quote: If by that you mean academic genius, I'm certainly not accomplished.
I mean intelligence, and yes it is very clear -from your postings- that it is lacking in your discourse.
quote: If you mean finances, I'm in the 95th percentile of income earners.
^ And unintelligent remark, since bragging about money is classic form of over-compensation, and further confirms the very point you are protesting against.
quote: I don't understand your logic here
It's very clear, and everyone else does, so if you do not, then that is possibly a reflection on your intellect, no?
quote: except that you're trying to use it as a way to diffuse the reality of what I'm saying by attacking me personally.
The case is ->
- Intelligence is a trait that you need to demonstrate personally.
- You can't use race to substitute for a personal lack of it, that is over compensation.
- Intelligence is *your personal topic obsession*. You can't evade the reality of your lack of individual intelligence, by accussing others of attacking you personally.
Lastly:
If you are not willing to address intellect or the lack of same, as it pertains to you -individually , all the while attacking the intelligence of others thru the the cowards veil of race, then your discourse is one that relates racism via over compensation.
You can say you don't understand it, but that is not a rebuttal, is a plea of ignorance from you, which like it or not....debunks your racist ideology.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Intellect is the process by which and individual mind knows, learns or udnerstands the world.
When you remarks that demonstrate your lack of knowledge and ability to learn [such as ridiculous remarks about European biohistory], then you demonstrate the low order of your intellect.
That you attempt to take refuge in claims that you belong to a 'group' which supposedly is of high intelligence, this amounts to and act of overcompensation.
And over-compensation device is defined as follows -> a mechanism for overcoming a defect, by exaggerating something that implies its opposite.
For example: When men get old and lose their ability to have sex, the may by powerful sports cars, or guns, or take macho hobbies.
Flat chested women who implant hugely over-sized plastic breasts.
Likewise, in the west, it is and established fact that underachieving white males are attracted to pseudo-scientific ideologies which can render them 'superior' due to 'race', regardless of their lack of personal accomplishment.
And this, all, really, you have been able to relat on ES, and which is why for the most part, I just ignore your unintelligible posturings. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Yes, it is typically the case the race-glorification is a form of over compenation.
Example:
The NAZI's glorified the 'Aryan' and denigrated the 'Jew' partly because they simply resented Jewish achievement in Germany.
And partly because they felt 'castrated' and inferior to Britain and other Nations after their defeat in the 1st World War.
If you know of historical examples of mentally -healthy- race-glorification, please present them.
There is a grain of truth in what you say. However, you're over-emphasizing the negative historical examples that suit your preconceptions about those who ascribe to geographic or racial identities.
Prior to 1950 the world was filled to the brim with examples of "mentally-healthy-race-glorification". It was commonplace and the order of things. It is only following the tragedies in WWII that such notions have fallen out of favor. History is rife with examples and it is only in the last few decades that you can draw from that show otherwise.
You say that language is an example of something that has no meaning unless taken in the collective. The same is true for nationalism - usually a proxy for geographic boundary, linguistics, history, culture, and a level of biological homogeniety. People form groups because we are social creatures. This is a microcosm of nationalism. Nothing you say or do will change the essence of man. Nor will you refusal to acknowledge geographic biodiversity and its implications change them.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: If you are not willing to address it as it pertains to you -individually- , all the while attacking the intelligence of others thru the the cowards veil of race, then your discourse is one that relates racism via over compensation.
You can say you don't understand it, but that is not a rebuttal, is a plea of ignorance from you, which like it or not....debunks your racist ideology. [/QB]
This is a disingenious treatment of the topic. Let's look at kinship as an example. Intelligence is heritable and runs in families. This does not mean that every family member will be smart just because most of them are. However, they are all closely related biologically - moreso than those outside of their family. Regardless of the level of intelligence of each individual member, each member is likely to put their family member before others in most facets of life - because of the blood bond.
On a macro level, this instinctual behavior is the foundation of geographic and ethnic nationalism. Race really isn't a factor in any of this. We see the struggles occur within "races" all the time. Look no further than the Sudan or Rwanda for examples.
Acknowledging that intelligence runs to a greater degree in some populations more than others is not racist nor does it imply that I'm trying to compensate for anything.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
No, there is a great deal of truth in what I say, there is only a *grain* in what you are apparently willing or able to grasp.
quote:Prior to 1950 the world was filled to the brim with examples of "mentally-healthy-race-glorification".
And...
quote: It is only following the tragedies in WWII that such notions have fallen out of favor.
World War II *IS* prior to the 1950's.
This statement is yet another example of your complete historical ignorance.
quote: History is rife with examples
Yet you provide none, and so fail to answer the question.
The only specifics in your entire posts are
1) WWII and 2) 1950.
And even then you have your chronology wrong.
Therefore you've failed yet again in the challenge to demonstrate some intellect in your postings.
quote:Acknowledging that intelligence runs to a greater degree in some populations more than others
The above would be and emptily rhetorical claim, not and acknowlegement.
And fair and honest acknolwedgement from you would be:
- you do not understand, history, biology, anthroplogy or evolution, but believe you can use race as a form of compensation for your own educational/intellectual limits.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
This statement is yet another example of your complete historical ignorance.
LOL, Abraham Lincoln. There's one example. Churchill, there's another. Please, I don't want to embarrass you.
