nice try - I was, in context, comparing Italy to the Scandinavian countries you said they have a higher IQ than. America is irrelevant to that. If IQ correlates to crime rates, economy or…anything at all, there shouldn’t be this discrepancy.
Also, what’s the “National IQ” of Greece? And Turkey - the longest-civilized country in the world?
From your link:
This is not a link to measures of IQ. Do you know what IQ is?
The above quotes are from the Wiki link you provided. Do they not at least give you pause?
If crime is a correlate of IQ, why do African countries (with, apparently, sub-functional “National IQs”) track behind Latin American ones in terms of violent crime?
Funny that your definition of “Negro” changed from:
…to Africa south of the equator and “White” is now: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, and Greece? Perhaps you need to stick with one definition and “bait and switch” us. mmmmkay?
It is very funny that you have so little knowledge of Africa that you think that ‘south of the equator’ means all of Africa.
For the people who do not see what embarassement he has made for himself, look at a map of Africa. The south of the equator is the southernest part of Africa, and does not cover West Africa or East Africa at all. Even that the 1978 Cambridge history is now outdated by new discoveries, he has embarassed himself because he is using this to make a claim on all black africans when it only refers to those areas that were in that time mostly the pygmies and the Khoi and San.
Funny too that he makes the selective claims on the crime, since some black African countries - it is mostly those that are Muslim - have very low crime rates. It is all ad hoc for him.
Lynn had data for less than half of the countries he discussed- and the data he had for many third world countries was spotty and incredibly weak- he bases the IQs of 30 entire countries based on a single IQ test each (many of which had tiny sample sizes- like 48 students age 10-14 for Equatorial Guinea), and 34 countries on 2 IQ tests each.
NDD- this is bad science. One study, with 48 students, represents an entire country? We’re supposed to take this seriously? And then he uses that data to estimate countries’ IQs in which he has *no data *at all (more than half of the countries)? Come on… this is laughable stuff. Considering that most of your arguments have been based on this book, which is largely based on terrible science, and crime rates, which are the product of a historically extremely biased justice system, how are we supposed to conclude anything other than you are trying to justfiy you’re own pre-conceived prejudices?
You’ve already agreed Egyptians aren’t “white.” They’re Middle Eastern. Greeks are Southern European, and Persians are Persian. They aren’t the same race. And why do those countries have lower average IQs than Northern Europeans, if your claim is that IQ is correlated with how long someone’s been civilized?
I’m curious as to why NDD refuses to answer the question both I and Tom posed to him.
He repeated insisted that Rushton was a fantastic scientist and cited his studies as proof that blacks were “mentally inferior” to whites, but when it was pointed out that according to those same studies, white men had much smaller penises than black men, NDD got all huffy and said he had no idea whether Rushton’s studies were accurate. He even embarrassed himself by claiming that such findings weren’t one of Rushton’s central claims whereas everyone familiar with the crank knows that they are central to his whole theory on the relationship between brain size and penis size.
So, once again perhaps NDD can explain why he finds Rushton to be a respected scientist when the question is regarding blacks “mental inferiority” but when the question is regarding whites’ alleged physical shortcomings and their anatomical inferiorities he suddenly thinks that Rushton can’t be trusteded even though he’d previously cited Rushton’s studies.
Why is that? Do Rushton’s claims unnerve you? Do you think he might be right about the physical inadequacies of white men(whom you wish to associate yourself with) or are you concerned that if people wind up dismissing Rushton’s claims regarding white people’s anatomical inferiorities that they’ll recognize that his work is bunk and he’s a fraud.
Thanks
He avoids all things inconvenient. I must also correct my post because I wrote all Africa but I meant the black Africa.
But he makes places white when it is convenient to his argument evenif it responds to lo logic at all like with the Maghreb which has a strong black population for thousands of years but this should mean greater crimonality by his logic.
Another thing to put to New Deal Democrat is whether he has heard of the Flynn Effect?
This is the phenomenon of increasing IQ test scores over time – IQ tests have to be made more difficult each year, or the scoring adjusted down, to keep the average IQ at 100.
The interesting thing is that the Flynn Effect is slowing in more developed countries, while continuing apace in developing countries; thus narrowing any apparent gap.
A popular hypothesis is that IQ tests, as well as (or possibly even instead of) measuring intelligence, measure “modernity” of thought. That someone who describes and classifies the world and events in a sort of “mathematical” way will do well on IQ tests, and in the modern workplace. But it’s not the only way of thinking, and it takes time for a population’s way of thinking to shift over.
And yet by your very own litmus test of skin colour, kinky hair and fat lips, he’s squarely and fully black. Had your pal Rushton quizzed him at the mall re:how far he could toss his rocks, he would have jotted down the results in the “black” column. If Obama had committed a murder, he would have been added to the “black crime” statistic.
