It is common knowledge that the Bantu, from whom American blacks descended, never developed indigenous civilizations with writing and mathematics.
American Indians did both.
Response? BTW African-Americans trace their ancestry to many peoples of Africa and the globe, including Europe (with also a fair amount of Amerindian for good measure).
I keep asking for evidence that blacks on the average perform as well as whites, or that the very least that they are closing the gap. All I get are excuses and shouts of “Racist!”
None of the Bantu “civilizations” on your map developed indigenous systems of writing and mathematics the way American Indians did.
stomp stomp stomp Dude, you’re one stupid dumbshit. 
If it is not genetic, why do Orientals have low crime rates and high average IQs everywhere in the world that they live?
If that’s all you can do, you have lost the argument. :D:p
If it is genetic, then why did “Orientals” allow the British to force them at gunpoint to consume large quantities of opium or allow the Americans to incinerate their cities with atomic devices? To repeatedly fail in the theater of ultimate competition - war - would seem to be more indicative of mental lethargy than acuity. :dubious:
East Asian cultures have fostered the development of individuals who perform well on standardized IQ tests. I have seen no credible scientific evidence to indicate that genetics explains this discrepancy more than culture does.
As for Sub-Saharan Africans - they have been historically cursed by geography, not genetics, you stupid, stubborn man.
No, you’ve lost this one. Once again you’ve been exposed as a racist and the credibility of everything you say has therefore been called into question. People who might have been unaware of your beliefs have now been told.
This wasn’t about helping you. We know you’re pretty much a lost cause. This was about making sure you don’t hurt other people by infecting them with your foolishness.
I work in genetics.
I skimmed that paper.
IMHO, there is only 1 experiment presented that speaks to biology and is not riddled with confounding factors.
The correlation was a pathetic r= 0.4.
or, put the way most people write it. R^2 = 0.16.
So no. Not good enough.
I mean really. I gotta ask you, what field are you in? Because I question if you have the background required to critically evaluate these claims.
You make assertions with little or no evidence in place. Your 2005 paper has been found to be flawed. You assert that the construct known as ‘race’ is of genetic origin when it is not. Race is a social construct. The genetic diversity of our species is very wide. In fact, recent studies indicate that each of us is quite genetically unique. This bodes poorly for all-purpose genetic therapies, but on the other hand, it is a rather telling piece of evidence that supports the thesis that race is not a genetically determinable value.
But, I am quite aware that presenting contrary and scientifically supported ideas to your chosen set of beliefs will only result in your dismissal of such. This is to be expected from one who obviously suffers from serious cognitive dysfunction. May I suggest therapy?
Oh, and since we are in the Pit (a place where I rarely post) may I also suggest you kindly go fuck yourself. The 21st century has no need for atavistic assholes like you.
So much of this sentence is wrong:
American blacks descended from many ethnic groups, including Europeans, Bantus, other black sub-saharan African groups (not every “Black African” is of Bantu descent- remember [as you have ignored], the genetic diversity of Africa is far greater than the rest of the world combined), and native Americans (with a small contribution).
Some ancient sub-Saharan Africans developed intricate mathematical systems, and writing systems like Ge’ez scriptand Nsibidi.
So there. It’s not common knowledge- because it’s incorrect. And your implication that all black Africans are “Bantu” is laughable.
The fact that orientals typically have low rates of criminal behavior and high IQ, does not necessarily imply a genetic reason. You can not claim that because this is true, there must be a genetic reason.
You’re confusing sufficiency, with necessity. A genetic reason may be Sufficient to explain the difference, but it is not NECESSARY to explain the difference.
To prove a causative relationship in science you need to prove necessity.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So the burden is on you. As a graduate level scientist, I can tell you that your ‘evidence’ does not rise to the level of nessecary to prove your claim.
Even scientists have emotions that prevent them from accepting some realities. Anything involving people arouses emotions.
The only thing that remains to prove conclusively that genes effect different IQs and crime rates is the discovery of genes for these propensities. Because genes have already been discovered for medical problems, lactose tolerance, and blue eyes I am confident that they will be discovered for IQ and crime. In each case it will not be a single gene, but a constellation of genes.
