quote:You cannot explain away mountains of evidence, within culture results, cross-cultural studies, adoptive studies, IQ uniformity, patterns and resiliance globally, by arguing that it's culture that's responsible.
I've posted before that Jews represent barely 1% of the population yet hold nearly 30% of Nobel Prizes in America. It's borderline baffoonery to postulate that it's due merely to Jewish culture, lol.
No Jews are some 2.0+% of the U.S. population and obviously you just don't know how Nobel prizes are awarded. It's done by recommendation by past winners and others who are friends of the past winners. Well, the Jews just vote for each other. For example, Jews have a stranglehold on the economics prize for sheer nonsensical work. But hey, the prize brings in good money. And what's wrong with friend sharing it among themselves. It's that simple.
The reason for my thinking here is that the work for which the prizes are awarded in most cases are just very trivial, humdrum stuff--done 20, 30 years ago.
The studies you talk about are just tendentious: people like Lynn and the other Pioneer Fund types just work up studies that just supports their biases. Would you go to a theologian to prove the non-existence of God?
quote:Barring any breakthru in modern medicine, the only way out of this is mating between blacks and whites to boost low black IQ to a more moderate average of say, 90 - 95.
No doubt this is proof of how really crackpot and obsessional your thinking is. You might just need help from those guys in white coats.
Furthermore, there is nothing special in what I write. There are a lot of people I know who can say it much better and there are others who are miles ahead academically.
But again, you chatter on and nary a mention of what I asked about: the Flynn effect and generational changes in g scores.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The dream you cling to is that comparing IQ of 85 with IQ of 100 is a fair comparison to IQs of 100 and higher. For example, it's ridiculous to compare a group with an average IQ of 90 to a group with an average IQ of 75. The latter is facing retardation and significant social adjustment difficulties because they lack any analytic brain power. Blacks are overrepresented in this group.
The people you refer to are hardly retarded as far as I see and they don't seem to have any social adjustment difficulties. I interact with them every day. So much for your bogus IQ scores! LOL
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
No Jews are some 2.0+% of the U.S. population and obviously you just don't know how Nobel prizes are awarded. It's done by recommendation by past winners and others who are friends of the past winners. Well, the Jews just vote for each other. For example, Jews have a stranglehold on the economics prize for sheer nonsensical work. But hey, the prize brings in good money. And what's wrong with friend sharing it among themselves. It's that simple.
LOL, now Jewish success is because of nepotism. Jews are awarded Nobel Prizes not in arts like literature but in hard sciences like mathematics and chemistry.
You're like a dog chasing its tale. Yes, Jews haev significant control because they're smart. One thing begets the other.
quote: The reason for my thinking here is that the work for which the prizes are awarded in most cases are just very trivial, humdrum stuff--done 20, 30 years ago.
LOL
quote: The studies you talk about are just tendentious: people like Lynn and the other Pioneer Fund types just work up studies that just supports their biases. Would you go to a theologian to prove the non-existence of God?
There are no studies to "work up" that show the opposite of Lynn's position. The studies, done by researchers from around the world find the same results.
The God analogy is ridiculous. God cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method. It cannot be supported or refuted in any way other than faith/belief. On the other hand, IQ is very testable and results replicatable.
quote:No doubt this is proof of how really crackpot and obsessional your thinking is. You might just need help from those guys in white coats.
Furthermore, there is nothing special in what I write. There are a lot of people I know who can say it much better and there are others who are miles ahead academically.
Not true. Why do you deny the ramifications of evolution when it comes to humans?
quote: But again, you chatter on and nary a mention of what I asked about: the Flynn effect and generational changes in g scores.
Better and alternate nutrition can cause this. The Flynn Effect is levelling off and in many Western nations regressing now. Yet the racial gap remains. So even if there is breathing room (since we acknowledge that environment accounts for about 20% of intelligence), it doesn't paint a completely different picture. The ceiling for those with naturally lower IQ will still be significantly lower than those with naturally higher IQ.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The dream you cling to is that comparing IQ of 85 with IQ of 100 is a fair comparison to IQs of 100 and higher. For example, it's ridiculous to compare a group with an average IQ of 90 to a group with an average IQ of 75. The latter is facing retardation and significant social adjustment difficulties because they lack any analytic brain power. Blacks are overrepresented in this group.
The people you refer to are hardly retarded as far as I see and they don't seem to have any social adjustment difficulties. I interact with them every day. So much for your bogus IQ scores! LOL
Of course not, you do not live in an American ghetto or African ghetto. You live among the cream of the crop and Whites so you have little first hand experience with the degeneracy, illiteracy, tomfoolery, backwardness, and social ills prominent in a large portion of black communities and individuals.
I live among ordinary whites in a large urban city. My first hand experiences are with these people but I have travelled elsewhere and have personally observed the idiocy, lunacy, and ignorance of low IQ Whites in outside areas. These are known as hicks.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Better and alternate nutrition can cause this. The Flynn Effect is levelling off and in many Western nations regressing now. Yet the racial gap remains. So even if there is breathing room (since we acknowledge that environment accounts for about 20% of intelligence), it doesn't paint a completely different picture. The ceiling for those with naturally lower IQ will still be significantly lower than those with naturally higher IQ. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you haven't answered the question: please explain the empirical fact of the Flynn effect?
If the Flynn effect is a function of intra-cultural environmental change, then it is obviously also applicable to distinct inter-cultural environments. The empirical eveidence shows that there is no connection between the Flynn effect and nutrition. Flynn's report on the empirical data(pp. 102-106) bears this out. Note the following:
We have noted the 20 point Dutch gain on a Raven's-type test registered by military samples in 1952, 1962, 1972, and 1982. Did the Dutch 18 year olds of 1982 really have a better diet than the 18 year olds of 1972? The former outscored the latter by fully 8 IQ points. It is interesting that the Dutch 18 year olds of 1962 did have a known nutritional handicap. They were either in the womb or or born during the great Dutch famine of 1944--when German troops monopolized food and brought sections of the population to near starvation. Yet, they do not sho up even as a blip on in the pattern of Dutch IQ gains. It is as if the famine had never occurred.p.103
ssshaun wrote:
quote:Of course not, you do not live in an American ghetto or African ghetto. You live among the cream of the crop and Whites so you have little first hand experience with the degeneracy, illiteracy, tomfoolery, backwardness, and social ills prominent in a large portion of black communities and individuals.
LOL! Why do you assume that you know where I live? Your clairvoyant powers are amazing. LOL! But let me disabuse you. I have no white friends and the only "whitish" people I interact with are Lebanese--when I buy things in their shops.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any group that values education and its benefits thereof will always be the cream of the crop and that it is the golden rule! He who has the gold (education, concommitant values, leadership, etc) makes the rules. With that, comes the political and the monetary influence.
The inhabitants of the European ghettos valued education, mercantile skill (shop ownership, etc) so when they left and went elsewhere (usually forced) they were able to reproduce the same skills despite whether people liked them or not.
The main point was thay they had intellectual capital, they worked and earned a living so they did not have to pay attention to fools and other naysayers!
The inhabitants of the American ghettos, on the other hand, despite being in the most economic viable society in the world, often, it seems, do not seem to posses that intellectual capital (though it does exist but not developed in the right capacity), they tend to look down on education, and its benefits and engage in vandalistic cannabalism while looking for short term economic reward and blaming others for their lack of long term vision within their own community!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The inhabitants of the American ghettos, on the other hand, despite being in the most economic viable society in the world, often, it seems, do not seem to posses that intellectual capital (though it does exist but not developed in the right capacity), they tend to look down on education, and its benefits and engage in vandalistic cannabalism while looking for short term economic reward and blaming others for their lack of long term vision within their own community!
To get a better handle on things you might want to get a good history/sociology text on the history and sociology of U.S. blacks post emancipation(1865): the significance of the laws of segregation, the great migration Northwards to the big industrial cities, the conflicts with the boatlaods of European migrants entering the U.S., the Civil Rights enactments and Euro-Amercica's response to those enactments, the exodus of the black bougeoisie from the segregated parts of the cities and from the segregated schools and colleges, etc., the evolution from the indutrial age to the information age, etc.
You must realise that people for the most part live their cultures and quite often in oppressive situations their cultures are fashioned for them. Think too in this regard of the post-Apartheid township cultures in South Africa.
