or the actual studies on the internet are not blogs.

I certainly wouldn't use an annonymous racist post on a forum as an authoritative statement on anything. That isn't even digging the bottom of the barrel but instead is addressing the dirt undernieth the barrel and is laughable. There was absolutely nothing in that annonymous post that warrented any response.

 

Live science is not a peer reviewed academic source and does not clearly define terms used or detail the sample used. The poster I referenced makes exactly this (valid) point. Your response was: "he is racist ROTFLMAO." I cannot find an academic response to this paper because it is not a paper, it has not even passed academic peer review and thus does not warrant a response.

This is a tangent. You lost the debate, now you are trying to insult me with some dubious blog published "research" claiming "racists are less intelligent."

We can test that right here.

My IQ:

From a sample of UCL students (this is not an IQ score but the number of points from a maximum (off the scale) of 140):

So my IQ is 130-140.

And you?

 

No, Live Science is not clinical study website but it is a highly respected reporting media similiar to Scientific American which also provides summaries of peer reviewed studies and scientific theories. The reporters at Live Science are highly respected and all of the clinical studies they reference have been peer reviewed. It is a creditable reporting entity and not a blog where individual opinions, often unsupported by any factual evidence or clinical studies, is presented in an on-going opinion commentary. Rush Limbaugh might have a blog because he's not a creditiable reporter and is a political commentatory based upon opinion, not facts, but the reporters at Live Science are held to a high level of prsonal integrity related to their articles.

It is reasonable for anyone to believe that annonymos poster on another forum that self-idenifies themself as "Angler - Strength Through Hate" is a racist and that they have no creditability. It is a reasonable conclusion.

The clinical studies referenced by the reporter for Live Science do exist and they have been peer reviewed. I've seen no reference to any peer reviewed studies that dispute the summary of these studies.