There is nothing wrong with my chronology, LOL. I said that notions of racial glorification fell out of favor after the 1950's. The fact that WWII ended in 1945 means it was the catalyst to this. One has to come before the other. Get it? LOL. Try again.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Just as you embarrassed yourself in my Egypt thread, you're doing so here. Every post is the same regurgitated insults with no content whatsoever. Time to throw in the towel - your intellect is lacking.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Subtleties and racial identity-projection aside , I think he really actually believes that whites and presumably northern Asians are intellectually superior to everyone else and that *gasp* there is an actual firm scientific basis for such.
Of course it is just that: a belief.
If nothing else its really a sad reflection of our education system today that even after continuous evidence to the contrary, he continues on posting his ad hominem spam like the little engine that could.
-------------------- Dont be evil - Google Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:LOL, Abraham Lincoln. There's one example. Churchill, there's another.
^ Those are names, not positive examples of Race Glorificatoin, so you will have to elaborate as to how those names help you. Unless, of course, you can't?
quote:Please, I don't want to embarrass you.
Please... stop embarrassing yourself with unintelligent response.
It's taken 3 request so far, and still you have not come up with answer to the question.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^Subtleties and racial identity-projection aside , I think he really actually believes that whites and presumably northern Asians are intellectually superior to everyone else and that *gasp* there is an actual firm scientific basis for such.
Of course it is just that: a belief.
If nothing else its really a sad reflection of our education system today that even after continuous evidence to the contrary, he continues on posting his ad hominem spam like the little engine that could.
I'm not saying any such thing. I'm saying that it is self-evident that some populations have higher intellects than others, just as some families have higher intellects than others.
The definition of intellect depends on who you speak to. To a hunter-gatherer in New Guinea, rasol would look like an idiot (though he does here too) because he wouldn't be able to hunt effectively or build makeshift living quarters like the illiterate New Guinea natives. It's part social upbringing, but it's also likely that the differences in evolutionary history bewteen rasol and the New Guinea people have shaped them to be better suited for different environments.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Those are names, not positive examples of Race Glorificatoin, so you will have to elaborate as to how those names help you. Unless, of course, you can't?
My mistake. I thought somebody who claims to know anything about history would be familiar with these men and what they stood for. But true to form, you have no clue what you speak of.
Educate yourself:
quote: Churchill's racism was at the heart of his imperialist political standpoint. The white races, in particular the British, were for him superior: 'I do not admit...that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia...by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race...has come in and taken its place.' Churchill approved the use of poisonous gas on numerous occasions in Afghanistan, in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and against the Red Army, saying: 'I do not understand this squeamishness about using gas...I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gases against uncivilised tribes'.
If you want me to teach you the basics of evolution, history, anthropology, psychology or a whole host of other topics, let me know. Clearly you need training.
I could go on with more examples. Do you want to be embarrased further?
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The definition of intellect depends on who you speak to. To a hunter-gatherer in New Guinea, rasol would look like an idiot
That makes no sense. Seeing as we are still technically operating on the same hunter-gatherer brains that have served us for the last 150,000 years. Humans have not changed in that respect. Only our modern environment has.
Thats all neverminding the fact that it was the open savannah and hunter gatherer lifestyle that led us to our present metal abilities in the first place.
quote:This statement is yet another example of your complete historical ignorance.
^^Indeed. As yet another example....again. LOL.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:My mistake. I thought somebody who claims to know anything about history would be familiar with these men
No, your mistake is in thinking that relating the well known fact that Winston Churchill was a racist, somehow equates to and example of 'mentally healthy' race glorificatin'.
That you would cite the following as 'exempler' of 'positive' sinks your discourse to new depths of retardation:
"Churchill's racism was at the heart of his imperialist political standpoint. The white races, in particular the British, were for him superior: 'I do not admit...that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia...by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race...has come in and taken its place.' Churchill approved the use of poisonous gas on numerous occasions in Afghanistan, in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and against the Red Army, saying: 'I do not understand this squeamishness about using gas...I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gases against uncivilised tribes'."
^ To you -> Churchill murders the Afghans and Iraqs with poison Gas is the HIGHPOINT of Race Glorification.
Again you prove = low self esteem = morally retarded rantings = racism.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: That makes no sense. Seeing as we are still technically operating on the same hunter-gatherer brains that have served us for the last 150,000 years. Humans have not changed in that respect. Only our modern environment has.
Wrong. The weak die in hunter-gatherer communities. They are permitted to live and flourish in technological societies. Thus, there is a difference in how robust people will be on average in advanced societies compared to those hunterer-gatherer societies. Without medicines, hospitables, infrastructure keeping them alive, many people in 1st world nations would die out quickly.
Throw the average housewife into the jungle and she'll perish.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:My mistake. I thought somebody who claims to know anything about history would be familiar with these men
No, your mistake is in thinking that relating the well known fact that Winston Churchill was a racist, somehow equates to a 'positive example of race glorificatin'.
That you would cite the following as 'exempler' of 'positive' sinks your discourse to new depths of retardation:
"Churchill's racism was at the heart of his imperialist political standpoint. The white races, in particular the British, were for him superior: 'I do not admit...that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia...by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race...has come in and taken its place.' Churchill approved the use of poisonous gas on numerous occasions in Afghanistan, in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and against the Red Army, saying: 'I do not understand this squeamishness about using gas...I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gases against uncivilised tribes'."
