Nobel Winner Called Racist

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Apparently Watson's comment was made of a Book Tour, which may cast a whole different light on his real intent.

Bringing literature to the Stormfront demographic?

With mixing of the races proceeding, any "racial differences" may become less and less apparent in the future.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Well, if I were to ever put together a sports team with 20 people or so of a specific race, they wouldn't be white.

Which is a legitimate because it can be argued that sports in general in the US is much more popular in African American culture than it is in white culture, at least from the standpoint of wanting to pursue professinal sports. It's not because blacks are superior or inferior by nature IMO, I think it's purely a social phenomena.

I wasn't simply referring to the US, nor blacks. But, since you brought out the "jump to conclusions mat" I would take a random assortment of 20 blacks from ANY country over whites from ANY country for a sports team.

To say that there isn't a difference in races on a genetic level is just silly (because it's not true). IMO, part of that genetic difference in blacks shows itself as a greater aptitude for athleticism.

 

[sandorski]

I'd bet that if you took groups from each Race and put them into the same Environment that there might be measurable differences in Intelligence. However, the differences would likely be so negligible as to not hinder any pursuit in Intellectually intensive endeavors. Any Race can Engineer a Bridge, build a Space Program, cure a Disease, etc. There's really no practical usefulness in knowing the differences, unless one is a Racist and is trying to make a Racist point. From a purely Scientific view any knowledge is useful, but on this issue it seems that it is primarily Racists who care to "Research" this issue and they often give themselves away with their awkward use of such "knowledge", especially when they cite such ridiculous examples they offer as "evidence".

It's kind of a Catch-22 though. How does one discover any differences that may exist without a Racist motivation(aka: most don't care to know)? Also, how does one discover any possible differences without being called a Racist based upon the Results showing differences exist? I think this issue will only be settled satisfactorily if indeed a concrete DNA link to Intelligence is ever discovered. Even then, knowing that these differences exist between Races would likely lead to increased racism. People will do what People do, that is, they'll put more weight on a Fact than is reasonable to. The Diet Industry is the perfect example of that.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So you completely dodge the issue and exhibit your own lack of knowledge in this area.

No, you are choosing a different issue than the one that I was discussing. Maybe if I rephrase, you can stop changing the subject. Assuming that A>B, would you still support stating that A==B when it could be advantageous to both A and B to recognize their differences? If A(1)>B(1) but A(2)<B(2), then right away we know that B is better at task 2 than A, but worse at task 1. Should we then decide that A==B? No, because that's factually incorrect. Extending that to my previous example, if task 1 is running a race, then greyhound>> dachsund. If task 2 is being a lap dog, then dachsund >> greyhound. Trying to equate the two is absolutely ridiculous. Why they are this way doesn't in any way impact the fact that they are how they are. Refusing to acknowledge that they are how they are is similarly futile. These last two points are what I am decrying in this thread. If A!=B, then we need to stop crying foul every time someone points out that A!=B. Once again, for absolute clarity, I am not trying to draw any parallels to the idea that Africans are somehow better or worse than the rest of the world. I'm simply stating a principle that is completely general: if A!=B, then we should not encourage people to say that A==B. If you tried to draw any implications in my posts other than exactly this, then you have created your own straw man and you can battle it all you want, but I will never defend points that I didn't make.

 

[RaiderJ]

It's pretty silly to say race A is smarter/dumber than race B, since we can't exactly measure intelligence (like we do height). So, I would agree that whomever is trying to say that is probably just doing it for the attention.

 

[CycloWizard]

MB: People should be evaluated individually.

CW: I agree 100%. However, policy to help all of the people of Africa cannot be based on an individual assessment of each and every person. Policy requires an optimized approach that provides the most good for the most people. For example, if most of the people in Africa are lactose intolerant, one foolish policy might be to make sure everyone in Africa gets a gallon of milk every day. One ideal policy would be to give a gallon of milk to each person in Africa who is not lactose intolerant. Unfortunately, this policy is completely impractical. Thus, for the purposes of policy making, generalizations are a necessary evil and, therefore, I do not feel that they imply bigotry as long as they are grounded in reality. If I make a generalization based on good science and it prevents harm, then you can complain about bigotry all you want but I will still feel it was the right decision.