Or the post-conquest cultures of the Native Americans created on the reservations set aside for them. Result: poverty, unemployment, alcoholism and suicide. And the Australian indigenes? And the Brazilian favelas--with raging crime and police brutality? And the Maoris inNew Zealand? Their crime and disaffection rates?
It seems as if something very negative happens when European peoples come in contact with non-Europeans all over the globe. Luckily for the Chinese, they avoided being drugged out by the British--thereby making them ripe for colonisation. Japan being an island was able to fend them off giving it time to rapidly industrialise. In Africa, the mosquito and the tough terrain held them off to a certain extent forcing thme to restrict themselves to the temperate parts of Africa. Etc.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: To get a better handle on things you might want to get a good history/sociology text on the history and sociology of U.S. blacks post emancipation(1865): .
So it's because of the unique history of American blacks and blacks in South Africa that blacks across the globe show a 15 point average IQ gap with whites?
quote: It seems as if something very negative happens when European peoples come in contact with non-Europeans all over the globe.
Quite the opposite. What Europeans did was no different than what was going on in those places prior to European arrival. Tribal fighting, bruality, starvation, poverty, cultural backwardness.
Wherever the European went, the standard of living got better, for Europeans and non-Europeans. Heck, you're only on the internet today because Whitey at some point in time set foot in your backyard.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The basic idea in the creation of the computer is writing, counting and doing mathematics. Nowhere in Europe did its residents over the 45,000 years that Europeans were in Europe ever dream of writing, counting or doing mathematics.
Counting, mathematics, precise measurement, the concepts of addition, division, mutiplication, etc. were all conferred on Europe by African Egypt by way of the honest Greeks who just admitted it.
So I am on the internet today because African taught Europe how to write and count.
If there were no Europe computers would still have been developed. But if there were no Africa, first there would be no humans, and even if humans developed elsewhere we have no idea whether they would have been able to go past the crude Stonehenge--which represents Europe's proudest independent creative moment.Quite the opposite.
quote:What Europeans did was no different than what was going on in those places prior to European arrival. Tribal fighting, bruality, starvation, poverty, cultural backwardness.
Not true, else how did Africans in Africa prosper to the extent of sending out groups vigourous enough to settle all over the world? Not true, else how did Africa produce the world's first 2 technical and literate civilisation--Egypt and Kush--and others to follow.
But the point remains: unlike with any other human group, first time contact with Europeans is usually very toxic. The group might just end up wantonly exterminated in a series of serial exterminations. That's the empirical evidence. Example: the Native Americans travelled over to the Americas in at least 4 distinct groups. Sure, they had their skirmishes here and there, but in the end every group was intact. It was only when the Europeans came on the scene that mass murder and wanton exterminations began to take place. For starters, there's that Plymouth Rock story--a sorry tale of abject treachery and wanton slaughter. The only time this kind of behaviour raised any alarms was when Hitler, good pupil that he was, tried to do it in the heartland of Europe.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: But the point remains: unlike with any other human group, first time contact with Europeans is usually very toxic. The group might just end up wantonly exterminated in a series of serial exterminations.
How many times was Ancient Egypt invaded by outsiders? The point is that everywhere across the world first contact or successive contact most often was toxic. Humans have always fought for resources and booty.
The sole difference between European conquest and others was that Europeans had far more advanced weaponry to those they came in contact with. Therefore, their contact almost always ended in victory out of tremendous bloodshed.
quote: That's the empirical evidence. Example: the Native Americans travelled over to the Americas in at least 4 distinct groups. Sure, they had their skirmishes here and there, but in the end every group was intact.
Most natives died of disease, not slaughter. Heck, there was only several thousand Aboriginies in Australia when Europeans arrived, yet they still exist today. If Europeans were all about exterminations, those few peoples would have been wiped out long ago. Instead, they survive in an endless cycle of poverty and crime in Australian cities, partly because they're not mentally equipped for European forms of modern society. Their IQ is too low.
quote: It was only when the Europeans came on the scene that mass murder and wanton exterminations began to take place. For starters, there's that Plymouth Rock story--a sorry tale of abject treachery and wanton slaughter. The only time this kind of behaviour raised any alarms was when Hitler, good pupil that he was, tried to do it in the heartland of Europe.
Lies. This has happened everywhere since the dawn of man in different degrees. Like I said before, the difference was in the technological superiority of Europeans.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Africans were actually very good at keeping order and stability; there were many highly organized states whose authority ensured a high level of peace and prosperity through much of the central Africa. Many kingdoms developed complex urban societies and representative government that had well established checks and balances that made sure no group or individual could gain too much power and become despotic. Don’t forget an art tradition that had much inspiration to modern art in the western world which makes the notion African cultural backwardness absurd
This is from “Lost Cities of Africa” by Basil Davidson middle of P. 319 and beginning of 321
quote: Now all this reflects the presence and general recognition, within a pre-industrial society, of reasonable and self-confident modes of life and manners of thought, and suggest, for anyone who cares to ponder on it, how far these peoples of the interior had traveled in creative adaption to their environment. Much else might be laid beside it. The arts of Africa, so often shocking to the Victorian eye, could have come only from societies which had found creative answers to the age-old problem of the one and the many, the individual and the collective. Their philosophies, their thoughts about man and the universe, echoed the same distinctive genius. Neither art nor religion was the crude and wretched thing that suburban Europe, traveling in “darkest Africa,” would generally say it was, neither revealed the shallow growth of yesterday, nor the hopeless gibbering surrender to violence and magic that Europeans would so generally imagine. Here was much that might evoke surprise, and a good deal that would call for nothing, in the general structure and conception of society, that could allow a charge of natural inferiority.
In the middle of the twentieth century one may see all this more clearly. Barred as they often were from many currents and crosscurrents of thought and action that had fertilized and deepened civilization elsewhere, African peoples had moved by their own dynamic of advance, found their own way forward, worked out their own solutions. Stubbornly, slowly, they had gone ahead across the lonely years. Only where the slave trade made its worst ravages were they altogether stopped and their achievements rendered sterile; and much of the far interior was spread that fearful curse.
The Lozi of western Zambia, for example, were entirely spared it; and Lozi law and order, Lozi conceptions of the judicial process, can be found to support none of the assumptions of paternalist trusteeship. On the contrary, the basis of Lozi legal judgments would emerge, on examination in the twentieth century, as mature and solid as in European or American courts. In both, Gluckman has contended, the judicial process was basically similar. “On the whole,” he goes on, “it is true to say that the Lozi judicial process corresponds with, more than it differs from, the judicial process in western society. Lozi judges draw on the same sources of law as Western judges – the regularities of the environment, of the animal kingdom, of human beings; and custom, legislation, precedent, equity, the laws of nature and of nations, public policy, morality.”
The fabric of society, therefore, was strong and could survive. Yet it remains true that the states of southern Africa’s Iron Age undoubtedly declined and fell. Their rulers were dispersed or diminished to a shadow of their former greatness. Their strong stone settlements and forts, built across the years, were abandoned to an empty solitude.
Ibn Battuta writes admiringly about the peace and stability of west Africa, he said “blacks” were the most just of all people in the world. Note that Ibn Battuta was the most well traveled person of his time from China to Mali
sshaun002, are you trying to encourage hatred against white people?
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Africans were actually very good at keeping order and stability; there were many highly organized states whose authority ensured a high level of peace and prosperity through much of the central Africa. Many kingdoms developed complex urban societies and representative government that had well established checks and balances that made sure no group or individual could gain too much power and become despotic. Don’t forget an art tradition that had much inspiration to modern art in the western world which makes the notion African cultural backwardness absurd
This is from “Lost Cities of Africa” by Basil Davidson middle of P. 319 and beginning of 321
quote: Now all this reflects the presence and general recognition, within a pre-industrial society, of reasonable and self-confident modes of life and manners of thought, and suggest, for anyone who cares to ponder on it, how far these peoples of the interior had traveled in creative adaption to their environment. Much else might be laid beside it. The arts of Africa, so often shocking to the Victorian eye, could have come only from societies which had found creative answers to the age-old problem of the one and the many, the individual and the collective. Their philosophies, their thoughts about man and the universe, echoed the same distinctive genius. Neither art nor religion was the crude and wretched thing that suburban Europe, traveling in “darkest Africa,” would generally say it was, neither revealed the shallow growth of yesterday, nor the hopeless gibbering surrender to violence and magic that Europeans would so generally imagine. Here was much that might evoke surprise, and a good deal that would call for nothing, in the general structure and conception of society, that could allow a charge of natural inferiority.
