That is not a matter of intelligence, is it? Neither is criminality.
I have started a new thread for discussion of “racial” psychological differences other than IQ.
That is not a matter of intelligence, is it? Neither is criminality.
I have started a new thread for discussion of “racial” psychological differences other than IQ.
They may well be. Certainly Professor Robert Weinberg suggests in this biology lecture at MIT that may be revealed in time.
This recent paper by Rindermann et al is suggestive. Research like this at BGI may resolve these debates.
Well, what if you don’t know anything about baseball?
These threads are depressing. Imagine for a moment if nearly every month there’s a thread on how stupid you are and idiotic and lazy your ethnic group happens to be. You wouldn’t understand, though. I just hope there aren’t any impressionable minorities who read these threads and begin to internalize this trash. Here’s a few morsels to chew on. There are no genes or alleles that control how smart one is. There’s no researcher worth his salt that’ll tell you otherwise. The paper posted by Rushton displays data on cranial size but doesn’t show the margin of error of that data or the n. I suspect that if error bars were placed on the data, there would be no significant difference.
Frankly, if there are differences between blacks and whites, can we please retroactively change graded evaluations from college? I mean, I got a “B-” in organic chemistry with about 300 students (mostly whites and “orientals”). Since I’m black and had to overcome the sloth of my IQ and bad cognitive genes, can I get an “Amen” to raise my grade from a “B-” to a “A+++”? If there are differences, do you suggest that we take a page from the penultimate chapter of the The Bell Curve and enroll blacks to the welfare rolls en masse to keep them from robbing their white overlords? If your dream comes true and blacks are on the bottom rung of the ladder of intelligence, what’s the next step? Surely, you’ve thought this through more than a raspberry and “haha, ur stoopid.”
Also, based in my experience, blacks have bigger penises than whites. However, I will say that a white guy with a big penis (that is >7.5 inches) is much hotter than a black guy with a big penis (>8 inches) Don’t know why. Guess it’s the rarity. As for Asians, they’re small, but I think it’s due to eating dietary estrogen. I’ve never seen an Asian over 6 inches. Would be interested to see how American-born Asians stack up. Unfortunately, there’s not much research on penis size. It is unfortunate because research on penis size would help woman choose mates that meets the needs of the vagina.
If that is true, why is the race gap in mental aptitude so durable?
Also, why do a growing number of employers in the private sector give mental aptitude tests to prospective employees?
Because, as has been explained to you over and over and over, there are plenty of other nongenetic factors at play, and employers are stupid. Regardless of race.
Funny anecdote but when I explained a comment or joke in US media about black men having a large penis a woman here in Trinidad said what really and said in her experience black men have small penises and asians big ones :dubious: In fact there are plenty of local jokes on the Jamaican grandfather theme(where the woman in a white couple will have an obviouslly mixed race baby and feebly attempts to explain it) except here it is a mysteriously asian looking baby born to a black couple. Asians are oversexxed, east Indians are drunks and not studious, etc. Its funny because it almost seems random who gets assigned what.
I recall Harry Turtledove’s AH novel The Two Georges, wherein the American Revolution is averted by compromise and negotiation. Thus, when Parliament finally abolishes slavery throughout the British Empire in the 1830s, it applies to American slaves as well; and the British government, moreover, takes steps to basically-educate the freedmen and provide them with low-level clerical and civil-service jobs, which then becomes their traditional role in American society; with the result that, at the end of the 20th Century, the most prevalent stereotype about blacks is “fussy precision.”
Probably the same reason why the South administered poll tests.
You are claiming that the test results of different groups on a single test in a single society are a good indication of a world-wide genetic situation? Where is your devotion to logic?
(I also note that the native North Americans on that graph do not test very high, even though they are, basically, transplanted Asians. So, unless you are going to fudge the numbers or play “move the goalposts” regarding cultural influence on the tests, Rushton’s nonsense about Asian intelligence is disproved on those graphs.)
For the first point, why is racial discrimination (in fact if not intent) so durable? In other words, the fact that the gap has not disappeared when the environmental differences have not disappeared does not prove it is a genetic issue.
Your second point is a complete non sequitur. Are you trying to say that the reason employers are giving aptitude tests is because they are trying to weed out blacks? Or are you confusing Honesty’s statement about no gene for IQ with claims that IQ is not a valid measurement of anything important.
If the second, I would respond that the reason for the tests is the same as the reason employers were adopting credit checks for all perspective employees even though there was no data showing how that related to their job performance: companies sold them on it in order to increase profits.
I’ll make a bet with NDD regarding EOG scores.
I predict that socioeconomic class, not race, is the primary predictor of EOG scores among students.
To that end, I’ll get two random groups of students: one group will be white students who live in generational poverty (that is, their parents are poor and grew up poor), and one group will be African American students who live a middle-class lifestyle.
I predict that the white students will perform worse on the EOGs than the African American students.
Do you disagree with this prediction?
(Note: I can’t actually get these two cohorts, and if I could, I couldn’t tell you their test scores; this bet is a thought experiment.)
In 1995 white students whose family incomes averaged less than $10,000 averaged higher higher SAT scores than black students whose family incomes averaged above $70,000.
This is how that can be explained:
IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages–Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a
Something you’ve not addressed, NDD: Practically all African-Americans, even the darkest-skinned, are of mixed blood, descended from slaveowners as well as from slaves (the average white admixture is 20%). How does that affect your analysis?
Andrew Hacker addressed this back in the 90s. Most of the whites in this study were kids from middle class homes living with recently divorced mothers, not kids who’d grown up in poverty.
Of course, the explanation is wrong, but I suppose one could try to “explain” it that way.
Note that Jensen is another guy who has devoted his entire life to denigrating blacks, getting much of his funding from avowed white supremacist groups.
Looking over their “study,” I notice that they are back to comparing brain sizes, when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that brain structure plays a much larger role in intelligence than does size. I also note that they are back to claiming that an average IQ of 85 for an entire population is not ludicrous on the face of it. Were that true, the overwhelming percentage of people in that population would be unable to function as cashiers in retail, (much less run their own businesses), and few of them would be capable of driving a car. When the numbers come up against reality and just look stupid, it is time to question the numbers, not reality.
BTW
NDD,
You’ve made it clear you’re a huge admirer of Rushton’s work.
However, while you’re convinced he’s right that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, you’ve said you don’t think he’s correct about whites having small penises.
Why is that?
Why are you so quick to believe him that blacks are mentally inferior but hesitant to believe him that whites are anatomically inferior?
Why do you seem to only accept his “studies” that vindicate your prejudices while rejecting his claims about potential shortcomings that you and other whites might suffer from?
Thanks
Not to mention the existence of situational effects on performance beyond socioeconomic status.
It’s a shame the slave owners weren’t Oriental, as that would have upped the average IQ for black Americans :rolleyes:
Isn’t it also impossible by definition ? As in, there’s no such thing as absolute “IQ numbers” and one’s IQ is measured along a scale where 100 is defined as the average IQ for the observed population & age group, with a standard deviation of 15 ?
If the average IQ over the entire population is 85, the population is not dumb. The scale is fucked to begin with.