Indeed, we often make generalizations about people despite many risk factors to our own peril. For example, we give the right to own guns to anyone who has not yet committed a crime because we cannot possibly perform a psychological evaluation of each and every person to determine whether or not they should be allowed to own a gun. We wait instead until they demonstrate themselves unworthy of owning a gun, then we take it away. In the same way, I fully agree that generalizations should never be used to take rights away. However, they may serve as a useful tool in trying to do the most good for the most people. If we kid ourselves about the reality of the situation, then the policy will not be able to achieve the same level of success.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So you completely dodge the issue and exhibit your own lack of knowledge in this area.

No, you are choosing a different issue than the one that I was discussing. Maybe if I rephrase, you can stop changing the subject. Assuming that A>B, would you still support stating that A==B when it could be advantageous to both A and B to recognize their differences? If A(1)>B(1) but A(2)<B(2), then right away we know that B is better at task 2 than A, but worse at task 1. Should we then decide that A==B? No, because that's factually incorrect. Extending that to my previous example, if task 1 is running a race, then greyhound>> dachsund. If task 2 is being a lap dog, then dachsund >> greyhound. Trying to equate the two is absolutely ridiculous. Why they are this way doesn't in any way impact the fact that they are how they are. Refusing to acknowledge that they are how they are is similarly futile. These last two points are what I am decrying in this thread. If A!=B, then we need to stop crying foul every time someone points out that A!=B. Once again, for absolute clarity, I am not trying to draw any parallels to the idea that Africans are somehow better or worse than the rest of the world. I'm simply stating a principle that is completely general: if A!=B, then we should not encourage people to say that A==B. If you tried to draw any implications in my posts other than exactly this, then you have created your own straw man and you can battle it all you want, but I will never defend points that I didn't make.

You need to make yourself clear. Your general argument is common-sense in a scientific sense. Now, if you're trying to relate this to what Watson said, then bring the facts and data. Otherwise, you're just as racist as he is.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
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?

You're talking about two very different ideas there. The first is that everyone may not be exactly equal, the second is that race or gender is a reliable indicator of intelligence. Despite your attempts to conflate the two (I can't tell if that's deliberate or not), those are two completely separate ideas. I imagine there is a good chance you're not as smart as Einstein, few people are, but it's a completely different thing to say you're probably not as smart as Einstein because of your race or gender.

You argue against arbitrary attempts to "bin" people into a group, what makes you think your approach isn't the same thing? I have zero problem with separating the smart people from the dumb people and the athletic from the non-athletic and the people who are good at playing the guitar from the people who aren't. But I support doing that by measuring the traits in question, you (apparently) support doing that by looking for correlated indicators like skin color and configuration of dangly bits.

Trying to justify this with your dog example is pretty brainless, and I expect more from someone who claims to respect science. Dog breeds work in a very different way from human races, for a number of reasons too complex to get into, but the executive summary is that there is VERY little variation between different human races on planet earth. Most differences are extremely superficial, and even those differences are pretty minor. Now there are pretty large CULTURAL differences, but that is not genetics and it's not science...and it has nothing to do with race or gender.

Your last sentence is puzzling...just what in the hell does "proceed accordingly" mean? Because it SOUNDS like you're some skinhead who wants to wipe out all the inferior races, and I know that's not what you meant. But seriously, why do we have to DO anything? Who cares what differences are, and whether they may or may not exist? I see no obvious policy decisions that need to be based on an assumption of racial performance. So who gives a shit?

By the way, you were evasive enough that it's hard to nail down just what you think (although I can venture a guess), but our friendly biologist is certainly a racist. He's raising a question while claiming to already have the answer, without the smallest amount of evidence to support his viewpoint. As a scientist, he should know better than most what that generally means.[/quote]
My point is essentially this (just one example): if we are going to try to educate people in Africa as a method to improve their quality of life, we cannot individually evaluate every person to find out what their best learning styles are or whatever. Instead, as a matter of practicality, we must instead try to generate something that will benefit the most people. This will inherently be based on scientific generalizations. That will piss some people off, but if it yields the best results, then what other choice is there?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Narmer
You need to make yourself clear. Your general argument is common-sense in a scientific sense. Now, if you're trying to relate this to what Watson said, then bring the facts and data. Otherwise, you're just as racist as he is.

You need to learn how to read. If I was trying to relate it to what Watson said, my first sentence in the OP wouldn't have been to specifically state that I'm not interested in what he said, would it?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Narmer
You need to make yourself clear. Your general argument is common-sense in a scientific sense. Now, if you're trying to relate this to what Watson said, then bring the facts and data. Otherwise, you're just as racist as he is.

