Nobel Winner Called Racist

[CycloWizard]

Link

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Watson is not the first scientist to show sympathy for the theory of a racial basis for intellectual difference. In March of last year Dr. Frank Ellis from Leeds University provoked anger in Britain after he admitted he found evidence that racial groups perform differently "extremely convincing."

My question is not whether or not Watson is right, nor do I really care whether or not he is right. My question is: what if different races and genders are inherently different? Should we never acknowledge these differences and insist on trying to bin everyone in the same group, despite existing differences that will always cause this to be less than optimal? If I am not as intelligent as Einstein, should I pretend that I am? Moreover, should I coerce you into telling me that I am because otherwise you're racist/sexist/whatever? If such differences are real, at what point will members of our society develop the intellectual integrity and maturity to accept that without discarding that information as racist/sexist?

I would argue that trying to equate everyone, when different people are obviously better at different things (read: NOT equal) is a huge waste of resources. I am all for everyone having equal opportunities and rights, but you can't enforce this equality using tools like affirmative action that set up a quota. If I look objectively at the science and it tells me that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds, should I avoid saying so because that makes me breed-ist? Should we set up a quota system at dog tracks that says dachsunds must make up a certain percentage of the racing dogs? Or should we acknowledge that differences most certainly exist and proceed accordingly?

 

[jackschmittusa]

I feel very much the same as the OP.

 

[Genx87]

Well I guess at this point would like to see what tests and studies are finding this out.

 

[Viper GTS]

This should be a fun thread.

My take:

It's a human fantasy to believe that we are all equal, or have equal potential. Genetics probably do play a role in intelligence, but we won't be able to separate it from cultural impact any time soon.

Viper GTS

 

[RightIsWrong]

I think that you are misinterpreting the overall message. It appears as if he is saying that Africans < the rest of the world.

This is completely asinine considering the advancements that were present in ancient Egypt compared to the rest of the world. IMHO, oppression by conquerers was a greater impacting factor on the overall state of Africa than evolutionary development of their neurological structure/capabilities. Once they were under imperial rule, education ceased to be something that all were exposed to. Instead, they were enslaved by groups (including some of their own) that took complete advantage of them.

The good doctor doesn't seem to touch upon the apparent differences between Asians and whites. Does he hold the same belief structure that Asians > the rest of the world in terms of intelligence?

This isn't to say that there aren't differences amongst the different groups, but to say that white is biologically smarter than black is pure bigotry. Different people learn and excel under different conditions. A lot of these are environmental that can be taught. Others are hereditary/biological in the sense that some of us are auditory, some of us visual and still others are a combination of the two. The knowledge obtained or missed through environmental factors is not an indication of our abilities.

There will always be people that are more brilliant than others in every family, neighborhood, city, region, country, race, sex, etc.

Is his theory/belief able to stand up to scrutiny? Is Colin Powell an idiot because he is AA (African American)? What about Condelizza Rice? What about Oprah?

Does his theory hold up when you look at immigrants from different locales?

According to the London Daily Times ?Black Africans have emerged as the most highly educated members of British society, surpassing even the Chinese as the most academically successful ethnic minority.?[15] In a side-by-side comparison of 2000 census data by sociologists including John R. Logan at the Mumford Center, State University of New York at Albany, black immigrants from Africa averaged the highest educational attainment of any population group in the U.S., including whites and Asians.

 

[Vette73]

If he based it on science that had a good test and was reviewed then it be worth talking about. He said "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". So he is basing it off what he sees people do at work. Heck the KKK or nazis could come up with a better reason then that.

Well i saw a white guy wreck his car the other day, I now know white guys can;t drive.

Hes a idiot.

 

[LegendKiller]

It's bullcrap to think that whole races/population groups are inferior intelligence wise. You're essentially saying that nature accounts for the majority, if not all, of intelligence while nuture accounts for a much smaller piece.

I think this idea is reprehensible. The lack of access to proper education, materials and nuturing towards developing intelligence significantly inhibits the ability to demonstrate intelligence.

If somebody has the intellectual power to do advanced math in their brain but do not have exposure to that math, nor the education to develop the needed logic patterns to deduce results, then how will they ever score higher in any intelligence metrics?