^ This demonstates a lack of moral intelligence on your part.
It does not demonstrate the positive nature of race glorification.
That's all a matter of perspective rasol. Nice strawman.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Churchill approved the use of poisonous gas on numerous occasions in Afghanistan, in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and against the Red Army, saying: 'I do not understand this squeamishness about using gas...I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gases against uncivilised tribes'."
quote:That's all a matter of perspective rasol. Nice strawman.
All morality requires perspective.
A lack of moral perspective results in a lack of moral intelligence.
Nice work...indeed.
quote:Wrong. The weak die in hunter-gatherer communities. They are permitted to live and flourish in technological societies.
^ This is also false, since many hunter gatherer communities also care for the sick and elderly.
But your ignorance of history anthropology has been thuroughly documented already so I am more interested in what you appear to be advocating.
Do you advocate that the 'weak' be killed in technological society?
And if not, why not?
Would this not be consistent with your NAZI/Imperialist "examples"?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's all a matter of perspective rasol. Nice strawman.
All morality requires perspective.
A lack of moral perspective means a lack of moral intelligence.
Nice job demonstrating this lacking.....again.
quote:Wrong. The weak die in hunter-gatherer communities. They are permitted to live and flourish in technological societies.
^ This is also false, since many hunter gatherer communities also care for the sick and elderly.
But your ignorance of history anthropology has been thuroughly documented already so I am more interested in what you appear to bd advocating.
Do you advocate that the 'weak' be killed in technological society?
If not why not?
What's immoral about Churchill's statements?
Yes, hunterer-gatherers take care of their sick. Unfortunately they don't use modern technology, knowledge, and medicines to do so, hence their extremely high mortality.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's immoral about Churchill's statements?
So you poison gas mass murder.... "....in Afghanistan, in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and against the Red Army, "
^ ?
So wars aren't sometimes necessary because killing is immoral? Does it matter that you kill using a knife or gun versus gas?
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Never said that, so your attempts to distract from our question about your citation won't save you.
Repeat:
quote:
Poison gas mass murder.... "....in Afghanistan, in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and against the Red Army, "
^ You advocate this? ?
If you are afraid to answer this question about -your own citation-, then this conversation ends and I will ignore you, not simply because you are ignorant, though you are, or because you are a racist, but because you are also not even serious enough to stand clearly in defense your own morally unintelligent ideology.
So answer, or be dismissed.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Never said that, so your attempts to distract from our question about your citation won't save you.
Repeat:
quote:
Poison gas mass murder.... "....in Afghanistan, in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and against the Red Army, "
^ You advocate this? ?
If you are afraid to answer this question about -your own citation-, then this conversation ends and I will ignore you, not simply because you are ignorant, though you are, or because you are a racist, but because you are also not even serious enough to stand clearly in defense your own morally unintelligent ideology.
So answer, or be dismissed.
Let me put it this way. Dropping Atomic bombs on two Japanese cities was morally outrageous, but it was the right thing to do under the circumstances; it saved more lives that would have been lost if the war was allowed to continue.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Negrito people, for example, are genetically distant from Africans but phenotypically similar. A prediction is that Negrito people will have an average IQ of 60 - 80. No IQ studies have been conducted on this population, but I'd go with Hart's prediction on this. Similarly, across Europe the population IQ averages at 95 - 100 no matter the country, so long as the majority of the country are indigenious peoples who display classic "Caucasoid" morphology and phenotype of white skin and wavy hair.
This is the type of **** that makes you look like a racist.
It doesn't even make sense.
You subscribe to this and expect people not to make an ass of you???
posted
^ That's because he is a racist, whether he acknowledges it or denies it. Hence, his need to latch on to debunked notions of "racial intellingence" as Rasol explains is a form of compensation.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: The existence of race is not germane to my argument that populations vary in intelligence.
It is as we have demonstrated 'race' does not exist.
quote:Phenotype is a reliable indicator of geographic ancestral background. You will be hard pressed to find large numbers of people in Africa who have a combination of white skin, light eyes, and brown hair, but you will find such people in great numbers in Europe.
Yes but what about blacks with kinky hair and dark eyes? Such populations are found outside of Africa. And what does phenotype of outer appearance have to do with IQ??
quote:Phenotype also appears to be highly correlated with intelligence as measured by IQ, just as it is with geographic latitude - the closer to the equator one gets, the darker the skin and hair of the population on average.
Please explain to us the biological link and/or mechanism between skin and hair color with intelligence.
quote:The Negrito people, for example, are genetically distant from Africans but phenotypically similar. A prediction is that Negrito people will have an average IQ of 60 - 80. No IQ studies have been conducted on this population, but I'd go with Hart's prediction on this. Similarly, across Europe the population IQ averages at 95 - 100 no matter the country, so long as the majority of the country are indigenious peoples who display classic "Caucasoid" morphology and phenotype of white skin and wavy hair.
Typical racist belief, but where are the scientific facts that IQ is correlated with phenotype? So you expect people to predict what range of IQ a person has based on their appearance? What you say is no different from what all the racist nuts from the KKK to the Nazis.
quote:We can put aside the idea of race existing or not and simply focus on populations and their correlations.
