You’re again discrediting yourself and making yourself look stupid.
You’ve regularly insisted on referring to African-Americans as “negroes” or “blacks” yet you insist that mestizos aren’t “caucasians” or “whites”.
Please explain the logic behind this because it strikes me as both illogical and unscientific.
Fuji
July 1, 2012, 10:46pm
3304
Your stupidity and dishonesty discredits what you say, and you are certainly an embarrassment to the SDMB.
Mestizos are a hybrid race of whites and American Indians. Honduras gets its high murder rate from a number of factors including the American Indian ancestry of the mestizos. Countries where nearly everyone is white or Oriental nearly always have low murder rates because whites and Orientals are at five to ten thousand years away from a paleolithic way of life. The only white country I am aware of with a high murder rate is Russia. The only Oriental country is North Korea.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
Race is not the only factor influencing a country’s murder rate, but it seems to be the most important.
What about Bolivia , you cretinous chimp?
To paraphrase a quote from a critic of yours a few pages back:
Your theories are garbage and you should feel like garbage.
Fuji
July 1, 2012, 10:51pm
3305
Yeah, I pointed that out to him a few pages back, but he just keeps going merrily along, imbecile that he is (I’m guessing his mother was a heavy drinker back when NDD was just a worthless little bun-in-the-oven).
It’s worth quoting again what the first two paragraphs of his most beloved cite actually say:
“The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary.[1] The legal definition of “intentional homicide” differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include infanticide, assisted suicide or euthanasia.
It’s funny, in a sad way, when his own cites contradict his position.
“Tell me MrDibble, have you ever raped anyone?”
I’ve seen people answer your questions dozens of times and be completely disregarded. I choose not to bother. Why don’t you save us both some time and put me on your little ignore list?
Ya know,NDD, guys who read those ‘Mandingo’ books have deeper issues than they know…:eek:
In Bolivia, a 62% majority of residents over the age of 15 self-identify as belonging to an indigenous people,
The demographic characteristics of the population of Bolivia are known from censuses, with the first census undertaken in 1826 and the most recent in 2024. The National Institute of Statistics of Bolivia (INE) has performed this task since 1950. The population of Bolivia in 2024 reached 11 million for the first time in history. The population density is 11.36 inhabitants per square kilometer, and the overall life expectancy in Bolivia at birth is 68.2 years. The population has steadily risen ...
The murder rate in Bolivia per 100,000 inhabitants is 8.9.
The demographic characteristics of the population of Bolivia are known from censuses, with the first census undertaken in 1826 and the most recent in 2024. The National Institute of Statistics of Bolivia (INE) has performed this task since 1950. The population of Bolivia in 2024 reached 11 million for the first time in history. The population density is 11.36 inhabitants per square kilometer, and the overall life expectancy in Bolivia at birth is 68.2 years. The population has steadily risen ...
While lower than one would would expect, considering the large Indian population, that is still higher than the United States, which has a corresponding rate of 4.8.
The per capita gross domestic product in Bolivia is $4,800.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=Bolivia&countryCode=bl®ionCode=soa&rank=153#bl
While low, that is higher than in a number of countries like India, where the per capita gross domestic product is lower than in Bolivia, and the murder rate is lower than in the United States.
India has one of the oldest traditions of civilization in the world. That is why the murder rate is low there, despite a high degree of poverty.
Nonsense, but at least you have the intelligence to come up with a lame rationalization.
Suit yourself . . . bye.
I fear NDD has gone to his bunk…
brazil84:
Suit yourself . . . bye.
Wow. I almost give a damn.
I’d bet five thousand of b84 ’s dollars that NDD ’s Packard Bell is jammed to capacity with cuckold porn of the “hung black bulls ravish and impregnate frustrated white housewife whose husband’s tiny limp cock could never satisfy her” variety.
Burma’s filled with black people these days? And Lithuania must have had an influx as well.
Don’t forget those dark-skinned Estonians.
For that matter virtually all Costa Ricans would be offended if you suggested they were anything but white and their murder rate is up there.
I guess no one under 30 reads the Guardian newspaper ?
“It has been getting clearer and clearer that any genetic contribution to traits on which people differ – like height and weight – comes about from large numbers of gene differences, each with very small effects,” said Prof Ian Deary of the University of Edinburgh, who led the research on intelligence. “We thought that was one possibility for cognitive ability differences, and our results are compatible with that.”
To test his idea, researchers looked at more than half a million locations in the genetic code of 3,511 unrelated adults. Each of these sites is where people are known to have single-letter variations in their DNA, called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). These variations were correlated with the individuals’ performance in two types of psychometric tests that are established in assessing intelligence: one test measuring recalled knowledge (via vocabulary) and the second measuring problem-solving skills.