You could take any of the brightest people in history, isolate them, shove them into a culture of pure poverty, no education, familial chaos, poor social structures, perpetual war and pushing kids into holding AK47's, do you think they would evidence the same abilities?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that you are misinterpreting the overall message. It appears as if he is saying that Africans < the rest of the world.

This is completely asinine considering the advancements that were present in ancient Egypt compared to the rest of the world. IMHO, oppression by conquerers was a greater impacting factor on the overall state of Africa than evolutionary development of their neurological structure/capabilities. Once they were under imperial rule, education ceased to be something that all were exposed to. Instead, they were enslaved by groups (including some of their own) that took complete advantage of them.

The good doctor doesn't seem to touch upon the apparent differences between Asians and whites. Does he hold the same belief structure that Asians > the rest of the world in terms of intelligence?

This isn't to say that there aren't differences amongst the different groups, but to say that white is biologically smarter than black is pure bigotry.

I always had a feeling that you didn't read my posts, and I think this is proof. I specifically stated that I don't care whether or not he's right, then proceeded to ask a more general question. You inadvertently answered the more general question in a completely ignorant fashion, indicating that you either didn't read or didn't understand my comments in the OP.

I'll ask again: is it bigoted to say that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds? Your statement implies that it is, so I am curious if you really feel that this is somehow bigotry.

 

[Czar]

Just watch sports, wherever people of african origin have entered in any numbers they have dominated the sport.

Then when it comes to inteligence people of Asian origins score the best on average

 

[teclis1023]

I don't see differences as bad, per se. It seems intuitive to me that different races have evolved differently. That doesn't mean that they're "better or worse" than each other. For example, Asians are characterized by shortness, olive skin and wide, narrow eyes. There has to be an evolutionary reason for this, right? I don't see these characteristics as bad - in fact, I think that they're quite impressive.

I think the problem historically has been that this sort of science really appeals to racists who want to see a domination of one race over the other, which has historically led to ideas like Eugenics, etc. We should not only acknowledge our differences, but be proud of them. We can still be a cohesive society even if we don't consider ourselves to all be exactly the same. My housemates are Korean, I'm Ashkenazic- obviously we are different (physiologically, culturally, intellectually) but it's through those differences that we can expand ourselves and our knowledge of the world.

But let's not expand this out of proportion: it's not the same as your "dachsund to greyhound" comparison. These differences are oftentimes only a few percentage points different, and furthermore we need to measure the quality of the tests used to determine these conclusions. Furthermore, I wonder how much these racial groups have been influenced by culture, and not necessarily genetics. Just because this scientist has found differences doesn't mean that they are cardinal rules. It's not as if the majority of black people are slobbering idiots, while white people walk around discussing Gogol and Turgenev. K-Fed and Britney Spears are pretty good examples of this.

So how do we recognize our differences? By simply doing that - recognizing them, and moving on. We shouldn't shape domestic or foreign policies around these differences, because the world is becoming smaller by the day, and we're integrating with each other more and more. Soon these differences will disappear. So how do we combat racism while still recognizing racial differences? By setting standards as equal across the board - for school, for jobs, etc. It turns a blind eye to race, and instead focuses on the merits and abilities of each individual. It's the best way.

For example, say I'm hiring for a position in my company. I set a standard that I want each candidate to meet. Once those standards are met, a smart black man is worth the same as a smart white woman because they have both qualified for the position through their merit.

Okay, now I'm actually rambling. The point is - we're different, yes. We should not base policies on these differences, as there will always be a wide variety of people within each race.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I think this idea is reprehensible. The lack of access to proper education, materials and nuturing towards developing intelligence significantly inhibits the ability to demonstrate intelligence.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that something is either true or it isn't. Truth can't contradict truth. So, if we assume that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds, is it reprehensible to state this truth? Should we instead try to pretend like all dogs are equally fast?

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It's bullcrap to think that whole races/population groups are inferior intelligence wise. You're essentially saying that nature accounts for the majority, if not all, of intelligence while nuture accounts for a much smaller piece.

I think this idea is reprehensible. The lack of access to proper education, materials and nuturing towards developing intelligence significantly inhibits the ability to demonstrate intelligence.