But populations are NOT 'race', and intelligence is more so an individual trait than a population one, unless you can provide us with actual biological evidence supporting your absurd claims.
quote:Do you believe it's reasonable to believe a priori that populations are identical in mental capacity having evolved physically and mentally to their respective isolated environments?
Do you believe that there is a correlation between physical adaptation and mental adaptation? If so, what is it?? As far as mental adaptation, the human intelligence evolved as a better means of survival. The first evidence of modern/advanced human thought patterns is not surprisingly found in Africa where modern humans originated, and that includes everything that entails human thoughts and mental skills. Such patterns are found in every human society in the globe.
As far as IQ itself, there are five components-- logic, endurance, analysis, intuition, and observation. Such components are greatly influenced by environment as well as genetics. But where oh where is the evidence that blacks or peoples in the tropics genetically have lower IQs than peoples in colder-adapted, mainly European environments? Especially since virtually all the first advanced cultures and civilizations were formed in tropical to subtropical areas of the globe??
quote:I agree, but one thing they do share in common is geography. You may be right that they differ greatly in intelligence but it could also be that they are very similar. There is a great variety of life in the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia. All those gazillion creatures share the same environment. I can still conclude that all of them cannot breathe out of water or that most of them would struggle in any other region of the ocean becauses they developed and evolved specific to their present reef environment.
LMAO You compare the trait of intelligence to the biological trait of respirating in water?!
quote:I suppose you're agreeing with me that it's possible except that the assertion can only be made tentatively since we do not have much data on all of the various populations in Africa. This seems reasonable.
Wrong. I'm totally disagreeing with your absurd assertions as they have no scientific merit.
quote:On the idea of population differences, we could very well find that there are some African populations with severely low IQs and some with the highest IQs. Because, after all, they're the most genetically diverse. This would invariably support the notion (which I think is indisputable and accepted by virtually EVERYBODY alive in private or in their subconscious) that different populations differ in mental capacities.
But since when does this genetic diversity entail IQ, let alone having "severly low IQs". What about Europeans, particularly Eastern ones who are stereotyped as having low IQs compared to Western Europeans. And what about the same studies who say Africans have low IQs, say Gulf Arabs are in the "retardation level"?? Again, just silly racial pseudo-science.
quote:Whether this is significant and has any explanatory power with regard to history or technological advancement is debatable.
Your query was answered already as well as pages ago.
As I mentioned, one of the factors of IQ is logic. From all of the posts you've made since you returned, it is obvious to anyone of mediocre intelligence that you definitely failed on that factor. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:sshaun002 wrote to Rasol: If you want me to teach you the basics of evolution, history, anthropology, psychology or a whole host of other topics, let me know. Clearly you need training.
I could go on with more examples. Do you want to be embarrased further?
ROTFLMAOH
He actually said this to Rasol, who is a top expert on genetics and biological history here on this forum?!
I think his compensation claim of being a person of white European ancestry has gotten to his head. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of what you say, people can generally assign people to geographic ancestry based on phenotype. It's not any single feature (ex. skin color, head shape) that allows us to do this; it's our ability to synthesis the aggregate features. There is a look to North American Indians, and there is a look to Europeans, and to Africans, regardless of the diversity that exists within each group. Science will and already has exhonerated this self-evident truth using genetic relatedness studies. There are no distinct races, only geographic clusters.
You argue that phenotype is not related to genotype. I argue that there could be a correlation. You hint that the idea of Negritos having IQs within a predicted range is absurd. I suppose only time will tell if and when IQ studies on them are undertaken.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Regardless of what you say, people can generally assign people to geographic ancestry based on phenotype. It's not any single feature (ex. skin color, head shape) that allows us to do this; it's our ability to synthesis the aggregate features. There is a look to North American Indians, and there is a look to Europeans, and to Africans, regardless of the diversity that exists within each group. Science will and already has exhonerated this self-evident truth using genetic relatedness studies. There are no distinct races, only geographic clusters.
You argue that phenotype is not related to genotype. I argue that there could be a correlation. You hint that the idea of Negritos having IQs within a predicted range is absurd. I suppose only time will tell if and when IQ studies on them are undertaken.
No, the only thing that is absurd is that the IQ scores of the Negritos who have NO ACCESS to formal education in most cases is because of GENETIC intelligence... Which is obviously incorrect.
Your nonsense is ridiculous because IQ proves NOTHING about the genetic "intelligence" and survivability of the Negritoes.