You need to learn how to read. If I was trying to relate it to what Watson said, my first sentence in the OP wouldn't have been to specifically state that I'm not interested in what he said, would it?

Then why didn't you just start a thread without referencing the news story about Watson?

The white elephant is Dr. Watson's story and you're trying to argue from some abstract POV. You're not fooling anyone so just come out and say you agree with what he's saying (or don't agree with him). With that we can have a real argument about race and intelligent.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
It's pretty silly to say race A is smarter/dumber than race B, since we can't exactly measure intelligence (like we do height). So, I would agree that whomever is trying to say that is probably just doing it for the attention.

yes, seems like a lot of people are trying to argue the physical aspect, vs. the aspect of intelligence.

first, we know there are different races, and thus different physical attributes. what if those physical attributes indirectly influence your intelligence?

at anyrate, this (intelligence) is very difficult to measure. you can tell there's a difference, but hard to prove if one is better than other, because the test itself is probably tainted by the race of the person creating it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Well, if I were to ever put together a sports team with 20 people or so of a specific race, they wouldn't be white.

Maybe, but ask yourself what level of cultural importance sports are in specific cultures.

Us Jews aren't known for our athletic ability, yet my friend was the #1 Tennis player in Vermont for a while (not a big deal, I understand, but still.) Furthermore, I was on the Varsity Alpine Ski Team (and skiied USSA) for all four years in High School and was in the top 10-15 each race out of over 100.

What I'm trying to say is that there might be a reason that the NBA and NFL are dominated by Black people, and it's not necessarily that black people are superior at these sports.

I don't know about you, but I'd take Larry Bird over some random black guy off the street any day of the week. 😀

I think you're absolutely right about other factors, which is exactly the point people seem to miss. Race and gender are two things that are (usually) extremely easy to identify on first glance, so it's natural that we try to assign EVERYTHING to those basic differences. RaiderJ, for example, looks at a typical basketball team and notices that black people tend to be represented far more than their percentage of the general population would suggest. So that must mean being black makes you good at basketball. Except that's silly, because all you know is that they are black...there are many, MANY other factors that you can't begin to analyze because you don't know them. I would imagine there is an even stronger correlation to being good at basketball and not sitting on your couch all day eating fried chicken, but nobody thinks about it because that's a level of detail most people don't have.

The problem here isn't racism so much as it is the natural need people have to come up with generalized rules to apply to the whole world. When you think about it, it's really a basic survival instinct of the jungle. Except our goal is to EVOLVE, and the world of human beings is far more complicated than the rules of the jungle. Our first impression is probably not a good thing to base our decisions on any more, and it's probably not a good idea to come up with "rules" for complicated things like figuring out who's good at sports and who's good at math by fixating on the very first characteristic that pops into our heads. Race and gender are only the "obvious" choices because we're culturally tuned to notice those things. The VAST majority of black people have black or very dark brown hair, but you'll notice nobody has suggested people with dark hair are better at basketball...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
...
My point is essentially this (just one example): if we are going to try to educate people in Africa as a method to improve their quality of life, we cannot individually evaluate every person to find out what their best learning styles are or whatever. Instead, as a matter of practicality, we must instead try to generate something that will benefit the most people. This will inherently be based on scientific generalizations. That will piss some people off, but if it yields the best results, then what other choice is there?

I'm fine with generalizations that make sense. I imagine teaching kids in Africa requires different methods than teaching kids in the US. They have different basic levels of knowledge, different cultural experiences, and different goals for learning. But that's not what you're talking about. You're not talking about "teaching in Africa", you're talking about "teaching black kids". It's not the methods so much as the criteria you use to come up with the "scientific generalizations" that I object to. You're not saying that it makes scientific sense to come up with a method to teach, say, geometry, in Africa...you're saying that it makes scientific sense to come up with a specific method to teach geometry to black kids, whether they live in South Africa or Brooklyn. The former can most certainly be argued from a scientific perspective, while the latter can't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Rule #1
Don't ask this question.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I have two quick questions....

1. What exactly is intelligence?

2. I'll take the challenge of picking 20 white guys vs. 20 blacks...the sports are swimming or hockey. Who's your 20 blacks?

 

[jackschmittusa]

It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Well, if I were to ever put together a sports team with 20 people or so of a specific race, they wouldn't be white.