If somebody has the intellectual power to do advanced math in their brain but do not have exposure to that math, nor the education to develop the needed logic patterns to deduce results, then how will they ever score higher in any intelligence metrics?

You could take any of the brightest people in history, isolate them, shove them into a culture of pure poverty, no education, familial chaos, poor social structures, perpetual war and pushing kids into holding AK47's, do you think they would evidence the same abilities?

This is a great post, and I tried to mention it slightly in mine, but LK did a much better job.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I think this idea is reprehensible. The lack of access to proper education, materials and nuturing towards developing intelligence significantly inhibits the ability to demonstrate intelligence.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that something is either true or it isn't. Truth can't contradict truth. So, if we assume that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds, is it reprehensible to state this truth? Should we instead try to pretend like all dogs are equally fast?

The problem with your example is that it's designed to prove a false point.

Despite subtle physical differences, humans are all born with the same general equipment and capabilities.

Dachsunds, on the other hand, are born with completely different capabilities than Greyhounds.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Czar
Just watch sports, wherever people of african origin have entered in any numbers they have dominated the sport.

Then when it comes to inteligence people of Asian origins score the best on average

Again, why do Asians perform better in certain areas? Is it because they are inherently more intelligent, or because their society pushes them to achieve greater efforts in certain areas?

Do you know anybody that is Indian? If an Indian is anything *but* an engineer, their are often ostracized from their families.

There are certain areas where people are nutured. It just so happens that the Asian culture pushes children into quantitive areas.

I have met some pretty fricking stupid Asians, whites, blacks. I also work for one of the biggest banks in the world and I see the smartest from all races. One common thing happens, they were all educated very well. I have one coworker that more or less grew up in the ghetto in NYC, but went to Cornell on a full ride.

People can be so egocentric and judgemental. It's pretty sad that they can't acknowledge that their own intelligence and logic is inhibited by their own lack of education.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that you are misinterpreting the overall message. It appears as if he is saying that Africans < the rest of the world.

This is completely asinine considering the advancements that were present in ancient Egypt compared to the rest of the world. IMHO, oppression by conquerers was a greater impacting factor on the overall state of Africa than evolutionary development of their neurological structure/capabilities. Once they were under imperial rule, education ceased to be something that all were exposed to. Instead, they were enslaved by groups (including some of their own) that took complete advantage of them.

The good doctor doesn't seem to touch upon the apparent differences between Asians and whites. Does he hold the same belief structure that Asians > the rest of the world in terms of intelligence?

This isn't to say that there aren't differences amongst the different groups, but to say that white is biologically smarter than black is pure bigotry.

I always had a feeling that you didn't read my posts, and I think this is proof. I specifically stated that I don't care whether or not he's right, then proceeded to ask a more general question. You inadvertently answered the more general question in a completely ignorant fashion, indicating that you either didn't read or didn't understand my comments in the OP.

I'll ask again: is it bigoted to say that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds? Your statement implies that it is, so I am curious if you really feel that this is somehow bigotry.

I always thought that people knew what they wrote and could see what portions someone else is responding to, but I guess I was wrong also.

From your OP:

I would argue that trying to equate everyone, when different people are obviously better at different things (read: NOT equal) is a huge waste of resources.

My thread was in direct response to this. You say that you don't care whether or not he is right and then argue that he is right using an example that is completely illogical. You are trying to make a point about neurological ability based on physical traits. I could just as easily have asked you to evaluate whether whites should be treated as intellectually superior to blacks based on the premise that sharks swim faster than goldfish. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
The problem with your example is that it's designed to prove a false point.

Despite subtle physical differences, humans are all born with the same general equipment and capabilities.

Dachsunds, on the other hand, are born with completely different capabilities than Greyhounds.

No, you are assuming that "humans are all born with the same general equipment and capabilities." This is a huge assumption that you are making without even realizing it. Indeed, it forms the entire premise of what you're saying, but it's nothing but an assumption. Watson has challenged that assumption. Like I said, I don't know if he's right or wrong (nor do I really even care), but if he is right, should he simply not say it and pretend like he's wrong?