Negritoes ARE the ancestral population of MOST of Asia. Andamese Islanders are a population that by most people have been in their present form for 50,000 years. How long have white Europeans been around in ANY FORM? If survivability and longevity are a sign of natural intelligence, then what does the EXISTENCE of these people prove? It proves that IQ tests have nothing to do with intelligence. THAT intelligence is at the basis for the fact of the survival of the human species for the last 200,000 years, during most of which WHITES did not exist. Without THAT INTELLIGENCE there would be no human species. WHITES are such a late arrival on the scene as to NOT BE a significant factor in this fundamental trait of human genetics. Nature does not give IQ tests. Either you adapt and survive or you don't and die. The fact that the oldest populations on earth are black proves that they have passed nature's test, which is all that counts in reality. Arbitrary measures of 'intelligence' created by humans are irrelevant, because humans are not smarter than the nature that birthed them. IQ tests will not predict how long mankind can survive because modern high tech industrial economies are NOT sustainable. They are NOT the smartest solution to human existence on this planet. The best survival strategy EVER adopted by humans and having the LONGEST record of ANY form of human survival strategies, is that of the hunter gatherer. It has served humans well for millions of years, including the ancestors of modern homo sapiens. Modern high tech industrial life strategies ARE NOT because they produce more hunger, disease, death and destruction as well as are NOT sustainable and cannot grow indefinitely because the rate of consumption of such societies outstrips nature's capacity to produce.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Application of Forensic Discriminant Functions to a Spanish Cranial Sample Douglas H. Ubelaker Curator Department of Anthropology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC
Ann H. Ross Postdoctoral Associate C. A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory University of Florida Gainesville, Florida
Sally M. Graver Research Assistant Department of Anthropology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC
Classification of Race
All of the crania in this Spanish sample originated from a 16th to 17th-century community associated with a church in northwestern Spain. Although specific information on the ancestry of any particular individual in the sample is not available, generally all individuals should be considered examples of this group.
Table 3 presents the race classification of all individuals in this sample using the Forensic Data Bank option.
Of the 95 individuals:
- 42 (44 percent) were classified as white,
- 35 percent as black,
- 9 percent as Hispanic,
- 4 percent as Japanese,
- 4 percent as American Indian, and the remaining three individuals as Chinese and Vietnamese.
Some crania were classified into groups with no clear geographic or ancestral relationship with the Spanish sample.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No, the only thing that is absurd is that the IQ scores of the Negritos who have NO ACCESS to formal education in most cases is because of GENETIC intelligence... Which is obviously incorrect.
Your nonsense is ridiculous because IQ proves NOTHING about the genetic "intelligence" and survivability of the Negritoes.
Negritoes ARE the ancestral population of MOST of Asia. Andamese Islanders are a population that by most people have been in their present form for 50,000 years. How long have white Europeans been around in ANY FORM? If survivability and longevity are a sign of natural intelligence, then what does the EXISTENCE of these people prove? It proves that IQ tests have nothing to do with intelligence. THAT intelligence is at the basis for the fact of the survival of the human species for the last 200,000 years, during most of which WHITES did not exist. Without THAT INTELLIGENCE there would be no human species. WHITES are such a late arrival on the scene as to NOT BE a significant factor in this fundamental trait of human genetics. Nature does not give IQ tests. Either you adapt and survive or you don't and die. The fact that the oldest populations on earth are black proves that they have passed nature's test, which is all that counts in reality. Arbitrary measures of 'intelligence' created by humans are irrelevant, because humans are not smarter than the nature that birthed them. IQ tests will not predict how long mankind can survive because modern high tech industrial economies are NOT sustainable. They are NOT the smartest solution to human existence on this planet. The best survival strategy EVER adopted by humans and having the LONGEST record of ANY form of human survival strategies, is that of the hunter gatherer. It has served humans well for millions of years, including the ancestors of modern homo sapiens. Modern high tech industrial life strategies ARE NOT because they produce more hunger, disease, death and destruction as well as are NOT sustainable and cannot grow indefinitely because the rate of consumption of such societies outstrips nature's capacity to produce. [/QB]
I agree that intelligence is subjective and that Whites are newcomers to the human race. I do not hold the view that the type of intelligence Europeans may possess that differs slightly (and only statistically) means they're more equipped to survive above other races. War and conquest aside, I think that comes down to factors outside our control, such as genetic resistence to diseases and so forth, which is often negligable and varied among populations giving no population any clear survival advantage.
In fact, given the genetic pampering of people in the 1st world, populations that have persisted without the aid of modern technology are likely at an evolutionary advantage.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Application of Forensic Discriminant Functions to a Spanish Cranial Sample Douglas H. Ubelaker Curator Department of Anthropology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC
Ann H. Ross Postdoctoral Associate C. A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory University of Florida Gainesville, Florida
Sally M. Graver Research Assistant Department of Anthropology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC
Classification of Race
All of the crania in this Spanish sample originated from a 16th to 17th-century community associated with a church in northwestern Spain. Although specific information on the ancestry of any particular individual in the sample is not available, generally all individuals should be considered examples of this group.
Table 3 presents the race classification of all individuals in this sample using the Forensic Data Bank option.
Of the 95 individuals:
- 42 (44 percent) were classified as white,
- 35 percent as black,
- 9 percent as Hispanic,
- 4 percent as Japanese,
- 4 percent as American Indian, and the remaining three individuals as Chinese and Vietnamese.
Some crania were classified into groups with no clear geographic or ancestral relationship with the Spanish sample.
I already addressed this. The study you cite looks at a single feature, not aggregates and frequencies. Nobody goes around judging geographic ancestry merely by looking at cranial features of people. If that were all one had to go by, we wouldn't be able to judge with any accuracy (when in reality we do so VERY accurately). We do it by combining cranial features with hair texture + with skin color + with fat distribution + eye shape + hair color + eye color, and so forth.
When taken together, assigning people to geographic ancestry becomes much clearer. It's a lot like genetic markers. If you take one or two, they tell you very little. But if you take enough, you find that it coincides with what our eyes tell us.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You still don't get it do you?? Even going by an "aggregate" of features, you cannot always tell ones genetic lineage by their looks!