In the middle of the twentieth century one may see all this more clearly. Barred as they often were from many currents and crosscurrents of thought and action that had fertilized and deepened civilization elsewhere, African peoples had moved by their own dynamic of advance, found their own way forward, worked out their own solutions. Stubbornly, slowly, they had gone ahead across the lonely years. Only where the slave trade made its worst ravages were they altogether stopped and their achievements rendered sterile; and much of the far interior was spread that fearful curse.
The Lozi of western Zambia, for example, were entirely spared it; and Lozi law and order, Lozi conceptions of the judicial process, can be found to support none of the assumptions of paternalist trusteeship. On the contrary, the basis of Lozi legal judgments would emerge, on examination in the twentieth century, as mature and solid as in European or American courts. In both, Gluckman has contended, the judicial process was basically similar. “On the whole,” he goes on, “it is true to say that the Lozi judicial process corresponds with, more than it differs from, the judicial process in western society. Lozi judges draw on the same sources of law as Western judges – the regularities of the environment, of the animal kingdom, of human beings; and custom, legislation, precedent, equity, the laws of nature and of nations, public policy, morality.”
The fabric of society, therefore, was strong and could survive. Yet it remains true that the states of southern Africa’s Iron Age undoubtedly declined and fell. Their rulers were dispersed or diminished to a shadow of their former greatness. Their strong stone settlements and forts, built across the years, were abandoned to an empty solitude.
Ibn Battuta writes admiringly about the peace and stability of west Africa, he said “blacks” were the most just of all people in the world. Note that Ibn Battuta was the most well traveled person of his time from China to Mali
sshaun002, are you trying to encourage hatred against white people?
You're missing the point. Cultural backwardness or not, people EVERYWHERE have brutalized and engaged in war against others. The fact that some African societies at some point in time may have created space ships sophisticated enough to travel to Jupiter doesn't change the point I'm making. Moreover, you're using the exceptions, not the rule. Poverty, illiteracy, disease, and so forth were rampant throughout most of Africa for most of its history just as it was in Europe and everywhere else.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even the most peaceful and stable societies would have their own cruelties and not all of Africa was peaceful and stable, no one has argued about that.
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most natives died of disease, not slaughter. Heck, there was only several thousand Aboriginies in Australia when Europeans arrived, yet they still exist today. If Europeans were all about exterminations, those few peoples would have been wiped out long ago. Instead, they survive in an endless cycle of poverty and crime in Australian cities, partly because they're not mentally equipped for European forms of modern society. Their IQ is too low.
The usual phony argument that Europeans use to get themselves off the moral hook. It's always "The 'natives'[their usual term for people in non-European lands whom they slaughter and enslave]died from disease. We really didn't kill them off..."
In the case of Australia--a lot of the indigenes were slaughtered for fun, often being used as target practice then used as dog meat--those that survived were partially bred out by wholesale rape of the women.
Of course, a few were left over to do the menial tasks that penal and criminally rabid colonisers didn't want to do.
If you do a body count for all of human time you will see that the Europeans win by a big stretch in terms of the wanton killing of humans. So the disease argument can never wash.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone have an explanation of why the Chinese didn't invade Africa? And yes there was significant contact Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------------------- Does anyone have an explanation of why the Chinese didn't invade Africa? And yes there was significant contact --------------------------------
Damn, what's wrong with you? You act like Africans by default are helpless?
Has it ever occured to you that they didn't invade because they knew Africans wouldn't have it and they would have gotten their asses kicked?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: markellion wrote:
It's about the point sshaun002 made about Europeans killing people because of superior technology.
quote:The sole difference between European conquest and others was that Europeans had far more advanced weaponry to those they came in contact with. Therefore, their contact almost always ended in victory out of tremendous bloodshed.
In some ways Europeans were just catching up to nations in Asia and Africa, but it seems Europeans made the most wholesale use of guns and cannons. The gun was invented in China and there might have been more African contact with China than European contact with China.
The only conclusion we can come to is that the Europeans were able to do it (despite having lower IQs than the Chinese) because the whole thing was planned out by the Jews
Interesting enough, the Portuguese could invade coastal towns but they gave up on the interior because they were defeated every time they tried. They decided to interfere with rights of succession by supporting the person they wanted in power, ruining the trade monopolies African empires had thus encouraging the sale of slaves, and then finally European powers made use of the Maxim gun
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead, they survive in an endless cycle of poverty and crime in Australian cities, partly because they're not mentally equipped for European forms of modern society. Their IQ is too low.
Question, for Markellion:
Do either of these scenarios
Instead, your face would just end up caved in by my hand, mostly because you're not socially equipped for my form of Bruteness.
The stranded, 'innocent', European descent virgin is eaten by cannibal assailents because she is not mentally quipped
The whites flee the South West and South East U.S. regions in significant numbers because they're not mentally quippedddddd for Mexican/other culture
Imply lack of innate mental ability on the part of the recipiant of the altercation, or do they just imply barbarism on the part of the non-white?
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Poverty, illiteracy, disease, and so forth were rampant throughout most of Africa for most of its history just as it was in Europe and everywhere else
Correction: The gunpowder may have been invented in China, but not the gun, to my knowledge.
Not to sound redundant, but...
Gunpowder:
The Chinese knew gunpowder in the 11th century, but didn’t know the right proportions of getting explosions and didn’t achieve the necessary purification of potassium nitrate. The first Chinese book, which details the explosives proportion, was in 1412 by Huo Lung Ching. [1]
Al-Rammah’s book is the first to explain the purification procedure for potassium nitrate and described many recipes for making gunpowder with the correct proportions to achieve explosion. This is necessary for the development of canons. Partington [ 3] says “the collection of recipes was probably taken from different sources at different times in the author’s family and taken down. Such recipes are described as tested.” Al-Razi, Al-Hamdany, and an Arabic-Syriaque manuscript of the 10th century describe potassium nitrate. Ibn Al-Bitar describes it in 1240. The Arab-Syriaque manuscript of the 10th century gives some recipes of gunpowder. It is assumed that these were added in the 13th century.
The Latin book “Liber Ignium” of Marcus Graecus is originally Arabic (translated in Spain) gives many recipes for making gunpowder the last four of which must have been added to the book in 1280 or 1300. “Did Roger Bacon derive his famous cryptic gunpowder in his Epistola of ca. 1260 from the crusader Peter of Maricourt, some other traveler or from a wide range of reading from Arabic and alchemical books”. References [1], [3], and Joseph Needham, doubt the correctness and effectiveness of the recipe of Bacon.
The German scientist Albert Magnus obtained his information from the “Liber Ignium” originally an Arabic book translated in Spain.
Evidence of the use of gunpowder during the crusades in Fustat, in Egypt, 1168 was found in the form of traces of potassium nitrate. Such traces were also found in 1218 during the siege of Dumyat and in the battle of Al-Mansoura in 1249.
Winter mentions, “the Chinese may have discovered saltpeter (gunpowder) or else that discovery may have been transmitted to them by the Muslims whom they had plenty of opportunities of meeting either at home or abroad. Sarton is referring to Arab-Muslim traders to China, as well as Arab inhabitants in China. As early as 880 an estimated 120,000 Muslims, Jews and Persians liven in Canton alone.”
Canons and Rockets:
There are four Arabic manuscripts (Almakhzoun manuscripts; one in Petersburg, two in Paris and one in Istanbul) in 1320 describing the first portable canon with suitable gunpowder. This description is principally the same as for modern guns. Such canons were used in the famous battle of Ain-Galout against the Mongols (1260).
The Mamlouks developed the canons further during the 14th century.
In Spain, Arabs used canons defending Seville (1248), in Granada 1319, in Baza or Albacete 1324, in Huescar and Martos 1325, in Alicante 1331 and in Algeziras 1342-1344. Partington says, “ the history of artillery in Spain is related to that of the Arabs”.
J.R. Partington mentions, “Arabic accounts suggest that the Arabs introduced firearms into Spain, from where they passed to Italy, from there to France, and finally Germany.”
