How do you know? There’s no evidence of this.
Ok. Do you consider the Bamileke and Kikuyu the same race? Considering how often you answer the insults, I would think a question like this would be easy for you.
“If the question is important ask it again. I have more important things to do than read every insult directed against me, as well as every rhetorical question, every cliche, and every logical fallacy.”
Dude, he’s asked you this question like 10 times already…
What are these important things you have to do?
New Deal Democrat: do you apply your generalizations about IQ and “race” to your everyday interactions with people of disparate races?
The Bamileke speak a semi-Bantu language and are related to Bantu peoples…
The ancestry of the Bamiléké people can be traced back to Egypt. Between late 9th century CE, their ancestors left Egypt and began a descent across Africa. They settled in what is now Sudan temporarily before traveling to what is now modern-day northern Cameroon around 11th-14th century.
The Kikuyu are of Bantu origin.
If the Bamileke people are descended from those who used to live in Egypt, they are partially Caucasian, because the Egyptians are a Caucasian nation. They seem to have merged genetically with the Bantu.
Of Sub Saharan Africans the Ethiopians look the most Caucasian. This is because they are partially descended from the Semites on the other side of the Red Sea.
None of the native sub Saharan populations are noted for intelligence the way the Ashkenazim and the Orientals are. I used the adjective “native” because I am assuming that the whites in sub Saharan Africa compare with whites in Europe and North America.
Ok. So you’ve determined that there are multiple sub-Saharan African populations (and not just the “bushmen”) who are obviously not the same race. Well done!
I have even read of a Negro tribe in southern Africa that has practiced a form of Judaism for centuries, and that has genetic markers that point to Israel three thousand years ago. They are believed to have been converted by Jewish traders at some time in the past, who had some children by them.
The existence of racial hybrids does not mean that races do not exist, and that racial classifications are meaningless.
Ethiopian Jews have few or no Jewish markers. Of Jewish immigrants to Israel they have the lowest average IQs. and are the most inclined toward crime.
Richard Lynn has added yet another valuable collection of global data and historical insight to the literature. Various sources (Lynn, Herrnstein and Murray, Storfer, etc.) have reported studies showing high mean IQs for Ashkenazi Jews, which Lynn estimates to be 110, but these have not included a detailed study of Jewish intelligence on a global basis, nor a supportive set of data relating to real world accomplishments. The Chosen People provides both, along with a fascinating look at Jewish history. The result is a bit of a history book, combined with a truly massive quantity of data.
In the early part of the book, Lynn discusses the Mizrahim, Sephardim, Ashkenazim, and Ethiopian Jews as separate groups with different mean IQs. [Mean IQs in the prior order: 91, 99, 110, and 66]…
Ethiopian Jews in Israel have a mean IQ of about 69 (about the same as that for sub-Saharan Africans-67). Ethiopian Jews in Israel display the characteristics of other low IQ groups: high juvenile crime rate; high percentage of single-parent families; high dropout rates from high school; poor school achievement; low scores on matriculation exams; low employment rates (45% of men in 2003); high fertility (60% of families with 5 or more children); and a high HIV infection rate.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Chosen-People-Intelligence-Achievement/product-reviews/1593680368
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t disappear; I’m still reading the thread periodically. It’s just that I was working on a really long response, and when it was about 3/4 of the way done, I realized I was just rehashing everything I (and everyone else in the thread) have already said, and that there was no point, so I scrapped it. (And incidentally, your response to my last post was #1158. I hadn’t even started posting at #1058.)
But I’d really hate for you to count me as some kind of victory, so here’s the general gist:
-
As I said at the very beginning of my very first post, I have no expertise in genetics. However, I have a general understanding of it, just as I have a general understanding of, say, gravity. I can’t tell you where I learned about it, any more than I can tell you where I learned about gravity. All the cites posted in this thread - by everyone, including you and NDD - either support or do not contradict my understanding. And again, my understanding is (in a nutshell), that the group “black people” does not correspond to any single genetic grouping or collection of groupings. Rather, “black people” can be found among many different genetic lineages, and many “black people” are more closely related to some “non-black people” than they are to some other “black people”. Here’s an example of a cite that supports those statements. Here’s another. If you don’t understand what my statements mean, why those cites support my statements, or why my statements, if true, are significant, let me know, and I’ll be glad to explain it again, though I might start to think you’re being disingenuous, since those things really should be self-apparent, and even if they aren’t, you’ve already had them explained to you clearly, completely, concisely, in depth, in sum, and in every way imaginable.