Which is a legitimate because it can be argued that sports in general in the US is much more popular in African American culture than it is in white culture, at least from the standpoint of wanting to pursue professinal sports. It's not because blacks are superior or inferior by nature IMO, I think it's purely a social phenomena.

I wasn't simply referring to the US, nor blacks. But, since you brought out the "jump to conclusions mat" I would take a random assortment of 20 blacks from ANY country over whites from ANY country for a sports team.

To say that there isn't a difference in races on a genetic level is just silly (because it's not true). IMO, part of that genetic difference in blacks shows itself as a greater aptitude for athleticism.

Read what I wrote, I didn't jump to any conclusions you hadn't already drawn. And now, of course, you've drawn a genetic conclusion about blacks being more athletic, which actually supports my original divergent point about there not being any evidence for sports aptitude being genetic. That's ironic.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Czar
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.

While I firmly DO believe the differences exist, these numbers aren't very plausible.
85 is about the same as the average chimpanzee. But then again the main reason we don't see chimps advancing technologically like man is not an intellectual difference, but the lack of efficient vocal communication to explain ideas to others.

An IQ of 70 would have someone recognized as severely retarded and get them special treatment as disabled.

what, the chimps have taken iq tests?

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Czar
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.

While I firmly DO believe the differences exist, these numbers aren't very plausible.
85 is about the same as the average chimpanzee. But then again the main reason we don't see chimps advancing technologically like man is not an intellectual difference, but the lack of efficient vocal communication to explain ideas to others.

An IQ of 70 would have someone recognized as severely retarded and get them special treatment as disabled.

what, the chimps have taken iq tests?

Actually, Yes

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I'd bet that if you took groups from each Race and put them into the same Environment that there might be measurable differences in Intelligence. However, the differences would likely be so negligible as to not hinder any pursuit in Intellectually intensive endeavors. Any Race can Engineer a Bridge, build a Space Program, cure a Disease, etc. There's really no practical usefulness in knowing the differences, unless one is a Racist and is trying to make a Racist point. From a purely Scientific view any knowledge is useful, but on this issue it seems that it is primarily Racists who care to "Research" this issue and they often give themselves away with their awkward use of such "knowledge", especially when they cite such ridiculous examples they offer as "evidence".

It's kind of a Catch-22 though. How does one discover any differences that may exist without a Racist motivation(aka: most don't care to know)? Also, how does one discover any possible differences without being called a Racist based upon the Results showing differences exist? I think this issue will only be settled satisfactorily if indeed a concrete DNA link to Intelligence is ever discovered. Even then, knowing that these differences exist between Races would likely lead to increased racism. People will do what People do, that is, they'll put more weight on a Fact than is reasonable to. The Diet Industry is the perfect example of that.

I think this is a reasonable post.
This is probably something that we won't know for a very long time, if ever, due to the extreme taboo involved.
No matter if Africa catches up to the western world in terms of educational environment, this is a part of science that will remain more or less "forbidden".

That said, just assuming that there's no difference because you don't like one of the possible answers is just being stupid.
If I suspect I might have cancer, I'm sure as hell going to get myself checked even though I really wouldn't like to hear that I do in fact have it.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I think you should read up on African history.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
MB: People should be evaluated individually.

CW: I agree 100%. However, policy to help all of the people of Africa cannot be based on an individual assessment of each and every person. Policy requires an optimized approach that provides the most good for the most people. For example, if most of the people in Africa are lactose intolerant, one foolish policy might be to make sure everyone in Africa gets a gallon of milk every day. One ideal policy would be to give a gallon of milk to each person in Africa who is not lactose intolerant. Unfortunately, this policy is completely impractical. Thus, for the purposes of policy making, generalizations are a necessary evil and, therefore, I do not feel that they imply bigotry as long as they are grounded in reality. If I make a generalization based on good science and it prevents harm, then you can complain about bigotry all you want but I will still feel it was the right decision.

Indeed, we often make generalizations about people despite many risk factors to our own peril. For example, we give the right to own guns to anyone who has not yet committed a crime because we cannot possibly perform a psychological evaluation of each and every person to determine whether or not they should be allowed to own a gun. We wait instead until they demonstrate themselves unworthy of owning a gun, then we take it away. In the same way, I fully agree that generalizations should never be used to take rights away. However, they may serve as a useful tool in trying to do the most good for the most people. If we kid ourselves about the reality of the situation, then the policy will not be able to achieve the same level of success.