“The Arabs, in any event, appear to have been the first to inherit (and possibly) originate the secret of the rocket, and it was through Arabic writings, rather than the Mongols -- that the Europeans came to know the rocket. The two notable examples of Arabic knowledge of the rocket are the so-called “self-moving and combusting egg” of the Syrian Al-Hassan Al-Rammah (d. 1294 - 1295), details of which may be found in Willey Ley’s popular “Rockets, Missiles, and Space Travel” and physician Yusuf ibn Ismail Al-Kutub’s description (1311) of the saltpeter (“they use it to make a fire which rises and moves, thus increasing it in lightness and inflammability”). - Frank H. Winter
The modern gun was essentially a carryover technology from the portable canon.
Ps - Interestingly, the earliest evidence of the practical application of portable canon technology goes back to Egypt — Recap: "Such canons were used in the famous battle of Ain-Galout against the Mongols (1260)."
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The usual phony argument that Europeans use to get themselves off the moral hook. It's always "The 'natives'[their usual term for people in non-European lands whom they slaughter and enslave]died from disease. We really didn't kill them off..."
This is not a phony argument. It's historical fact. Yes, plenty were killed by slaughter too. One innocent person killed is one too many.
quote: Of course, a few were left over to do the menial tasks that penal and criminally rabid colonisers didn't want to do.
LOL, sounds a lot like the Mexicans who will do the work Americans won't, right? lol. Jesus. Australians built Australia up from nothing yet they kept a couple thousand natives around to do work. Gimme a break.
quote: If you do a body count for all of human time you will see that the Europeans win by a big stretch in terms of the wanton killing of humans. So the disease argument can never wash.
This goes back to what I said before. Europeans had superior weaponry so it's not surprising that they killed more than vice versa.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Does anyone have an explanation of why the Chinese didn't invade Africa? And yes there was significant contact
How much contact is "significant" contact? A picture of a Chinaman with a giraffe hardly suffices as a force to be reckoned with, even for primitive warriors.
China was closed culturally. They were not interested in expansion. They did all that they could to keep their people in and their Mongol neighbors (and everybody else) out.
Why do you ask anyway? The Chinese are invading Africa today if it makes you feel any better. They've learned and are mimicking 16th century Whitey perfectly.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: markellion wrote:
It's about the point sshaun002 made about Europeans killing people because of superior technology.
quote:The sole difference between European conquest and others was that Europeans had far more advanced weaponry to those they came in contact with. Therefore, their contact almost always ended in victory out of tremendous bloodshed.
In some ways Europeans were just catching up to nations in Asia and Africa, but it seems Europeans made the most wholesale use of guns and cannons. The gun was invented in China and there might have been more African contact with China than European contact with China.
The only conclusion we can come to is that the Europeans were able to do it (despite having lower IQs than the Chinese) because the whole thing was planned out by the Jews
Interesting enough, the Portuguese could invade coastal towns but they gave up on the interior because they were defeated every time they tried. They decided to interfere with rights of succession by supporting the person they wanted in power, ruining the trade monopolies African empires had thus encouraging the sale of slaves, and then finally European powers made use of the Maxim gun
The Chinese invented the gun? That's news to me and every scholar on the planet.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw, do you guys dislike MTV just as much as I do? The cure is more 3rd world immigration (the kind that many on this forum champion, so that the chickens can come home to roost).
Freedoms like the freedom for a woman to massage a man's back is overrated. To hell with the tenets of Western civilization.
More immigration from protestors like these will make America a better place. It'll give us insight and understanding of broader world perspectives of peoples with unique backgrounds and intriguing [superior] traditional cultures and thereby mold America into a wonderous land of cohesion and love for humanity for years to come.
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Do either of these scenarios
Instead, your face would just end up caved in by my hand, mostly because you're not socially equipped for my form of Bruteness.
The stranded, 'innocent', European descent virgin is eaten by cannibal assailents because she is not mentally quipped
The whites flee the South West and South East U.S. regions in significant numbers because they're not mentally quippedddddd for Mexican/other culture
Nonsense. Put a man and a lion into a cage and the man doesn't stand a chance. It's not because the man is mentally inferior to the lion.
Put a dozen men in the cage with a lion, and suddenly they have a fighting chance. The faculty of the mind now has the chance to be used to plan the best method of staving off or suppressing the lion's brute force.
quote: Imply lack of innate mental ability on the part of the recipiant of the altercation, or do they just imply barbarism on the part of the non-white?
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Nonsense. Put a man and a lion into a cage and the man doesn't stand a chance. It's not because the man is mentally inferior to the lion.
Put a dozen men in the cage with a lion, and suddenly they have a fighting chance. The faculty of the mind now has the chance to be used to plan the best method of staving off or suppressing the lion's brute force.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
After the 'test', there was along string of questions asking me to accept some deal, after denying which a hundred times, to get past all the advertisement I don't even know what I pressed, was trying to perform some cheap trick to where I can automatically fill in 'no' for all the options.
The above pics and links were then given with my score and were to advertise the site.
Any who ...
Why dontcha try one of the questions on for size?
I copied an interesting image from the test.
How many four-sided figures are in the below image:
If you don't get it (the question), you're mentally inhibited and retarded (btw I got the question, and will try and remember the answer).
Oh yeah, I just remembered it was multiple choice - your answer choices are:
10, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28
Ok, now I know I won't forget the answer .
Btw, this
quote: mentally inhibited
was not a serious remark.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
After the 'test', there was along string of questions asking me to accept some deal, after denying which a hundred times, to get past all the advertisement I don't even know what I pressed, was trying to perform some cheap trick to where I can automatically fill in 'no' for all the options.
The above pics and links were then given with my score and were to advertise the site.
Any who ...
Why dontcha try one of the questions on for size?
I copied an interesting image from the test.
How many four-sided figures are in the below image:
If you don't get it (the question), you're mentally inhibited and retarded (btw I got the question, and will try and remember the answer).
Oh yeah, I just remembered it was multiple choice - your answer choices are:
10, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28
Ok, now I know I won't forget the answer .
Btw, this
quote: mentally inhibited
was not a serious remark.
Alive, I applaud your score. If the score is a true IQ score, you are among the most intelligent among us. This doesn't surprise me. I've stated before, that most people on this forum will have higher than average IQ. That's the very reason why they're here. No-so-smart people don't spend time debating history.
Here's what you're missing: your IQ score means nothing when group aggregates are taken into consideration. Not only are you much brighter than most whites, you are a serious outlier among blacks.
This is the IQ distribution of blacks and whites in America (and worldwide since we know that IQ scores have been relatively consistent across nations, cultures)
Black pathologies exist because of this innate disparity in IQ. Historical wrongs notwithstanding, we must understand that IQ explains things better than anything else. If less than half of all US blacks have the AVERAGE IQ of Whites, it goes without saying that on average they're going to lag behind.
When you get to the college and professional levels, you're going to see a severe cutoff. When I drive past highschools here in the city, they're packed with black kids. When I drive by the university in the same city, there are virtually none. Why? Because you need an IQ of about 115 to be successful at the college level (to make the grades to be admitted too). Now, look at that IQ distribution again. How many blacks fall above 115?
Remember that and now recall that every initiative to increase IQ for any group to any substantial degree (whether it's adoption, early education, nutrition) have failed to make any significant difference.
When James Watson said that the prospects of Africa are dire, he's drawing from these realities.
The major stumbling block in all of this is that the common man, white and black, isn't smart enough to interpret simple data like this and will begin to label and treat all members of a certain group differently if this data is openly sanctioned by the powers that be.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Still running to and fro. Still posting anecdotes. Still pulling stats out of your ass.
Basically still ES comic relief.
What was particularly hilarious was the part saying you need a "IQ of 115 to finish college" lol "Couldn't find blacks as I drive past a university"
I guess somebody should tell mr sshaun (once again) that around 15% of african-americans have a college degree (2000 US CENSUS).
And its a figure that shoots up to 43% with first and second generation african immigrants (2000 US CENSUS). And again they make up 5% of Harvard as they are 2/3 of the black student body (NY TIMES) which means they are actually overrepresented there by a figure 2500% being as they are .2% of the population.
How is it that african immigrants are represented 2500% at harvard? Did you know that SAT scores are an accurate approximation to IQ?
Guess what the average SAT score for harvard accepted students is?
quote: The majority of students admitted to Harvard College have scores ranging from 600 to 800 on the SAT I and SAT II Subject Tests.