They found that 40% of the variation in knowledge (called “crystallised intelligence” by the researchers) and 51% of the variation in problem-solving skills (“fluid-type intelligence”) between individuals could be accounted for by the differences in DNA. The results are published on Tuesday in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.
Or the New York Times ?
The most prominent finding of behavioral genetics has been summarized by the psychologist Eric Turkheimer: “The nature-nurture debate is over. . . . All human behavioral traits are heritable.” By this he meant that a substantial fraction of the variation among individuals within a culture can be linked to variation in their genes. Whether you measure intelligence or personality, religiosity or political orientation, television watching or cigarette smoking, the outcome is the same. Identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than fraternal twins (who share half their genes that vary among people). Biological siblings (who share half those genes too) are more similar than adopted siblings (who share no more genes than do strangers). And identical twins separated at birth and raised in different adoptive homes (who share their genes but not their environments) are uncannily similar.
Either that or he keeps getting rejected in his bid to be a volunteer masseur for his local NBA team. Why do they torment him so with their long, brown, muscular limbs, and their firm, high riding buttocks?
Eric Turkheimer has some other things to say on the topic.
If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong? Nothing, it seems to me, except the arrival of the day when the IQ gap disappears, and that is going to take a while. The history of Africans in the modern West is roughly as follows: Millennia of minding their own business in Africa, followed by 200 years of enslavement by a foreign civilization, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow oppression, followed by fifty years of very incomplete equality and freedom. And now the scientific establishment, apparently even the progressive scientific establishment, is impatient enough with Africans’ social development that it seems reasonable to ask whether the problem is in the descendants of our former slaves’ genes. If that isn’t offensive I don’t know what is.
Having said that I should add that I believe absolutely in freedom of expression and inquiry everywhere, but especially in academia. The racialists are entitled to their tenure and their speaking engagements and their promotions, but they are not entitled to my encouragement or respect.
I will close with a word on Watson. He is not really a racial scientist to any significant degree, he just expressed a point of view that I think is false and destructive. No one deserves to be punished for expressing a point of view, but there is another consideration here. Watson is a legitimately respected and famous person on the basis of his great scientific accomplishments and the awards they have won for him, but those accomplishments don’t have very much to do with racial differences in intelligence, except that both domains involve the concept of “genes” in a very general way. It is safe to say that he does not know anything more about the subject than anyone writing here. He is, of course, still entitled to his opinion, but famous scientists and intellectuals have some responsibility not to use their fame in the service of dangerous ideas that are ultimately outside their real expertise. Watson got in trouble for casually stating poorly informed opinions about a deeply serious subject. He is still the great scientist he always was, and I admired the apparent sincerity of his apology, but he deserved most of the criticism he got.
Linda Gottfredson has an interesting rejoinder to Turkheimer in that exchange :
Proponents of the taboo on discussing race and IQ assume that the taboo is all for the common good, but whose good, exactly, is served? It is most certainly not individuals of below-average intelligence, who face a tremendous uphill battle in modern, literate societies where life becomes increasingly complex by the day. General intelligence (g) is simply a general proficiency to learn and reason. Put another way, it is the ability to deal with complexity or avoid cognitive error. Virtually everything in life requires some learning or reasoning and thus confers an advantage on brighter individuals. Life is complex, and complexity operates like a headwind that impedes progress more strongly for individuals lower on the IQ continuum. Everyone makes cognitive mistakes, but lower intelligence increases the risk of error.
Take, for example, health care. Patients differ enormously in intelligence level, and these differences have life and death consequences for them. Individuals of lower health literacy, or IQ, are less likely to seek preventive care even when it is free, use curative care effectively when they get it, understand and adhere to treatment regimens, or avoid health-damaging behavior. They have worse health, more accidental injuries, higher health costs, and die sooner—regardless of income, insurance coverage, or quality of health care. Health care matters, as do material resources and motivation, but mental resources matter too. They are critical in the prevention and self-management of chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease. Health self-care is an increasingly complex life-long job for all of us, which becomes even more complex as we age and experience more health problems.
It overstates only slightly to say that health care providers currently pay no attention to patient differences in the ability to learn and understand. As health literacy researchers have shown, however, a sizeable fraction of patients in urban hospital outpatient clinics are unable to understand an appointment slip (when to come back), a label indicating how to take four pills a day, or, among their insulin-dependent diabetic patients, the signs of low (or high) sugar and what action to take to bring their blood sugar back under control. Do proportionately more blacks have such problems? Yes, many more. Is that a reason to continue ignoring or disputing individual and group differences in g?