That’s not necessarily true and depends, particularly, on the nature of the crimes in question; violent crime in (say) Bangkok may not be high but crimes such as pickpocketing may be more common than elsewhere. Mean IQ is relatively low in Thailand as well: 87, according to this site, which provides its own citations. Corruption and bribery seems more likely in China.
But even to the extent that it’s true, how can you make a causal argument? It’s undeniable — beyond obvious — that factors beyond genetics affect how one scores in IQ tests. The argument that average IQ among American blacks hasn’t significantly increased since the advent of civil rights legislation ignores all sorts of variables: continuing racism; persistent generational poverty (poverty is sticky); social pressures from within ethnic groups as well as from without; even changes in the way IQ is measured.
I’m not trying to grasp at straws here; these are genuine confounding factors that you simply can’t ignore or wave away. “Forty years should’ve been enough!” just won’t cut it for a causal argument, particularly one whose outcome has very significant policy implications.
From an eyeball comparison of lists of countries by homicide rate and by the proportion of English speakers, I suspect I could find a correlation between speaking English and rates of violent crime. Assume that I did; would that be a good causal argument? I could point out that even among developed nations English-speaking countries — especially the US, but also Israel, Canada, the UK — see proportionately more homicides than France, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Germany …
The Japanese Yakuza are so numerous, so ingrained in the fabric of Japan’s government that the police are afraid of locking them up. Not afraid that they’re going to get shot by Yakuzas in retaliation, you understand. Afraid they’ll get fired for it.
There is almost nothing in Japan that doesn’t involve Yakuzas on some level or kicking them something back. The Japanese government, throwing its hands up, has resorted to making it a crime to pay them protection money (which of course stiffs the victim thrice - once when they pay up to not get kneecapped, once when they pay the fine, and a third time when they don’t have any more money to pay the protection racket, having spent it on the fine).
Of course, when there are no arrests, no prosecutions and no investigations, crime stats are going to be on the low side.
As for our side of the big water, Asian communities in Western nations are, very generally speaking, insular and distrustful of local authorities (for good reasons, considering recent history), preferring to solve their issues and disputes among themselves whenever they can.
There once again, low crime stats are to be expected.
I would also note that it’s established fact that criminal sentencing in the US is heavily skewed against black people in particular (e.g. possession of crack cocaine and powder cocaine landing different jail sentences by a factor of 10 ; juries more likely to convict blacks than whites on similar charges with similar evidence, etc…), and the majority of blacks are trapped in horrible socio-economic situations through no shortage of discrimination, so your using racist policies that result in racially charged results to support the kind of racist theories & attitudes that are at the root of said racist policies in the first place seems somewhat… well, I was going to say disingenuous, but I think I’m going to go ahead with shameful shit instead.
If forty years is not enough to erase racial differences it ought to have reduced them somewhat if they are environmental.
In this chart of SAT scores beginning during the school year 1990-91 you can see what while Orientals have improved significantly in both mathematics and reading ability, blacks have hardly improved at all, and the gap between them and whites has grown.
Why are you assigning emotion to me? I am stating my disagreement with your ** data **. I have no dog in this fight. Should science one day show that one race as a whole is any more intelligent than another. Then so be it.
And are you some emotionless pillar of reasoning? Cause, you certainly do not come off as such.
I accept the possibility that any some subgroup may have lower intelligence. I have evaluated your evidence with a scientific eye, and concluded that there is not enough evidence to support your claim. You seem to AGREE with this, but yet still continue on with assuming it is true?
No man. You’re the emotional zealot here.
Not if the environment hasn’t changed significantly.
New Deal Democrat,
All you’ve got is test scores, and they don’t say anything about genes or biology. Every other claim you’ve made has been thoroughly (and sometimes hilariously) debunked, in this thread or the others- whether it’s about Bantus (not all black Africans are Bantus!), technology (there were indeed indigenous writing systems and mathematical systems in ancient sub-Saharan Africa, and in many technologies, like iron smelting, forging steel, and brick architecture, some black African populations were way ahead of Asians and Europeans), or race and genetics (you continually and absurdly claim that “Negro” is a race comparable to “Caucasian” or “Oriental”, when Africa contains more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined).
Have you considered that maybe your own biases and prejudices are coloring your views?