I believe verbal and math scores combine to create the final score. 1600 is considered perfect.
Going by the chart and a SD or standard deviation of 15 points, the IQ for a score of 1200 (assuming 600 scores) can be calculated out to around 125
If jews are represented around 30% in nobel prizes (1500% relative to overall their population) africans are represented 2500% at Harvard with an average entrance IQ of 125! So much for your theory!
Go home sshaun. Give up. Its over. You lost.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ Still running to and fro. Still posting anecdotes. Still pulling stats out of your ass.
Basically still ES comic relief.
What was particularly hilarious was the part saying you need a "IQ of 115 to finish college" lol "Couldn't find blacks as I drive past a university"
I guess somebody should tell mr sshaun (once again) that around 15% of african-americans have a college degree (2000 US CENSUS).
And its a figure that shoots up to 43% with first and second generation african immigrants (2000 US CENSUS). And again they make up 5% of Harvard as they are 2/3 of the black student body (NY TIMES) which means they are actually overrepresented there by a figure 2500% being as they are .2% of the population.
How is it that african immigrants are represented 2500% at harvard? Did you know that SAT scores are an accurate approximation to IQ?
Guess what the average SAT score for harvard accepted students is?
quote: The majority of students admitted to Harvard College have scores ranging from 600 to 800 on the SAT I and SAT II Subject Tests.
I believe verbal and math scores combine to create the final score. 1600 is considered perfect.
Going by the chart and a SD or standard deviation of 15 points, the IQ for a score of 1200 (assuming 600 scores) can be calculated out to around 125
If jews are represented around 30% in nobel prizes (1500% relative to overall their population) africans are represented 2500% at Harvard with an average entrance IQ of 125! So much for your theory!
Go home sshaun. Give up. Its over. You lost.
So 15% of African Americans hold a college degree. This is good and it's approximately what the IQ distribution curve would tell us is achievable. Note that admissions have changed and that when affirmative action programs are removed from secondary education entrance that black admission rates drop substantially.
As for African immigrants, what you're seeing is selection bias. It works for Asia immigrants too. The highest qualified, highest IQ Africans are the ones that emigrate to America, so they will indeed be overrepresented just as Asians are.
Of those 2500% at Harvard, how many have or will win a Nobel Prize like the Jews have in significant proportions (or at all?).
The IQ distribution chart I posted above is incontrovertible fact. How can one look at that and say that it bodes well for African Americans or black in general is beyond me. Delusions? Denial? Whatever it is, ignoring this truth is damaging.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So 15% of African Americans hold a college degree. This is good and it's approximately what the IQ distribution curve would tell us is achievable.
Not only that but black women make up significantly a higher share than men who hold degrees. So are we to conclude black women are somehow smarter than black men even though they have the same genes?
No, there's obviously something else at work, and the issue is sociological not racial.
quote: As for African immigrants, what you're seeing is selection bias. It works for Asia immigrants too.
Prove it. For both actually.
quote:The IQ distribution chart I posted above is incontrovertible fact.
Prove its genetic and not sociological. Again you can't even define genetic differentiation along racial lines.
quote: Of those 2500% at Harvard, how many have or will win a Nobel Prize like the Jews have in significant proportions
Irrelevant. The fact remains they make up over 2500% of their share of the populaton at harvard. No one else, not even asian americans (YALEDAILYNEWS) come close to that figure. Its simply an incedible figure and a direct rebbutal to your line of racist nonsense that blacks can't finish college in significant numbers.
In fact they do, and black immigrants even do it at close to twice the levels of white immigrants from (mostly eastern) Europe. Wheres your selection bias now? Ahh but first you have to prove that in the first place.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: Not only that but black women make up significantly a higher share than men who hold degrees. So are we to conclude black women are somehow smarter than black men even though they have the same genes?
No, there's obviously something else at work, and the issue is sociological not racial.
The same is now true for white women. They're swamping universities more than white men. It has to do with affirmative action, lax standards, and other sociological issues. By and large women and men of each race have the same average IQ so the disparity is never as great. However, it is true that men have more exceptionally high IQs which explains why they compose most of the innovations and inventions. College admissions will never change this fact.
quote: Prove its genetic and not sociological. Again you can't even define genetic differentiation along racial lines.
This is unnecessary. I cannot prove it just as you cannot prove that it isn't. All that I can do is put forth evidence that is strongly suggestive of average IQ differentiation along geographic populations.
This is done in court rooms every day when there is no smoking gun. The amount of evidence I put forth would lead any reasonable judge and jury to come to one conclusion.
quote: Irrelevant. The fact remains they make up over 2500% of their share of the populaton at harvard. No one else, not even asian americans (YALEDAILYNEWS) come close to that figure. Its simply an incedible figure and a direct rebbutal to your line of racist nonsense that blacks can't finish college in significant numbers.
You're mistaking what I'm saying. If you take the cream of the crop from all of Africa and plunk them into America, you're going to get overrepresentation of Africans in Harvard and other universities. This doesn't speak the the overwhelming majority of Africans that cannot. Of the hundreds of millions of Africans, you will have several hundred thousand that have IQs above 130 that could theoretically attend Harvard and pass with flying colors. But the hundreds of millions with IQs of 85 and below stand no chance.
I'm talking about proportions. The number of blacks with IQs of 120 and above is so small when compared to the overall.
quote: In fact they do, and black immigrants even do it at close to twice the levels of white immigrants from (mostly eastern) Europe. Wheres your selection bias now? Ahh but first you have to prove that in the first place. [/QB]
I cannot confirm your stats. Affirmative Action does not assist Whites over other Whites regardless of where they're from. And it's probably a lot easier for an average eastern european to emigrate than it is for an average African. So you'll get tons of average IQ europeans but higher than average IQ africans emigrating.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Not so. The disparity is much larger in relation to black men/women.
quote:Monday's installment will discuss African-American women's progress in the education field. Nearly two-thirds of African-American undergraduates are women. At black colleges, the ratio of women to men is 7 to 1.
So two thirds of white college graduates are white women?
quote: This is unnecessary. I cannot prove it just as you cannot prove that it isn't. All that I can do is put forth evidence that is strongly suggestive of average IQ differentiation along geographic populations.
Then you have no case. The very basis of your claim is genetic, yet you you can't present it and instead rely upon indirect and and highly suspect "evidence" as you call it.
Essentially you would have no case because the evidence you present can fall prey to sociological concerns and biased/incomplete methodology. Genetic evidence is necessary as it would have the most complete say.
You can't prove "genetic" claims without "genetic" evidence. Like a paternity test.
The Maury show's got it, you don't.
quote: This is done in court rooms every day when there is no smoking gun.
This is a not a court case. DNA screening/analysis technology is fully available. In your case, you should have no problem producing it if it actually does exist from any peer reviewed journal or study. There have been numerous studies done on the subject, you just have to find if they came out in your favor.
Again, present such evidence here. Or this debate is over.
quote:I cannot confirm your stats.
Refer to the 2000 CENSUS its all there.
quote:Affirmative Action does not assist Whites over other Whites regardless of where they're from.
Affirmative action has nothing to do with earning a college degree, only getting into college. If the college even has the policy. Just because you don't get accepted in yale doesn't mean you can't still get a college education.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Not so. The disparity is much larger in relation to black men/women.
quote:Monday's installment will discuss African-American women's progress in the education field. Nearly two-thirds of African-American undergraduates are women. At black colleges, the ratio of women to men is 7 to 1.
So two thirds of white college graduates are white women?
quote: This is unnecessary. I cannot prove it just as you cannot prove that it isn't. All that I can do is put forth evidence that is strongly suggestive of average IQ differentiation along geographic populations.
Then you have no case. The very basis of your claim is genetic, yet you you can't present it and instead rely upon indirect and and highly suspect "evidence" as you call it.
Essentially you would have no case because the evidence you present can fall prey to sociological concerns and biased/incomplete methodology. Genetic evidence is necessary as it would have the most complete say.
You can't prove "genetic" claims without "genetic" evidence. Like a paternity test.
The Maury show's got it, you don't.
quote: This is done in court rooms every day when there is no smoking gun.
This is a not a court case. DNA screening/analysis technology is fully available. In your case, you should have no problem producing it if it actually does exist from any peer reviewed journal or study. There have been numerous studies done on the subject, you just have to find if they came out in your favor.