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Regardless of what you say, people can generally assign people to geographic ancestry based on phenotype. It's not any single feature (ex. skin color, head shape) that allows us to do this; it's our ability to synthesis the aggregate features. There is a look to North American Indians, and there is a look to Europeans, and to Africans, regardless of the diversity that exists within each group. Science will and already has exhonerated this self-evident truth using genetic relatedness studies. There are no distinct races, only geographic clusters.
So what are we to make of all those 'black' populations with kinky hair, broad noses etc. who range from Africa to the Pacific with disparate genetic lineages that obviously don't cluster with each other??!
quote:You argue that phenotype is not related to genotype. I argue that there could be a correlation. You hint that the idea of Negritos having IQs within a predicted range is absurd. I suppose only time will tell if and when IQ studies on them are undertaken.
Incorrect. Phenotype is the result of genotype plus environment. But where is the correlation with say dark colored skin and mental abilities?? LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ You still don't get it do you?? Even going by an "aggregate" of features, you cannot always tell ones genetic lineage by their looks!
I've never said it's 100% accurate, but it's accuate enough to be valid.
quote: So what are we to make of all those 'black' populations with kinky hair, broad noses etc. who range from Africa to the Pacific with disparate genetic lineages that obviously don't cluster with each other??!
We can call them two separate populations who shared common environmental conditions. Hart et al. contend that climate is correlated to intelligence. If this is true, we would expect that both populations, regardless of genetic linkeage, will share similar IQ averages.
You claim that it is "weak", yet it refutes your premise with logic that you have failed to provide thus far.
We're not arguing whether race exists or not, but rather population clusters according to geography.
quote: If you can really tell a person's ancestry by how they look, then why don't you take the test here.
The test is bogus for several reasons:
a) It uses hybrids rather than more common examples of individuals according to geographic ancestry. There are few Native Indians and Black Americans that are not hybrids. Thus, they can biologically be considered members of two clusters or one. Is Halle Berry black? According to our social construct of race she is, but she could be "white" using a similar perspective.
b) Groups cluster according to three major geographic origins: Asians, Africans, and Europeans. The "test" includes two Asian categories (Native American, Asian) and one hybrid category (Hispanic/Mexican). It's easier to tell an Asian apart from a European or African but harder to distinguish and Asian from another Asian (Innuit, Native American, Southern American, and Asians from Asia can and often look similar because they are of common origin).
c) Make-up, hair texture alterations, glasses, and other non-biological features obscure a person's true identity. Does the black woman in the pic really have wavy hair? It's likely that she has a perm. Meanwhile some others with naturally wavy hair may curl it.
When you combine a, b, and c, you realize that this "test" is a lame attempt at trying to dismiss the idea that legitimate distinctions can and are made commonly every day and for the most part, are accurate.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The existence of race is not germane to my argument that populations vary in intelligence.
The above argument is contradictory.
Since intellect exists within the individual brain, then generalising into 'populations' is somewhat arbitrary, unless you are ascribing it as a collective/racial identity.
The fact is your claims are racial, and you focus on race to compensate for your lack of individual accomplishment.
For you race, is simply a form of overcompensation.
^^Yup
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Regardless of what you say, people can generally assign people to geographic ancestry based on phenotype. It's not any single feature (ex. skin color, head shape) that allows us to do this; it's our ability to synthesis the aggregate features. There is a look to North American Indians, and there is a look to Europeans, and to Africans, regardless of the diversity that exists within each group.
Wow, Shaun, you are seriously only revealing a how little you know.
quote:You argue that phenotype is not related to genotype.
Who said that?
You argue that phenotype dictates genotype.
quote:You hint that the idea of Negritos having IQs within a predicted range is absurd. I suppose only time will tell if and when IQ studies on them are undertaken.
^^
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No, the only thing that is absurd is that the IQ scores of the Negritos who have NO ACCESS to formal education in most cases is resultant of GENETIC intelligence... Which is obviously incorrect.
Absolutely absurd.
quote:Your nonsense is ridiculous because IQ proves NOTHING about the genetic "intelligence" and survivability of the Negritoes.
Negritoes ARE the ancestral population of MOST of Asia.
So Sshaun002, how, and at what point, did other Asians (including Europeans) evolve after leaving Southern Asia?
quote: Andamese Islanders are a population that by most people have been in their present form for 50,000 years. How long have white Europeans been around in ANY FORM? If survivability and longevity are a sign of natural intelligence, then what does the EXISTENCE of these people prove? It proves that IQ tests have nothing to do with intelligence. THAT intelligence is at the basis for the fact of the survival of the human species for the last 200,000 years, during most of which WHITES did not exist. Without THAT INTELLIGENCE there would be no human species. WHITES are such a late arrival on the scene as to NOT BE a significant factor in this fundamental trait of human genetics. Nature does not give IQ tests.
posted
Here's another (more complete) damning review of Hart's book (this one written by a racialist sympathizer who is not intellectually dishonest enough to defend Hart's revisionisms, omissions, and errors).
quote:Originally posted by Keins: [QB] It was also said before that blacks were genetically inferior and hence cannot compete in sports at the level of whites. lol But then things changed when will and opportunity meet.
This notion was suggested by the minority of racists (usually as a way to keep them from competing against Whites) but was never taken seriously or accepted by the majority.