 

[jhbball]

Well said, Legendkiller.

Oh, and ViperGTS doesn't care about black people!

 

[Craig234]

This guy has long espoused irresponsible things that are an embarrassment to his fellow scientists. He's clearly far beyond the facts that even everyday people can see, such as when he says that any boss who employs black people knows what he says is true.

As the OP said, though, 'who cares' in terms of this as a political or social issue - I can find some black people who can outdo probably anyone here in areas of science, math, etc. While it's fine to do legitimate research on such issues, this sort of commentary seems it's best called 'groundless racism'.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I always thought that people knew what they wrote and could see what portions someone else is responding to, but I guess I was wrong also.

From your OP:

I would argue that trying to equate everyone, when different people are obviously better at different things (read: NOT equal) is a huge waste of resources.

My thread was in direct response to this. You say that you don't care whether or not he is right and then argue that he is right using an example that is completely illogical. You are trying to make a point about neurological ability based on physical traits. I could just as easily have asked you to evaluate whether whites should be treated as intellectually superior to blacks based on the premise that sharks swim faster than goldfish. One has nothing to do with the other.

Your statements don't seem to have any implications with regard to the sentence you quoted. You assume that A==B, then base all conclusions around that assumption. What if A!=B? Should I continue to say that A==B, though I know it's false? Or should I take advantage of the fact that I now know A!=B? I said that I don't care whether he's right, then gave an analagous example. This wasn't an effort to prove that he's right, but to abstract the issue because having human race involved obviously overwhelms your senses (as you clearly demonstrated in the quote above).

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I think this idea is reprehensible. The lack of access to proper education, materials and nuturing towards developing intelligence significantly inhibits the ability to demonstrate intelligence.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that something is either true or it isn't. Truth can't contradict truth. So, if we assume that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds, is it reprehensible to state this truth? Should we instead try to pretend like all dogs are equally fast?

Are *all* greyhounds faster and *all* dachshunds slower? I'd love to see you prove that. Furthermore, are *all* greyhounds trained to be faster, or are they just naturally so from birth? are *all* daschunds trained to be faster from birth?

Furthermore, are *all* africans bread to be more stupid? Do you cross breed them with more stupid africans to come up with an ultimately stupid people? Is that what you are saying? Has Africa been exposed to a eugenics program that essentially has lowered the bar so much that we should write them off?

Essentially you're comparing a breed of dog that was bred through hundreds of years for a set of attributes, to a population that has not had that situation. It's selective evolution. There has not been one race of people that has carried out an intentional eugenics program for any length of time.

Finally, if you take a greyhound, shove it in a cage for it's whole life. not let it run *once*, not let it learn how to race. Do you think it will beat a daschund?

You're a fricking moron if you think that.

Without training to take advantage of a natural gift that natural gift will *not* exhibit itself.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Are *all* greyhounds faster and *all* dachshunds slower? I'd love to see you prove that. Furthermore, are *all* greyhounds trained to be faster, or are they just naturally so from birth? are *all* daschunds trained to be faster from birth?

Generally, greyhounds are faster than dachsunds. Are you disputing that? I'm not one for generalizations, as I think they do cause a lot of unwarranted grief and are too often wrong, but at what point did someone decide that it would be stupid to have a mandatory quota of dachsunds in a race with greyhounds?

Essentially you're comparing a breed of dog that was bred through hundreds of years for a set of attributes, to a population that has not had that situation. It's selective evolution. There has not been one race of people that has carried out an intentional eugenics program for any length of time.

I'm not trying to make any comparison. I never implied that Africans are equivalent to the dachsunds. I simply generalized the question, then gave a flagrantly obvious example to illustrate the point. Apparently, you can't get your head around that, which is obviated by this:

Finally, if you take a greyhound, shove it in a cage for it's whole life. not let it run *once*, not let it learn how to race. Do you think it will beat a daschund?

You're a fricking moron if you think that.

Ah, the 'frickin moron' response. That was quicker than I expected.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Are *all* greyhounds faster and *all* dachshunds slower? I'd love to see you prove that. Furthermore, are *all* greyhounds trained to be faster, or are they just naturally so from birth? are *all* daschunds trained to be faster from birth?