You have convinced me. White people should, for their own good, and in line with scientific fact, be moved from tropical, high sun regions of the world and confined to the Arctic circles. They should also not pursue any tasks that require rhythm, and especially never play jazz. And there's no reason at all for white kids to play sports. And the Catholic Church, with it's pension for voodoo and animistic polytheism, should always have a Black Pope.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I think you should read up on African history.

I really love how people try to be some expert on history and then point to factors that really don't matter in the general scheme of things.

Then, you have another group of people who seem to think that physical attributes are the same as intellectual ones and that the analogies apply.

Finally, both of those groups seem to think that natural born talents will manifest themselves despite the lack of training. They seem to think that if you take a Cheetah, put it, from birth, into a 2'x2' box and not let it run, that it will run the *same* speed as an uncaged cheetah.

Just the same, they seem to think that if you take the brightest person in the world, not expose them to anything but a 5'x5' wood shack in a desert where their only training is plowing a simple field and trying to survive day to day, that they will be able to use their natural talent.

Really, if you go to Africa and try to interview some poor person who doesn't even understand the concept of a box and try to get them to take a test involving boxes, how the hell do you think they will do?

Plain and simple, you guys are not intelligent. You are, on average, stupid. That's because you lack the basic ability to understand that nuture plays an equally, if not more important roll in developing natural talent than the mere existence of natural talent. As I mentioned before, let me know your physical attributes and your familial lines and I will label them wholesale, as stupid people.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I think you should read up on African history.

I really love how people try to be some expert on history and then point to factors that really don't matter in the general scheme of things.

Then, you have another group of people who seem to think that physical attributes are the same as intellectual ones and that the analogies apply.

Finally, both of those groups seem to think that natural born talents will manifest themselves despite the lack of training. They seem to think that if you take a Cheetah, put it, from birth, into a 2'x2' box and not let it run, that it will run the *same* speed as an uncaged cheetah.

Just the same, they seem to think that if you take the brightest person in the world, not expose them to anything but a 5'x5' wood shack in a desert where their only training is plowing a simple field and trying to survive day to day, that they will be able to use their natural talent.

Really, if you go to Africa and try to interview some poor person who doesn't even understand the concept of a box and try to get them to take a test involving boxes, how the hell do you think they will do?

Plain and simple, you guys are not intelligent. You are, on average, stupid. That's because you lack the basic ability to understand that nuture plays an equally, if not more important roll in developing natural talent than the mere existence of natural talent. As I mentioned before, let me know your physical attributes and your familial lines and I will label them wholesale, as stupid people.

Well said. People are trying to say, despite the fact that one group has less of a foundation in modern thoughts and socio-economic aptitude, they should perform the same as others. When they don't then they label them as stupid. I don't understand why people even discuss these things when they know their "evidence" is incredibly unscientific and laced with prejudices. Could it be a sense of insecurity? I can't think of any other reason.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I think you should read up on African history.

I really love how people try to be some expert on history and then point to factors that really don't matter in the general scheme of things.

Then, you have another group of people who seem to think that physical attributes are the same as intellectual ones and that the analogies apply.

Finally, both of those groups seem to think that natural born talents will manifest themselves despite the lack of training. They seem to think that if you take a Cheetah, put it, from birth, into a 2'x2' box and not let it run, that it will run the *same* speed as an uncaged cheetah.

Just the same, they seem to think that if you take the brightest person in the world, not expose them to anything but a 5'x5' wood shack in a desert where their only training is plowing a simple field and trying to survive day to day, that they will be able to use their natural talent.

Really, if you go to Africa and try to interview some poor person who doesn't even understand the concept of a box and try to get them to take a test involving boxes, how the hell do you think they will do?

Plain and simple, you guys are not intelligent. You are, on average, stupid. That's because you lack the basic ability to understand that nuture plays an equally, if not more important roll in developing natural talent than the mere existence of natural talent. As I mentioned before, let me know your physical attributes and your familial lines and I will label them wholesale, as stupid people.

From reading your replies to CycloWizard's posts, I'd say you have a severe problem with reading comprehension, or lack thereof.

Genes affect our physiology, that much we can agree on, yes?
Why wouldn't they affect our intelligence as well?
That's not denying that nurture(yes, there are two r's in nurture) plays a more important role, it's simply a very reasonable assumption.
Much like Cyclo, I have no idea if there are any genetic differences in intelligence(nor do I care), and if there are, in whose favour they are, but I think it's very reasonable to suspect there might be.

You're being way too emotional about this.