Again, present such evidence here. Or this debate is over.
quote:I cannot confirm your stats.
Refer to the 2000 CENSUS its all there.
quote:Affirmative Action does not assist Whites over other Whites regardless of where they're from.
Affirmative action has nothing to do with earning a college degree, only getting into college. If the college even has the policy. Just because you don't get accepted in yale doesn't mean you can't still get a college education.
Graduation and admission rates are besides the point. Social issues affect graduation and admission rates, clearly and significantly. Less affected is one's IQ.
The only evidence we have with regard to intelligence is indirect. We cannot look at a brain and tell what a person is thinking. We do so from their actions and words. For intellect, we measure their success or failure of standardized tests and IQ tests.
The evidence is not highly 'suspect'. It has been re-affirmed throughout decades. There is little to no evidence to suggest there is any cultural biases in the tests. This is what you need to learn and you're going to learn it little girl!
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
The number of people that make it to college from any particular group in the U.S. is a factor of many things and IQ is the LEAST of them.
Primary factors affecting peoples entry into college:
1. Social status 2. Income 3. Quality of pre-k elementary and secondary education 4. Results of standardized test scores.
1 and 2 directly affect 3 and 4, which is why they are placed higher on the list. IQ has NOTHING to do with it and is irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is that inner city schools have been allowed to DEGENERATE and have received less funding than schools in wealthy suburbs that are mostly white. This trend started in the 60s with white flight to suburbia to ESCAPE from black folks and black rage. It also is tied to the HISTORICAL inequality of education for African Americans versus whites, where African Americans have NEVER been given the same funding and resources for education as whites. What was the reason for this? The so called INTELLIGENCE or lack thereof of the African American population in the U.S. IQ today is nothing more than a repetition of the same racist ideologies that have justified the LACK of resources and funding for black communities in terms of health care, education and infrastructure as white communities. It allows them to CONTINUE to justify the continuation of SUB STANDARD education for African Americans by using IQ as an excuse, as if IQ overcomes the HISTORIC inequities in African American education over the last 400 years. Whites do better in America in terms of education PRECISELY because they have 400 years of social, institutional and economic PREFERENCES designed to SUPPORT and MAINTAIN their advancement. IQ has LITTLE to do with it.
Yes, INTELLIGENCE is an important factor in any human achievement, but that does not remove the other factors which have a large part to play in individual achievement. But that DOES NOT change the historic social, economic and institutional DISCREPANCIES that have been used to retard the progress of African Americans in this country, which has MORE to do with their advancement in terms of education and achievement than anything else. If you are not allowed to go to school JUST because you are black, IQ is not going to change your prospects for achievement. If you ONLY have access to poor schools and come from a IMPOVERISHED social economic status, IQ is NOT going to GUARANTEE or CHANGE the odds of you achieving success.
NONSENSE is NONSENSE and the discussion of IQ is inherently a bunch of nonsense.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why do you let her bait you into another round pointless discussion on her already debunked IQ theories?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Shaun, you make no sense. How can you honestly take pride in a test score that by your reasoning has little bearing on individual success, educationally? If African immigrants indeed come from some of the most miserly social circumstances in Africa, then why does their educational attainment exceed Asians and Europeans coming from better socio-economic circumstances in Asia and Europe? Cultural bias in these tests aren't the issue, that's an old straw man. What's at issue is the assertion that cultural disparities that exist outside of the test won't effect test takers differently, be it through nutrition, general interest, energy, comfortability, whatever. Or that the test its self measures actual intelligence (including emotional intelligence and survival skills [or "street smarts"]). What also would be of interest is to see if the IQ gaps remain constant, which would lend some support to a biological explanation. Seeing as how Flynn already confirmed a closing of the gap, there IS NO support and thus, you've failed in your burden to prove your case and claims.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Some people just are clueless.
The number of people that make it to college from any particular group in the U.S. is a factor of many things and IQ is the LEAST of them.
Primary factors affecting peoples entry into college:
1. Social status 2. Income 3. Quality of pre-k elementary and secondary education 4. Results of standardized test scores.
1 and 2 directly affect 3 and 4, which is why they are placed higher on the list. IQ has NOTHING to do with it and is irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is that inner city schools have been allowed to DEGENERATE and have received less funding than schools in wealthy suburbs that are mostly white. This trend started in the 60s with white flight to suburbia to ESCAPE from black folks and black rage. It also is tied to the HISTORICAL inequality of education for African Americans versus whites, where African Americans have NEVER been given the same funding and resources for education as whites. What was the reason for this? The so called INTELLIGENCE or lack thereof of the African American population in the U.S. IQ today is nothing more than a repetition of the same racist ideologies that have justified the LACK of resources and funding for black communities in terms of health care, education and infrastructure as white communities. It allows them to CONTINUE to justify the continuation of SUB STANDARD education for African Americans by using IQ as an excuse, as if IQ overcomes the HISTORIC inequities in African American education over the last 400 years. Whites do better in America in terms of education PRECISELY because they have 400 years of social, institutional and economic PREFERENCES designed to SUPPORT and MAINTAIN their advancement. IQ has LITTLE to do with it.
Yes, INTELLIGENCE is an important factor in any human achievement, but that does not remove the other factors which have a large part to play in individual achievement. But that DOES NOT change the historic social, economic and institutional DISCREPANCIES that have been used to retard the progress of African Americans in this country, which has MORE to do with their advancement in terms of education and achievement than anything else. If you are not allowed to go to school JUST because you are black, IQ is not going to change your prospects for achievement. If you ONLY have access to poor schools and come from a IMPOVERISHED social economic status, IQ is NOT going to GUARANTEE or CHANGE the odds of you achieving success.
NONSENSE is NONSENSE and the discussion of IQ is inherently a bunch of nonsense.
There are factors besides IQ that affect social outcomes and success, but none of them are as important or have the same predictive power as IQ (in free, democratic, societies such as America).
What has happened in the inner city is that many, if not the majority of high IQ blacks left in search of better opportunities and places where there is less roadblocks. The majority of those left behind are those that under any other environment are unlikely to be "successful", but they would be more "successful" in a better environment is we define success as a decrease in the likelihood of engaging in crime, teen pregnancies, and so forth.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^^Shaun, you make no sense. How can you honestly take pride in a test score that by your reasoning has little bearing on individual success, educationally? If African immigrants indeed come from some of the most miserly social circumstances in Africa, then why does their educational attainment exceed Asians and Europeans coming from better socio-economic circumstances in Asia and Europe? Cultural bias in these tests aren't the issue, that's an old straw man. What's at issue is the assertion that cultural disparities that exist outside of the test won't effect test takers differently, be it through nutrition, general interest, energy, comfortability, whatever. Or that the test its self measures actual intelligence (including emotional intelligence and survival skills [or "street smarts"]). What also would be of interest is to see if the IQ gaps remain constant, which would lend some support to a biological explanation. Seeing as how Flynn already confirmed a closing of the gap, there IS NO support and thus, you've failed in your burden to prove your case and claims.
Flynn and Dickens cherry-picked the few examples where data supported their arguments of a closing of the gap. This gap has supposedly been closing for 50 years, yet there it still is and will remain for another 50 years and beyond.
IQ does not have little bearing on educational success. It has less success on educational attainment/longevity (that is, how far and long somebody chooses to attend school). Only a high IQ individual can achieve success in higher education but if they choose not to go to college after highschool, they will not obtain a college degree.
Beyond educational success is success in other social areas such as crime rates, teen pregnancies, divorce rates, welfare rates, and so forth. High IQ people suffer from these far less than lower IQ people regardless of what degree they have (or don't have).
I don't have data but I would recokon that Asians and Africans that emigrate to America come from families in the upper crust from their homeland that offer just as much and more than the average European immigrant family. I would think it's easier for an average North American to emigrate to Europe than a 3rd world individual unless the person from the 3rd world has big bucks and a solid educational background.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Educated" guesses are not science. Opinions are not science. Hard data from a variety of sources and repeatable results is science. Data thats not corrupted, biased or skewed in favor of ones confirmations.
You shown you have no approach. You are constantly ignoring my points, making excuses and moving the goal posts.
You are still a waste of time. But I play anyway.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Wrong, little girl. I don't have data that compares the backgrounds of Asian/African/European immigrants. That's the ONLY information I do not have but I'll try to look it up. I can tell you that based on personal experience, many of the Europeans here are very average - and many are actually illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe. Not exactly the cream of the crop.
quote: "Educated" guesses are not science.