Generally, greyhounds are faster than dachsunds. Are you disputing that? I'm not one for generalizations, as I think they do cause a lot of unwarranted grief and are too often wrong, but at what point did someone decide that it would be stupid to have a mandatory quota of dachsunds in a race with greyhounds?

Essentially you're comparing a breed of dog that was bred through hundreds of years for a set of attributes, to a population that has not had that situation. It's selective evolution. There has not been one race of people that has carried out an intentional eugenics program for any length of time.

I'm not trying to make any comparison. I never implied that Africans are equivalent to the dachsunds. I simply generalized the question, then gave a flagrantly obvious example to illustrate the point. Apparently, you can't get your head around that, which is obviated by this:

Finally, if you take a greyhound, shove it in a cage for it's whole life. not let it run *once*, not let it learn how to race. Do you think it will beat a daschund?

You're a fricking moron if you think that.

Ah, the 'frickin moron' response. That was quicker than I expected.

So you completely dodge the issue and exhibit your own lack of knowledge in this area.

1. Yes, generally Greyhounds are faster, but only because they have been selectively bred that way. Additionally, they are only faster because they are *STILL* trained from birth to be so. Is there a population outside of Africa that has selectively bred their people to be more intelligent. AFAIK the only eugengic program on a society wide basis was the Lebensborn program under Nazi rule. Otherwise, any eugenics programs have been much smaller. Please refute this, otherwise your example is not even relevent to the discussion.

2. I can get my head around analogies quite well thank you, but what I will *not* get my head around are analogies that are stupid, those that exhibit the person's own ignorance to anthropology, psychology, and basic human knowledge.

3. Yes, my "fricking moron" part came in early, because you have yet to actually refute one point successfuly, yet only take the short-exit door by trying to attack me.



First off, prove that a greyhound that has had all of it's ability to demonstrate speed removed will still be as fast as a daschund. You don't need a specific example, you just need a logical argument.

Second, prove your analogy of a selectively bred race to a randomized one in all aspects of a global population.

Third, prove that non-selectively bred populations, in all aspects, can somehow exhibit selectively bred attributes when the only significant difference is access to education and nuturing of intelligence. Prove that it isn't the access to nuture of intelligence, but actually just the lack of basic intelligence.

Can you do the above or are you just going to waffle again?

What's funny is that I have, by my own nuturing, proven that you are intellectually inferior to me in every aspect of this discussion. Now, if I were to believe what you do, I would say that it's nature, not nuture, that has given me the ability to own you in every aspect. Additionally, if I were you, then I would be able to undenaibly prove that you're not even worth the time to educate, because naturally you're not nearly as intelligent as I am.

Finally, I would come up with some arbitrary metric to measure your intelligence, such as your height (are you anything but exactly 6'2", like I am?) or your hair color (is it anything but brown/blond?) or geographic genesis point (Were you born anywhere but Minnesota?) and say that you are inferior because you are shorter and or taller than 6' 2", have different hair color, and you were born in a geographically inferior location. Thus, any person fitting your description, is, on average, less intelligent and shouldn't be triffled with.

 

[Moonbeam]

CW: In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically.

M: To have not evolved identically is obviously true. That does not say the difference amounts to anything important.

CW: He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

M: Equality, in the constitutional sense does not me mathematical equality. It means equal in the eyes of the law and equally entitled to rights certain inalienable rights. People who deal with black employees are not scientific instruments lacking bias any more than the employees necessarily make up a randomly selected sample.

CW: Watson is not the first scientist to show sympathy for the theory of a racial basis for intellectual difference. In March of last year Dr. Frank Ellis from Leeds University provoked anger in Britain after he admitted he found evidence that racial groups perform differently "extremely convincing."

M: A statistical evaluation of men and women would show many many differences too, such as upper body strength. There will also be a percentage of women who are stronger than a percentage of men so there will be tremendous overlap of abilities especially where the percentage of difference is small. Racially Jews have the highest IQ scores, I believe, yet there are million and millions and millions of people smarter than the average Jew.

In all cases differences in performance needs evaluation on an individual basis. To type people by race and attach preconceived notions to them without evaluation them individually is bigotry and racism.