So you can maybe see why the “black” label means nothing in terms of genetics, any more than those crime stats you love to quote over and over again would be any kind of genetic evidence ; even if those stats weren’t meaningless for other reasons besides (e.g. the laws themselves are skewed in the disfavour of coloured people, law enforcement even more so, and socio-economic conditions further still)
What am I saying, of course you won’t see that, that would conflict with your precious narrative…
Penis size only matters if it correlates with other characteristics that do matter, such as the ability to satisfy a woman, or the tendency to abandon women one impregnates. The first characteristic is good; the second one is bad. It is not clear to me that a large penis correlates with either characteristic. What I have read on the topic leads me to suspect that male homosexuals are more attracted to men with large penises than are female heterosexuals.
The Hite Report on Female Sexuality was written by Shere Hite, and published in 1976. In the appendix of the book Ms Hite included the questionnaires she distributed to large numbers of women in order to do her research. There was one question on whether women prefer penises that are long and fat, long and thin, short and fat, and short and thin. The answers to this question did not appear in the body of the book. That suggests to me that for most women this is not a salient concern.
Professor Rushton does say that blacks tend to have more athletic aptitude than whites. That is a positive characteristic, and one that is obvious to any sports fan.
Hmmm… For someone who just said you don’t think Rushton’s theories on penis size hold up you just spent an awful lot of time discussing how penis size shouldn’t matter.
Look, I hate to break it to you, but when women tell you “size doesn’t matter” they’re lying to you to soothe your ego.
That’s right up there with “don’t worry, it happens to all men sometimes”, “it’s not a big deal”, and “things will be better next time”.
Perhaps you’ve heard that “size doesn’t matter” but rest assured the woman who said theis to you just didn’t want to hurt your feelings, closed her eyes, and pretended she was with Will Smith or Denzel Washington.
Really. I’m a huge fan of football, and by your definition neither it, baseball or basketball are not dominated by blacks.
I do not understand the mens obsession with their penises and I do not with Bin Warraq teasings helps any refutations, since the contradictions of NDD in his arguments are more interesting.
He makes arguments that are only picking datas here and there, and have no coherence. A crime rate that is high in a country that has people he considers black, it is confirmation of his prejudice. But a crime rate of a country that has a large population of people he should consider black like Morocco, this is not regarded or passed over in silence. We. Forget even the low crime rates of the Sahel countries. In his presentation what is white and black change in a fashion ad hoc according to what responds to his prejudices well even if it has no consistency with his other arguments.
The nonsense of the genetic argument is shown in the results that someone has provided earlier that the immigrants of Nigeria in USA perform very well in academics, but this should not be if the genetics were the dominant explanation. Because the American black population has a very large input of European and American Indian which is Asian input.
I also find it very strange that no discussion is made of theimpacts of young childs nutrition, since this is something that has real objectives evidences as having a very large impact on the intelligence potential as does the child diseases. These are good factual science.
I can not concieve of how the honest argument can be made that it is some colour of skin that makes intelligence when there is such strong evivdences demonstrated that there are very large environment impacts and no one argiung for the race idea has made any clear definition.
Most of the Moroccan people are Berbers. The Berbers are white.
he prehistoric populations of North Africa are related to the wider group of Paleo-Mediterranean peoples. The Afroasiatic phylum probably originated in the mesolithic period, perhaps in the context of the Capsian culture.[15][16]. DNA analysis has found commonalities between Berber populations and those of the Sami people of Scandinavia.
Berbers, aboriginal Caucasoid peoples of N Africa, called Imazighen in the Tamazight language. They inhabit the lands lying between the Sahara and the Mediterranean Sea and between Egypt and the Atlantic Ocean. The Berbers form a substantial part of the populations of Libya, Algeria, and Morocco.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0807112.html#ixzz1wqV1unC4
No Berber speak the imaghezen languages, like the Tachelhite, Tamaghzite, Tarfite, … . Like English speakers, they come in many couleurs. It will be interesting news to my Chilha cousins from Morocco that they are white although they have skin darker than the American president.
It is even eassy to google images of tuareg or Draoua or chilha to know how ignorant the claim is.
Sadly good information on the Maghreb and this is not found in the English. Later I will give the citations, but your argument about the Morocco is like how you treat Egypt, it has no objective basis in relationship to what you claim.
Nevertheless, you have avoided the real problem, that you make claims about populations blackn but your claims have no coherence. Black countires or countries with big black minorities have higher crime. Except when it is not true. There is no doubt that Morocco has had a large black - in the American terms - population for centuries, and yet you make it white whent it suits your argumentations. Incoherence.
Not according to your definition.
Again, what race are pygmies?
What race are Papuans?
What race are these people?
Not those berbers…duck, weave…those berbers.