You're right, however reasonable hypotheses are a good start to good science.
quote: Opinions are not science. Hard data from a variety of sources and repeatable results is science. Data thats not corrupted, biased or skewed in favor of ones confirmations.
You don't accept the 50 years of data compiled by hundreds of IQ researchers because virtually none of it agrees with your opinion. In your world, all of these researchers are part of some sort of conspiracy which is why all their data aligns so well even across space and time.
quote: You shown you have no approach. You are constantly ignoring my points, making excuses and moving the goal posts.
I've addressed your points. Your only have three points:
1) Flynn Effect (which has platueaud and is regressing in Western Nations and which has not seen Black/White IQ gap make parity. And the evidence is cherry-picked, and is not agreed upon by researchers. Genotypic IQ appears to have remained the same, only Phenotypic IQ appears to have changed. Still, it's not a closed case, although 50/50 enviro-hereditarian researchers like Lynn, Jensen, Rushton concede that environment plays a 50% role. As environment has changed, we can expect some small changes in IQ.
2) African immigrants are overrepresented in higher education than Asian and European immigrants. I look forward to African Nobel Prize winners in the near future. Should I keep my fingers crossed? Nonetheless, I put forth a reasonable hypothesis to explain this. I'll simply find unbiased data to support it in due course.
3) I don't define race biologically. It cannot be defined this way. We use geographic groupings instead. They make sense and have predictive value, and real implications.
Wrong, little girl. I don't have data that compares the backgrounds of Asian/African/European immigrants. That's the ONLY information I do not have but I'll try to look it up. I can tell you that based on personal experience, many of the Europeans here are very average - and many are actually illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe. Not exactly the cream of the crop.
quote: "Educated" guesses are not science.
You're right, however reasonable hypotheses are a good start to good science.
quote: Opinions are not science. Hard data from a variety of sources and repeatable results is science. Data thats not corrupted, biased or skewed in favor of ones confirmations.
You don't accept the 50 years of data compiled by hundreds of IQ researchers because virtually none of it agrees with your opinion. In your world, all of these researchers are part of some sort of conspiracy which is why all their data aligns so well even across space and time.
quote: You shown you have no approach. You are constantly ignoring my points, making excuses and moving the goal posts.
I've addressed your points. Your only have three points:
1) Flynn Effect (which has platueaud and is regressing in Western Nations and which has not seen Black/White IQ gap make parity. And the evidence is cherry-picked, and is not agreed upon by researchers. Genotypic IQ appears to have remained the same, only Phenotypic IQ appears to have changed. Still, it's not a closed case, although 50/50 enviro-hereditarian researchers like Lynn, Jensen, Rushton concede that environment plays a 50% role. As environment has changed, we can expect some small changes in IQ.
2) African immigrants are overrepresented in higher education than Asian and European immigrants. I look forward to African Nobel Prize winners in the near future. Should I keep my fingers crossed? Nonetheless, I put forth a reasonable hypothesis to explain this. I'll simply find unbiased data to support it in due course.
3) I don't define race biologically. It cannot be defined this way. We use geographic groupings instead. They make sense and have predictive value, and real implications.
quote: You are still a waste of time. But I play anyway.
Do as you see fit, little girl.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^^Shaun, you make no sense. How can you honestly take pride in a test score that by your reasoning has little bearing on individual success, educationally? If African immigrants indeed come from some of the most miserly social circumstances in Africa, then why does their educational attainment exceed Asians and Europeans coming from better socio-economic circumstances in Asia and Europe? Cultural bias in these tests aren't the issue, that's an old straw man. What's at issue is the assertion that cultural disparities that exist outside of the test won't effect test takers differently, be it through nutrition, general interest, energy, comfortability, whatever. Or that the test its self measures actual intelligence (including emotional intelligence and survival skills [or "street smarts"]). What also would be of interest is to see if the IQ gaps remain constant, which would lend some support to a biological explanation. Seeing as how Flynn already confirmed a closing of the gap, there IS NO support and thus, you've failed in your burden to prove your case and claims.
Flynn and Dickens cherry-picked the few examples where data supported their arguments of a closing of the gap. This gap has supposedly been closing for 50 years, yet there it still is and will remain for another 50 years and beyond.
IQ does not have little bearing on educational success. It has less success on educational attainment/longevity (that is, how far and long somebody chooses to attend school). Only a high IQ individual can achieve success in higher education but if they choose not to go to college after highschool, they will not obtain a college degree.
Beyond educational success is success in other social areas such as crime rates, teen pregnancies, divorce rates, welfare rates, and so forth. High IQ people suffer from these far less than lower IQ people regardless of what degree they have (or don't have).
I don't have data but I would recokon that Asians and Africans that emigrate to America come from families in the upper crust from their homeland that offer just as much and more than the average European immigrant family. I would think it's easier for an average North American to emigrate to Europe than a 3rd world individual unless the person from the 3rd world has big bucks and a solid educational background.
The point you are missing here is that socio economic factors play a bigger role than IQ in determining the success rate of various individuals. The fact that America has been pushing preferences and priority to white achievement over the last 400 years makes it obvious that more whites, both with higher IQs AND lower IQs will be able to go to college, get degrees AND have success in the wider society. Yes, THEORETICALLY all individual achievement could be predicted on IQ, but America and the world IS NOT a level playing field and there are too many other socio economic factors that play a part in individual achievement to place all determination solely on IQ. Ambition, greed, desire and ethics ALSO play a role in success, depending on how you measure it.
IQ is a red herring that is used to OBSCURE and OVERSIMPLIFY the reality of socio economic factors that ARE the determinant of individual and group success rates, not theoretical numbers on a chart.
And, the other KEY here is NOT just the fact that those with the HIGHEST IQ will be able to achieve more than others, but what happens to the MAJORITY of those who are somewhere in between? Success is not simply about going to college, getting a degree and becoming super smart because of your brains. In fact, for most of human history, people have succeeded simply by the use of their hands and hard work. Intelligence plays a role, but it is not necessarily the kind of intelligence that passes IQ tests. There are many more things that go into defining success than being someone who scores high on a IQ test. There is success at ones profession, success in social interaction, success in family life, success in spiritual development and overall success in living. Everyone does not have the same definitions of success in these areas and this is what determines how people will approach these various areas of life. Trying to simplify everything into a score on a IQ chart is simply the excuse of a few elites who have BENEFITTED from years of white preference, trying to base their achievements on everything BUT their own savage barbarism and INHUMANITY towards others.
Academic success in America is based much more on going to the RIGHT schools, taking the RIGHT courses and having the RIGHT amount of preparatory college entrance training courses. It is not simply about IQ. Having all of these factors in your favor along with socio economic status, have MUCH MORE of an impact on the likelihood for one's success than simple IQ. The rest is determined by individual hard work and desire to succeed, which is the MOST important factor no matter what IQ you possess, followed by the socio economic environment that either supports or HINDERS your efforts to achieve it.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
After the 'test', there was along string of questions asking me to accept some deal, after denying which a hundred times, to get past all the advertisement I don't even know what I pressed, was trying to perform some cheap trick to where I can automatically fill in 'no' for all the options.
The above pics and links were then given with my score and were to advertise the site.
Any who ...
Why dontcha try one of the questions on for size?
I copied an interesting image from the test.
How many four-sided figures are in the below image:
If you don't get it (the question), you're mentally inhibited and retarded (btw I got the question, and will try and remember the answer).
Oh yeah, I just remembered it was multiple choice - your answer choices are:
10, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28
Ok, now I know I won't forget the answer .
Btw, this
quote: mentally inhibited
was not a serious remark.
Hold on just a second Icarus Jeeves. I know damn well my Intelligence is not this high so this only proves that IQ test are a bunch of bullshit and a form of Tautology.
What I did notice is the style of questions asked were familiar to me because I grew up in a European school system showing that once again IQ's are indicative of an *exposure* to certain knowledge as well as being educated and having experience with test taking skills *in a European system*.