I guess you can say the same mentality is used by racist to claim Ancient Egypt was White and Black Africans couldn't have built it.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's another (more complete) damning review of Hart's book
^
Shaun posts review-critiques of books he has not read and never will read. For him this is meant as 'substitute' for educating his mind.
In actuality, it is simply more overcompensation and mindless trolling.
Shaun was supposed to read Stephen Gould's masterpiece Mismeasure of Man.
But he didn't, [of course] because it would take genuine intellectual effort...of which he has failed at all his life.
So he doesn't even try anymore.
Easier to play games on the internet making unintelligent pointless arguments on topics he knows nothing about.
While such and approach may make and idiot feel better about himself, it leaves him as intellectually impotent as he was before, and so does not help him one bit. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Shaun writes: Nobody goes around judging geographic ancestry merely by looking at cranial features of people.
^ This is another example of your idiocy. It is precisely the claim of WW Howells that ancestry can be determined by crania via his fordisc database of 'skulls'.
This is the claim debunked by the study in question.
That you don't know this or understand it, provides another example of your complete ignorance with regards to virtually every aspect of this topic that you troll.
Your unintelligent trolling has richly earned our total contempt. And that is all you've accomplished to date....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's another (more complete) damning review of Hart's book
^
Shaun posts review-critiques of books he has not read and never will read. For him this is meant as 'substitute' for educating his mind.
In actuality, it is simply more overcompensation and mindless trolling.
Shaun was supposed to read Stephen Gould's masterpiece Mismeasure of Man.
But he didn't, [of course] because it would take genuine intellectual effort...of which he has failed at all his life.
So he doesn't even try anymore.
Easier to play games on the internet making unintelligent pointless arguments on topics he knows nothing about.
While such and approach may make and idiot feel better about himself, it leaves him as intellectually impotent as he was before, and so does not help him one bit.
As with my critique, Auster finds serious errors in Hart's book. Neither my review or Auster's review are favorable of Hart's book overall. I gave it 4 out of 10. Nonetheless, the thesis is worth delving into and some interesting insights are put forth.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say I post reviews about books I don't read. I read Hart's book. Now I'm reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. His hypothesis is that geography is at the root of why cultures developed differently and developed differing technologies.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Shaun writes: Nobody goes around judging geographic ancestry merely by looking at cranial features of people.
^ This is another example of your idiocy. It is precisely the claim of WW Howells that ancestry can be determined by crania via his fordisc database of 'skulls'.
This is the claim debunked by the study in question.
That you don't know this or understand it, provides another example of your complete ignorance with regards to virtually every aspect of this topic that you troll.
Your unintelligent trolling has richly earned our total contempt. And that is all you've accomplished to date....
I was referring to racial clusters when I said "geographic ancestry". When I walk outside, I don't measure peoples craniums in order to decide what geographic lineage originates. I do so by observing a myriad of their features combined. This is why I said nobody judges geographic ancestry based strictly on craniums. I'm talking about lay people.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, your insults are non-threatening. In fact, they're entertaining. I like when you described my intellect as "sub-normal". lol. I'm going to use that.
But this is disingenuous since you now start almost every post by crying about someone insulting you.
quote:I like when you described my intellect as "sub-normal".
I'm only ascribing to and individual, based on the case evidence of his feeble-minded postings, the property that you ascribe to groups, based on your racism.
Per your own citation of... "uncivalised races, such as Afghans, Arabs and Russians"
Now, your incessant whining about this would be hypocritical, *if you were of normal intelligence* and could grasp irony.
Alas you are not, and can only grasp small portions of reality, provided it is broken down in simple words, and then repeated often.
The reality is:
- Your only reason for being on this forum is to question the intelligence of others.
- Yet you regard a questioning of your own intelligence as and insult.
- You then proceed to whine about this.
It's only your own discourse returned to you, so it is indeed entertaining to listen to you complain about it, as it further exposes the low self esteem which drives your race-ranting to begin with.
Apparently it makes you feel less bad to imagine we're being unfair to you?
Let's consider the case evidence involved in fair assessment of your intellect...
You can't address the studies provided.
You don't read books.
You can't even answer a basic question about your own cut and paste vomitings.
If you feel this is not indicative of the level of your intellect, then.... pray tell, what is?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is funny: shaun is claiming intellectual superiority of Europeans and their descendants...and is proving the very opposite here by his very weak posts and by exposing actually a very low IQ level...if he has some European ancestry as he claims ...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What's also funny is Sshaun's method of using modern politics to support(?) his claims if not use as a distraction. This reminds me alot of Hore.
But anyay, Rasol's points are all valid whereas Sshaun's isnt.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, this is the the last time that I dignify you with a response when your reply contains insults. I will not be brought down to your level. From here on out, I will only reply to your posts, if they are insult-free. Nothing of value is added by your heckling. Besides, I'm growing concerned over your mental health.
AFRICA I, even if what you said were true, one cannot use the individual as an example of population averages. We've been through this before. You can find dumb Whites all over the place. This does not mean that the White average is not above other group averages.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
lol, your directed ad hominem whining is just another form of personal attack, and the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
You hate - because we expose the fact that you are completely ignorant regarding the topic you troll, and really have no argument to make, other than racism.
