You did not say it, but you did quote it.
In addition to belonging to a religious group, the Ashkenazim are a racial group that has been inbred for well over a thousand years, and which began to distinguish themselves intellectually as soon as discrimination against them weakened.
You seem to think anyone who doesn’t automatically dismiss it has a “deep personal need” to believe it. Is that true? If so, why?
Personally my reaction to it is the same as all other science that appears free of other motivations for its existence–I provisionally accept the conclusions until beter research comes along.
There are several features that can be used to determine the race of an individual. In terms of the skull, a great place to start is the maxillary bone. The left and right maxillary bones form the roof of the mouth, contain the upper 16 teeth in the adult (the upper 10 teeth in the child), and form the outline of the nasal cavity (the nasal cavity itself involves several other bones: ethmoid, inferior nasal conchae, lacrimal, nasal, sphenoid, and vomer).
The arch of the maxilla can be found in three basic shapes: hyperbolic, parabolic, and rounded. Each of the the following three races have their own shape: (1) African = hyperbolic, (2) European = parabolic, and (3) Asian = rounded.
The incisors, as well, differ in their basic shape. The incisors (click HERE to refresh your memory) fall into two basic categories, based on the shape of the lingual (tongue) surface of the tooth. These two categories are: (1) shovel-shaped, and (2) spatulate, or spatula-shaped. As there is more than one race with spatulate incisors, other indicators are necessary to positively identify race, although this single feature can be used to eliminate one of the possibilities. Each of the the following three races have their own shape: (1) African = spatulate , (2) European = spatulate , and (3) Asian = shovel-shaped.
In addition to determining gender, there are characteristics of the skull that can be used to determine the race of an individual. Many of these features are quite subtle, and require detailed examination of the skull. A couple of features, however, are more easily seen. For example, in people of African ancestry, the nasal opening is more flared. Another example is that of the zygomatic arch (or cheek bone), which is angled more forward in people of Asian ancestry, thus giving the person a slightly more flattened face… Unfortunately, a true examination of racial characteristics is not possible on a worksheet.
No. I don’t expect anyone to “automatically” dismiss anything. Read the book if you like, or read its authors’ and advocates’ synopses. Read other books on the subject. Read critiques of all of the above. Make up your own mind.
What I find contemptible are people who have not read the critiques, or have dismissed them out of hand because TBC confirms what they wanted to believe all along.
Better research was available before it was published! More has been done since.
Do you seriously propose not to see any reason why people might want to believe what TBC offers?
I have been aware of that link for a long time. There is little there but logical fallacies that are easy to point out, particularly Ad Himinem, Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Ridicule, Guilt by Association, and Straw Man.
These fallacies are commonly repeated whenever The Bell Curve is debated.
Ever since I have been in high school when I am given a reading list, I know I have won the argument. I expect the person giving the the reading list to have read the material and expect the person to be able present the arguments in his own words.
And it was an idiotic retort from you, the fact remains that there is no agreement in scientific circles about this say so of yours. And it is no-no to change the quotes of others, specially in an effort to make them sound just emotional…
So inbreeding is also good? I’m afraid you are indeed way into crackpot territory.
Yes of course. I can also see why people want to disagree with The Bell Curve.
The Bell Curve explains facts that are becoming more obvious with the failure of No Child Left Behind.
If the population is sufficiently large it can be, when that population is placed in an environment that selects for superior intelligence.
The very fact that you equate the word racism to “nigger” says all that is necessary. Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly.
No, I’m pretty sure that NDD is a racist nudnick.
Indeed. There are certain skeletal features that have a tendency to be slightly different in members of different races that can, with varying but always low degrees of reliability, be used to support an educated guess as to what race the skeleton’s former possessor was.
Thank you for giving such a specific explanation of why I am right.
The fact that you need to resort to Ad Hominen attacks demonstrates that you are in trouble rationally.
And once gain, race is not the main reason for that.
Eventually that can be the conclusion, so far I think it is still viable to just report on the obvious, he is just a crackpot.
Huh? 
If one cannot determine the race of a person with a high degree of probability why are people taught how to determine the race of skeletons in criminology classes?
You do not prove that by asserting it.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I have even the faintest desire to engage you in discussion rather than simply mocking you. It’s okay, I don’t expect you to be able to understand, not being Jewish or Asian.
Watch a lot of CSI, do you?
What race is Barack Obama’s skeleton?
The label is binary.
Neither can you, once again I’m coming from the angle that it was a stinky lie to say that your points are the truth, or that there is no controversy on the intelligence levels applied to race, and then when one goes for the biological side of things the overwhelming consensus is that there is no such thing as race divisions.
It is possible to identify some genetic differences between different populations, but it is doubtful that intelligence is an overwhelming factor in not showing progress. It is a crackpot position to claim that “it is, period”.