-
In your response to me, you said:
This indicates to me that you may not have clearly understood my example. In that post, I showed that knowing a randomly selected group’s *average *measurement for some trait doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about most of the people in that group. Averages can be very misleading. After all, most people have greater than the average number of legs. I demonstrated that, even with a trait that’s entirely determined by genetics, it’s still entirely possible that:
a) Race 1 has a higher *average *for some trait than any other race, and yet
b) Race 1 is a minority of all people with that trait,
c) people with that trait are a minority of Race 1, and
d) people with that trait are more likely to be some other race than Race 1.
In other words, let’s say that most people are 5 feet tall, unless they have the Exceptionally Tall gene; then, they’re 7 feet tall. We’ll put 10 million people in Race 1, and another, oh, 17 million people in the other two races combined. Of these 27 million people, 8 million have the Exceptionally Tall gene, 3 million in Race 1, and 2.5 million in each of the other races. That means that Race 1 has the highest average height, at 5.6 feet, while the other two races average only 5.58 feet. And yet, if you’re talking about someone who’s Exceptionally Tall, there’s a 62.5% chance that they’re not Race 1. And if you’re talking about someone in Race 1, there’s a 70% chance that they’re not Exceptionally Tall. In fact, someone is more likely to be Exceptionally Tall if they’re in another race vs. in Race 1 (35.3% vs. 30%). And all this is true even though Race 1 is the largest of the three races. If it’s equal in size or smaller, it’s even easier for this situation to occur. So again, the average tells you nothing about any individual in any race. While the trait, height itself, is indeed genetically determined, the fact that Race 1 has the highest average height is purely statistical chance, and otherwise meaningless.
Following that logic, then, even if genes were the *only *determining factor in intelligence, it’s equally statistically possible for “white people” to be, on average, more intelligent than “black people”, and yet *also *the case that “white people” are a minority among intelligent people, that intelligent people are a minority among “white people”, and that a “white person” is less likely to be intelligent than a “black person”.
But I don’t think that’s the point you were trying to make. Is it?
- At the end of your above-quoted response, you said:
Well, as I just showed, it could be entirely genetic in origin, and still not tell you anything about the races, or about individuals within those races. Your “Pure Environmentalists” aside though, no one actually disputes that genetics plays at least some role in intelligence (as far as I know; in case I didn’t mention, I don’t know much about genetics). What they dispute is the idea that genetics is the determining factor in the difference in intelligence between “white people” and “black people”. Why? Well, it should suffice for me to say “see point 1) above”, but I’m sure it doesn’t. So again, the $64,000 question: Why is it implausible that genetics is the determining factor in the difference in intelligence between “white people” and “black people”? Because there’s no such thing as “black people”, genetically.
Think of it this way: Let’s say we find a gene pattern in some “black people”, and it looks like it might correlate to lower intelligence. Hooray! So we look for that gene pattern in other “black people”, and whoops, it isn’t there. And then we look in some “white people” and some “asian people”, and uh-oh, a bunch of them have it, too. But we really want to find the gene pattern that causes lower intelligence in “black people”, and so we start looking for other gene pattern candidates. Obviously, it would have to be some pattern that shows up in all, or at least most, of “black people”, and not in any non-“black people”. And we quickly see that there’s nothing like that. Well, shoot. If there’s no “black people” gene - and there isn’t! - then there can’t be a “black people are dumb” gene*. For further reference, see point 1) above.
And for the record, if I don’t post here again, it’s only because there’s no point. Reading, however, is proving to be very entertaining.
*Unless you are trying to make the case that the comparative averages are just a statistical fluke.
NDD, looks are only a weak guide to a person’s genetics. If you’d watched those videos I posted earlier, you’d know that the genes that code for physical appearance are a miniscule part of the genome, and they don’t necessarily “travel together” when mixed with other genes during the process of sexual reproduction.
A person can have a preponderance of European ancestry, but still look “black”, a preponderance of Asian ancestry but still look “white”, and so on.
A person can look “black” but not have any African ancestry at all.
It’s almost certain, NDD, that you have more African ancestry than Nathan Jawai does.
How do I know that Lynn didn’t make up this IQ data like he did for the other book? What are his sources? 69 seems unbelievably low, just like the other data that he made up.
NDD- what race do you think the Hausa and Mandenka are?
But that is not the case, except in your invented history. Encore, it is funny how you make up these histories as if no one can give you other evidence.
It is very strange that you can find a logic in making the assertion that it is the partial descendence of the darker skinned people in a city - one that is most known for its mettisages - as the explanation of one event many hudreds of years after its settlement by many different races.
We can ignore your ignorance of asian socieities, this is now a banal observation. It would only be a waste of time for anyone to find the many cases of lootings in countries you call oriental of race. We know you will ignore them.
Excellent, you have begun to talk about language. But we know that language is not the same as the genetic background of a people. Even in situ.
And we have the genetic mapping. But it is inconvenient to you, so you retreat to this.
Et violà the excuses. Anyone inconvenient becomes honorary white in your ad hoc schemas.
Yes, their language is Bantu. This time you are using the right reference.
Ah yes, but the Egyptians they ahve been interacting with the Nubians for millenium - and you claim the Nubians as 'Negroes"
But even taking this, it again highlights your schemas are incoherent and have no real sense genetically. They are Fables of Esope.
Ah again the Fales of Esope, as he tries to rescue his schemas by his ad hoc explanations.
But the genetics say that it is the otherwise, and so does the language diversity as the greatest density of diversity of the Afro-Asiatic languages is in the North East of Africa.
It again makes the schema of NDD nonsense.
Again the assertions.
The oreitnetal, except if they are not of the right kind, like the philippines or the malay.
Or except if the Africans are immigrants to the UK or the USA.
So many exceptions and ad hoc reasonings to keep track of.
It is evening amusing to give you a critical academic citation on the iron working - it is an academic review
Even this review that is a critical of the concepts of independent inventions, it makes it clear that your silly ad hoc pretensions that it is the consensus view that the black Africa was in the stone age, it is clearly just your nonsense.
Causes for High IQ of Ashkenazi Jews
Persecution Hypothesis The country by country history from Lynn shows that Jews were frequently expelled from one nation, then another, throughout Europe. At various times they were killed, sometimes in connection with the Inquisition and Crusades. It is not unreasonable to believe that this protracted and deadly stress factor caused disproportionate numbers of less intelligent Jews to die, in much the same way as the stress of cold weather is likely to have killed off less intelligent people who migrated north from the African Savannah.
Discrimination Hypothesis Jews were sometimes limited to the jobs they were allowed to hold, limiting their options severely. One area in which Jews were successful was money lending (as a result of usury laws that applied to Gentiles). This was a sufficiently complex task that it is reasonable to believe that only the bright survived. At that time, wealth was a significant advantage to survival, as infant and child mortality rates were high…
Lynn…ends the book with three conclusions: (1) the high IQ of the Jews must be genetic; (2) eugenic customs contributed to high Jewish IQ, proving that eugenic practices work; and (3) a minority group with high IQ succeeds despite discrimination. These conclusions are strongly supported by the large body of independent research cited by Lynn, but all are counter to the PC thinking that is prevalent today.
It is interesting that while the apologists for blacks blame the inferior intelligence that characterizes that race everywhere in the world, and always has on white persecution, the persecution of white Gentiles in Europe seems to have bred the Ashkenazim to become the most superior racial group in the world.
It is funny as he has just been arguing that the same population is from Semetic descent - the Eithiopians.
Now we play the switching again. They are contaminated by the Black so they have - by the same writer who made up the 'estimated ’ intelligence scores by neighbouring countries on the basis of some school exams on a non-valid statistically population - the intelligence of impaired adultes.
It is wonderous to see such argumentations, always shifting and always changing.
A populatin is white descended until they are not. … etc.
Anyone can post anything on the internet. It does not pass the laugh test that those who did not develop writing and mathematics developed iron technology before the Hittites, and did so with no copper and bronze age as a precursor.
Lynn has proven himself to be a poor scientist and a manufacturer of data. do you have any of his sources that show that his data is better this time around?
Except that we don’t do this. You have showed evidence of an achievement gap with certain populations, and that’s it. You have failed to show “inferior intelligence” (the IQ data from Lynn is bunk- and education stats do not equal IQ… and IQ does not even necessarily equal intelligence). You have failed to show any genetic evidence for a tie between race and intelligence. And your races to not sense- you put groups in the same race that are more closely related to groups in other “races” than their own (by your classification).
What race do you consider the Hausa and the Mandenka?
Yes, like you can.
But as we can know from your response, you are so hurt by the quotations you did not bother to verify that the link is to a PDF of an academic journal reproduced. And by a conservative angophone author. (I alpolgize the link did not come through it is here Website Disabled among other sources, History in Africa 32 (2005), 41–94)
But it does not fit your views, so it is dismissed. It is not a surprise, we know already you have not the intelligence to even be clever and innovative in trying to respond to the moutains of the data that make nonsense of your primitive views. So we have discussions of american politics and silly statements about Pouchkin that are so provincial in their form and nature as to simply insult the person who wrote them as someone badly educated who does not know anything of the literature and culture he is trying to pretned to comment about, this White Race - but of course surtout English speaking.
It is like we are reading someone who has just awoken from 1900, except you have not, and so we must only conclude you are stupid.
You don’t know much about metal-working, obviously. There’s no intrinsic reason that iron-working needs to be preceded by copper and bronze working. There are many reasons why a culture might have adopted either- including abundance of fuel (timber), and relative abundance of easily acquirable metal (copper is not as plentiful as iron, and not plentiful everywhere).
Again you’re not thinking scientifically- if the data says Africa invented iron-working independently, you don’t just get to ignore it because of your own biases. The Haya of Tanzania were the first to forge carbon steel. Not just independently, but the first in the entire world. Were they just lucky?
What race are the Hausa and Mandenka?
I’m a bit skeptical, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Besides which, there was more for you to say. See below.
Seems to me you should either back up or retract the following assertion:
What are these gene patterns? What sub-groups are you referring to?
To make that assertion, you need a precise definition of “grouping” which can be applied to other matters besides race. Are you able to do so? Are you even able to define what you mean by “grouping”? If not, then you have no idea what you are talking about.
I understand what it means to assert that some black people are more closely related to some white people than those same black people are related to some other group of black people.
I also understand what it means to assert that the group known as “black people” contains individuals which are not closely related at all.
What I don’t understand is why I should care about this. And why it somehow invalidates generalizations on the basis of race.
After all, the same thing can be said about many ethnic groups. For example, there are surely many Han Chinese who are more closely related to Vietnamese people then they are to some other Han Chinese. Similarly, there are surely many pairs of Han Chinese who are not closely related. To be sure the distance between those two unrelated Han Chinese is probably a lot less than the difference between two unrelated blacks. But that means the difference is one of degree.
I understand your example. See below.
Following that logic, then, even if genes were the *only *determining factor in intelligence, it’s equally statistically possible for “white people” to be, on average, more intelligent than “black people”, and yet *also *the case that “white people” are a minority among intelligent people, that intelligent people are a minority among “white people”, and that a “white person” is less likely to be intelligent than a “black person”.
[/quote]
Probably yes, but assuming it’s true, it doesn’t change the fact that – in your examples-- the intelligence gap (or the height gap), the gap is primarily genetic in origin and efforts to close the gap by changing peoples’ environment will be ineffective.
No. The point is that the Pure Environmentalists (as I defined them) are wrong. And the people who assert that the gaps are primarily genetic in origin are right.
Do you dispute this? I really would like to know.
But they do dispute that genetics plays a significant role in the gap between groups. Agreed?
What exactly do you mean by “determining factor”? Can you give me examples?
Also, do you agree that in the example I have given about height, genetics is indeed the primary factor behind the gap in average heights?
Well do you agree that in my example, one could say that “There’s no such thing as Race 1”?
And do you agree that in my example, genetics is clearly the primary factor in the difference in heights?
And if you agree with both of those things, do you agree that therefore, if “There’s no such thing as Race 1 and Race 2,” it still is possible that an average difference between Race 1 and Race 2 might still be primarily the result of genetics?
Assuming that’s all true, it does not necessarily follow that the intelligence gap between blacks and whites is not substantially genetic in origin. Agreed? (If you like, I can give you an example to show how this might be so.)
I’ve asked you some simple, reasonable questions. If you ignore them, I will assume it’s because you don’t have good answers.
Yes, but there is no evidence of an “intelligence gap” (only an achievement gap between some populations), much less that it is genetic in origin. Zero genetic evidence.