Regardless, no one cares.
Poisoned anyone recently?
quote:Shaun believes:
Positive examples of 'race glorification' -> Poison gas mass murder.... "....in Afghanistan, in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and against the Red Army, "
....you advocate this, yes or no?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That reminds me, that quote of Churchill is a perfect example of Eurocentric doctrine #15 DOUBLE-THINK:
Conquest becomes "unification," "pacification,""opening up," and conquered regions are dubbed "protectorates." The convention is to use Europe as the standard, writing texts from the viewpoint of the conquerors / colonizers. Thus, a Rajasthani rebellion against English rule was termed the "Indian Mutiny." A peculiarity of this thinking is the tendency to refer to times of bloody invasions and enslavement with respectful nostalgia, as in "The Golden Age of Greece" and "The Glory That Was Rome," or "How the West Was Won." British subjugation of southern Nigeria is recast as The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger.
A contributor to Men Become Civilized, edited by Trevor Cairns, explains it all to children:
"When the king of one city conquered others, he would have to make sure that all the people in all the cities knew what to do. He would have to see that they all had rules to follow, so that they would live peacefully together."
Double-think finds ways to recast genocide as regrettable but necessary, due to failings of the people being killed, who are somehow unable to "adapt." Distancing the agent is key here, obscuring the violence with the idea that some kind of natural process is at work: "vanishing races," "by that time the Indians had disappeared."
So when non-Western peoples like the Iraqis and Afghans resist British imperialism, they are called "uncivilized" and "savage" (just like Africans), but we are to applaud the more 'civilized' Westerners like Churchill who apparently advocates mass killing through poison gas?.. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I asked him a crucial question, that could be an end to this thread, which he evaded answering.
Sshaun:
You claimed that Asians with the same tropical phenotype Africans have have low IQs for the same genetic reasons blacks from Africa do.
Thus, to verify your claims, you have to show where humans evolved after Asians moved North,
or
prove that certain phenotypic genes some how control a persons intellegence, or that the genes that determine intelligence (which you also have to define/proove) some how dictate/connect with the gene/s [lol] that give a person a tropical phenotype, and melinan [lol].
posted
What does not impress me are the so called arguments by the eurocentrists vs africanists..
Simple facts-most books now issued by New Agers on Egypt are just silly nonsense each trying to disprove the theory of his competitor in order to boost up their book/DVD sales..
Also next to zero of them know anything about hieroglyphics let alone the language..
Then you have the modern experts-archeologists whatever-but once you go through their books they are very short on source material-most are just a rehash of what has been published in the past. Read a comment by an archaeologist/egyptologist that "we do not know how the common people lived in ancient Egypt,but now due to new technology we might be able to find out"...
Hello ? Anybody here ? Adolf Erman in his book "Life in Ancient Egypt" in 1894 gave us a pretty good idea..(still available as a DOVER reprint ed)
Only recently (in 2007 I think)his work was updated by an egyptologist with a new book.. I still have to check it up..
Bottom line- most "old authors " give your the source,the hieroglyphs,the pros and cons etc..
Finally-Sarkozy(the Jewish Mossad Agent)president of France, spent a few days in Egypt with his Italian mistress that has ties with the porn industry at a posh resort in Luxor (?)
It tells all- all these characters are psychopaths that come to admire the monuments of their former masters-guess that the bigger the monument and more cruel the pharaon in question was the better they identify with it..
Note-When looking for books about AE at used bookstores,or for new titles I am told that I am one of the few(maybe in the 5% range) that is not interested in just photo album-type books of the great monuments or in the New Ager pyramidology religion stuff-
I repeat,99% of these New Agers just tend to plagiarize one another.And yes ,they are Eurocentrists and 99% of them tend to be CAUCASIANS and the majority of them(+60% and above) are also JEWISH(and Sabbatean agents)-the authors,DVD producers and publishing houses..paranormal media-websites,radiotalkshows,hosts of said radioshows,etc..paranormal magazines,etc..
A good example is the book industry that Zacharia Sitchin with his 12th Planet hoax book has engendered..
Z.Sitchin is a Sabatean/zionist Russian Jew that even has his own museum in Israel.. He is a dunce when it comes to Akkdian/Sumerian etc..and has doctored photos,drawings of ancient Sumerian script ,etc...in order to make his theory fit(work)..
Another hoaxer was Immanuel Velikovski,another Sabbatean Zionist Russian Jew with his theory of worlds in collision...
Thus it ought to tell people a lot about who the supporters of these 2 characters are..
Final point- anybody that thinks this is not true ought to look up the articles written by Barry Chamish and his numerous radio interviews in regards to what is going on in Israel and as to the real motives of the Sabbatean Jews,the Vatican,etc..
He is a very serious journalist and even wrote a book on Return of the Giants(Ufos over and in Israell)-however he does not speculate about their origin..just reported the facts...he was even censured by a US paranormal program on UFOS (Sightings)as his findings were too controversial..
"As biologically-averse intellectuals continue to question the very existence of race, pragmatic scientists are moving into an era when not only race, but ethnicity may become genetically identifiable."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Typical racist belief, but where are the scientific facts that IQ is correlated with phenotype? So you expect people to predict what range of IQ a person has based on their appearance? What you say is no different from what all the racist nuts from the KKK to the Nazis.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic