“Be the first to like this.”
There’s still time!
Brazil84 doesn't get what's wrong with the claim that majorities of sub-saharan africans are retards
If I call you an overtly racist douchenozzle, can I get on the list too?
Please?
Well, after reading that whole thread I’d say not quite. He never actually makes it known whether or not he believes sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70.
Waitaminute, who was ********?
Yeah, it looks like they were redacted somehow. The reasons are still funny, though.
He was ***** ******** but he had a name change a couple of years ago.
Are you talking about brazil, or the OP of the GD thread?
Sweet holy fuck.
Did someone lose their crazy?
"Cause I know where there is an abundance.
What’s funny about the blog is the amount of effort and the number of words used just to emphasize the crazy. The guy on the corner shouting out random things like “WONDER BREAD” cuts to crazy in only a few words. Brazil84 felt the need for that ridiculous screed to get there.
I have no clue what my IQ is, but I sure as hell hope it’s higher than 84.
I’m not quite old enough to have observed the Middle Ages, but I did live in Africa for three years. I can say without reservation that those folks who were afforded an education, whether in book-learning or technical trades, performed every bit as well as their first-world counterparts. The Africans who worked for me were mostly tradesmen and laborers. The tradesmen were as good as any I’ve seen anywhere and had a good understanding of their craft, given the schools available to them. My Malian engineer was educated at the University of Arizona and spoke three languages.
Brazil84, the closest I found was him saying this in response to the OP questioning why African-Americans have IQ of 85 but sub-Saharan Africans have IQ of 70:
I guess there is perhaps an “implicit acceptance” of the premise in his response there, but that’s as close I think as he ever got to saying what he thinks about the actual IQ of persons from sub-Saharan Africa.
I’m not sure how to make it clearer.
The key point is that there are two distinct questions:
(1) Do Africans have very low average IQs?
(2) Is it obvious just from simple observation of Africans that they do not have very low average IQs?
Or to put it another way, there are two distinct claims being made:
(1) Africans do NOT have very low average IQs.
(2) This fact is obvious merely from simple observation of Africans. Obvious enough that any evidence to the contrary, such as test results, can be disregarded.
Ok, now consider the observation that there is widespread illiteracy among Africans. This is weak evidence that (1) is false. As you say, there are other plausible explanations for widespread illiteracy in Africa. It’s just one piece of evidence which, standing alone, does not permit a reasonable inference that Africans have very low average IQs.
But at the same time, it’s good evidence against (2). If you observe Africans and see weak evidence that they have low intelligence, then it’s not reasonable to conclude that they obviously do not have low intelligence.
Evidence is not the same thing as proof. If all you have is weak evidence of X, it’s not reasonable to conclude that X is true. But at the same time, it’s not reasonable to conclude that X is false. In that case, what you have is inconclusive evidence.
Let me ask you this: Let’s suppose you have two groups of people, A and B. Group B has very high literacy rates. Group A has low literacy rates.
Can you reasonably conclude that the average IQ of Group B is higher than that of Group A?
Can you reasonably conclude that the average IQ of Group B is roughly the same as that of Group A?
In my opinion, the answer to both questions is “no.”
Why?
Well what average national IQ would result in the degree of non-functionality present in most sub-Saharan African countries?
[Telemarked whiffs zombie stench and feels something tap him on the shoulder]
Not enough is even known about the concept of IQ or what, if anything, it measures to allow any meaningful answer to that question. Furthermore, obviously, a great many cultural, social, political, historical, economic, and/or environmental factors completely unrelated to “average national IQ” can serve to render a society non-functional.
You are assuming we know nothing else about Africans (or really the world generally). That might be true of you, but is not for most of us.
Which we know because many societies have grown non-functional or grown functional or grown better-functional, collapsed or recovered/improved, without any significant changes in their gene-pools. Whatever “average national IQ” is, it is something that has risen one standard deviation in many Third-World countries since WWII, using the same gene-pool as before the war, but blessed with improved nutrition, health, sanitation and education.
To an extent you are right – I focused on literacy to the exclusion of other issues. But you need to keep in mind the context of the argument I was responding to.
even sven’s argument was basically as follows:
-
Anyone who visits Africa will see, just from simple observation, that the people there are “fairly ordinary”
-
It is impossible for a group of people who are “fairly ordinary” to have very low average intelligence.
-
Therefore simple observation conclusively refutes any claim that Africans have very low average intelligence.
even sven’s argument hinged on the concept of “fairly ordinary.” The example of widespread illiteracy calls this concept into question. From the perspective of the West, it’s a bit odd to characterize widespread illiteracy as “fairly ordinary.”
Of course even sven is the master of her argument and she is entitled to define the phrase “fairly ordinary” any way she wants. However she refused to offer a definition.