CW: My question is not whether or not Watson is right, nor do I really care whether or not he is right. My question is: what if different races and genders are inherently different?

M: I think I have said why such differences are irrelevant.

CW: Should we never acknowledge these differences and insist on trying to bin everyone in the same group, despite existing differences that will always cause this to be less than optimal?

M: A false choice. To bin one way or the other is bigoted labeling. You evaluate people on an individual basis. You try to see where genetics may be a factor and where environment comes into play if you are curious about some abstract big picture.

CW: If I am not as intelligent as Einstein, should I pretend that I am?

M: It probably wouldn't be a bad idea since self hate, a disease we all have, makes us feel we are vastly less intelligent than we are.

CW: Moreover, should I coerce you into telling me that I am because otherwise you're racist/sexist/whatever?

M: You may coerce me all you want provided you don't violate my rights, but in my case I don't think you will get very far. I have spent a lifetime undoing the coercion of others.

CW: If such differences are real, at what point will members of our society develop the intellectual integrity and maturity to accept that without discarding that information as racist/sexist?

M: Wrong question, in my opinion. We do not know if such differences are real or their actual cause but we can already see that the overlap will mean, as always, that we judge people individually if we have some need to select between them.

CW: I would argue that trying to equate everyone, when different people are obviously better at different things (read: NOT equal) is a huge waste of resources.

M: You here attempt to blur the difference between equating them by rights, where everybody is indeed equal, and equating them as having equal and identical abilities. Resources for the former are not a waste. Who is spending money on the later?

CW: I am all for everyone having equal opportunities and rights, but you can't enforce this equality using tools like affirmative action that set up a quota.

M: Certainly you can. If a university is taking only top qualified white students and accepts government money we can ask them to accept all races. We can make them broaden their search and evaluate top scholastic other race students. Affirmative action done right is all about equal opportunity.

CW: If I look objectively at the science and it tells me that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds, should I avoid saying so because that makes me breed-ist? Should we set up a quota system at dog tracks that says dachsunds must make up a certain percentage of the racing dogs? Or should we acknowledge that differences most certainly exist and proceed accordingly?

M: Here you try to pretend that that racial differences are as different as dog breeds. A better analogy would be to compare black-white greyhounds with a white-black ones.

In my opinion the way people look at data is pre-determined by what they want to see and what they want to see is not available to their conscious mind. It is based of irrational emotions acquired before the capacity to analyze and evaluate has matured.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Czar
Just watch sports, wherever people of african origin have entered in any numbers they have dominated the sport.

Then when it comes to inteligence people of Asian origins score the best on average

Again, why do Asians perform better in certain areas? Is it because they are inherently more intelligent, or because their society pushes them to achieve greater efforts in certain areas?

Do you know anybody that is Indian? If an Indian is anything *but* an engineer, their are often ostracized from their families.

There are certain areas where people are nutured. It just so happens that the Asian culture pushes children into quantitive areas.

I have met some pretty fricking stupid Asians, whites, blacks. I also work for one of the biggest banks in the world and I see the smartest from all races. One common thing happens, they were all educated very well. I have one coworker that more or less grew up in the ghetto in NYC, but went to Cornell on a full ride.

People can be so egocentric and judgemental. It's pretty sad that they can't acknowledge that their own intelligence and logic is inhibited by their own lack of education.

http://www.innovations-report....dies/report-43536.html

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

7. 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.

8. Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

9. Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

 

[BrownTown]

Well first off if you just look at the dude I think its likely hes not exactly firing on all cylinders these days, so you might just chalk it up to a little senility. That having been said, I DO consider what he said to be racist, and I am someone who almost never makes this claim. However it IS true that black people score lower than white people in any sort of standardized test of aptitude like the SAT. HOWEVER this is not a race issue but is instead an issue of class and worse education. Certainly not all races are exactly alike, but the amount of differentiation among people of the same race FAR outweighs any advantage between one race over another so far as I can see. This case is much better made concerning men and women whose brains are FAR FAR more different than the brains of member of the same sex and different races. However even with the difference between men and women there is a huge deviation in what any given person is good at, but on average there is some differences there that are obvious.