Why are you taking sshaun the trailer park t.v dinner eating dude seriously Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: IMG]http://www.free-iqtest.net/images/badges2/l145.gif[/IMG]
Hold on just a second Icarus Jeeves. I know damn well my Intelligence is not this high so this only proves that IQ test are a bunch of bullshit and a form of Tautology. [/QB]
Perhaps it means that this particular online "IQ test" is not a true IQ test. There are a ton of so called IQ tests online that are bunk, that are not g-loaded, that are there to boost taker's self esteem. Go to your local university and take a genuine IQ test to see how you really measure up.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, I qualify for membership in the High IQ Society based on my score but I decided to not pay that useless fee to join. Mine is 127. Though I will always contend that "IQ" is overrated and "race" is obsolete. I take no pride in such man-made tests, even if I've learned somehow to master them.
quote:Flynn and Dickens cherry-picked the few examples where data supported their arguments of a closing of the gap.
Convenient, but not a rebuttal. Flynn and Dickens' methodology was sound and their samples were extensive, spanning some 30 years from four tests which examine the breadth of cognitive ability. The fact of the matter eludes no one, that you simply have no answers.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jensen and Rushton submitted a rebuttal which Flynn has not responded to, to my knowledge.
50 years ago the story was identical. It'll be the same 50 - 1000 years from now. Why? Genetics. All the while, European history/society will shoulder ALL the blame.
Whether or not you take pride in your IQ score has no bearing on anything. It's an abstract score that measures as accurately as we know how, to measure the ability for people to think abstractly. I don't take pride in my own or anybody elses raw IQ score. But when I walk down a major city street and see skyscrapers towering over me from every direction, and cars passing me by, I marvel and take pride in human ingenuity. All of this comes about as a result of high IQ individuals.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Jensen and Rushton submitted a rebuttal which Flynn has not responded to, to my knowledge.
To my knowledge, no such "rebuttal" exists. Though them moving the goal post is irrelevant. This was addressed by Flynn, Dickens who noted g gains of over 5 points over the past 30 years in response to Jenson's assertion that black/white disparities were largest on tests that correlate more highly with g. g can't be manipulated according to Murray. This is even contradicted since different factors can affect social performance and thus social performance can be manipulated. Social performance supposedly correlates with g.
quote:This paper examines the argument presented in The Bell Curve. A central argument is that one factor--g--accounts for correlation across test scores and performance in society. Another central argument is that g cannot be manipulated. These arguments are combined to claim that social policies designed to improve social performance cannot be effective. A reanalysis of the evidence contradicts this story. The factors that explain wages receive different weights than the factors that explain test scores. More than g is required to explain either. Other factors besides g contribute to social performance and they can be manipulated.
- James J. Heckman. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 103, No. 5 (Oct., 1995), pp. 1091-1120
quote:
50 years ago the story was identical. It'll be the same 50 - 1000 years from now. Why? Genetics. All the while, European history/society will shoulder ALL the blame.
No, 50 years go America was torn by racialist propaganda and systematic discrimination. Today:
DO African immigrants make the smartest Americans? If you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up. - Click Here
Also see: "African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree", The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31
quote:Whether or not you take pride in your IQ score has no bearing on anything. It's an abstract score that measures as accurately as we know how, to measure the ability for people to think abstractly. I don't take pride in my own or anybody elses raw IQ score. But when I walk down a major city street and see skyscrapers towering over me from every direction, and cars passing me by, I marvel and take pride in human ingenuity. All of this comes about as a result of high IQ individuals.
You seem to be bogged down in a superficial world of paper and pencil tests that don't capture the broad spectrum of human cognition. You ignore the conclusions of the American Psychological Association's special panel. "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns," in response to the Bell Curve.
* Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.
* Intelligence-test scores . . . account for about a quarter of the variance [in school achievement]. They are somewhat lower for job performance, and very low for negatively valued outcomes such as criminality.
* Schooling itself changes mental abilities, including those abilities measured on psychometric tests. This is obvious for tests like the SAT, . . . but it is almost equally true of intelligence tests themselves.
* It is clear . . . that . . . differences [in IQ scores among racial groups]--whatever their origin--are well within the range of effect sizes that can be produced by environmental factors.
There seems to be little evidence that IQ scores predict "racial" progress more than it does measure some degree of cognitive ability, and the disparity in that ability seems to shift as environmental circumstances change. Jenson's quackery has seen a long list of rebuttals from various scientists in the field discrediting the premise .
quote: JACK KAPLAN:
The argument that IQ tests are valid measures of intelligence rests ultimately on the mathematically complex subject of statistical factor analysis, and therefore cannot be fully understood by people who lack technical training. But common sense should convince any reasonable person that something is fishy.
A typical intelligence test asks a variety of questions, many of which are of the type one learns to answer in school. For example, if you take a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale test, probably the leading IQ test currently in use, you will be asked to define words; to answer factual and comprehension questions; and to do simple arithmetic problems.
An old version of the test, no longer in use, includes the following questions: what is the meaning of the word "reluctant"?; name three kinds of blood vessels; why does the state require people to get a license before they get married?; a coat that normally sells for $600 is reduced by 15 percent during a sale---what is the price of the coat?
Maybe I am missing something, but it seems perfectly plain to me that the likelihood of answering such questions correctly is heavily affected by, among other things, the quality and quantity of the education one receives as well as by one's intelligence.
In fact, it seems obvious to me that how well a person does on an IQ test depends on a variety of factors besides intelligence: education, reading habits, experience with and attitudes toward taking tests, upbringing, and mental and physical health, to name a few.
Intelligence is difficult to define precisely, but we can all agree that it refers to intellectual ability as opposed to intellectual achievement. No one, so far as I know, thinks that physical ability can be reliably measured by having people tested on a variety of physical skills--running, jumping, swimming, doing push-ups, etc.--and then doing a factor analysis of the results. Why should intellectual ability be any different?
Count me among those who regard the study of intelligence as more pseudo-science than science.
Department of Mathematics Quinnipiac College Hamden, Connecticut
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: To my knowledge, no such "rebuttal" exists. Though them moving the goal post is irrelevant. This was addressed by Flynn, Dickens who noted g gains of over 5 points over the past 30 years in response to Jenson's assertion that black/white disparities were largest on tests that correlate more highly with g. g can't be manipulated according to Murray. This is even contradicted since different factors can affect social performance and thus social performance can be manipulated. Social performance supposedly correlates with g.
quote:This paper examines the argument presented in The Bell Curve. A central argument is that one factor--g--accounts for correlation across test scores and performance in society. Another central argument is that g cannot be manipulated. These arguments are combined to claim that social policies designed to improve social performance cannot be effective. A reanalysis of the evidence contradicts this story. The factors that explain wages receive different weights than the factors that explain test scores. More than g is required to explain either. Other factors besides g contribute to social performance and they can be manipulated.
Yes, other factors influence social outcomes, however IQ is the strongest and best predictor of all those factors in free societies. The fact that A, B, and C all influence social outcomes doesn't change the fact that A is a requisite for certain outcomes. In other words, the high IQ hoodlum might become a very successful gangster and could very well have been a superb legit business man in a different environment. But his low IQ minions could never be successful in either setting.
quote:
No, 50 years go America was torn by racialist propaganda and systematic discrimination.
So why has nothing changed since America has changed so much in those 50 years? The article is referring to Black Americans, not pre-selected African immigrants and bi-racial children. The article you link to below even suggests that it may very well be due to Affirmative Action policies that we see African immigrants in the proportions of higher education that we do.
quote: Today:
DO African immigrants make the smartest Americans? If you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up. - Click Here
Also see: "African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree", The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31
See above.
quote:You seem to be bogged down in a superficial world of paper and pencil tests that don't capture the broad spectrum of human cognition. You ignore the conclusions of the American Psychological Association's special panel. "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns," in response to the Bell Curve.
* Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.
* Intelligence-test scores . . . account for about a quarter of the variance [in school achievement]. They are somewhat lower for job performance, and very low for negatively valued outcomes such as criminality.
* Schooling itself changes mental abilities, including those abilities measured on psychometric tests. This is obvious for tests like the SAT, . . . but it is almost equally true of intelligence tests themselves.
* It is clear . . . that . . . differences [in IQ scores among racial groups]--whatever their origin--are well within the range of effect sizes that can be produced by environmental factors.
This info is accounted for by adoption studies and cross-cultural studies which reap the same consistent results time after time with respect to racial groups. Yes, schooling presumably has an affect on school performance and intellectual development. This is strong evidence that differences in groups exist genetically considering that high IQ parents raising a Black child in a home with the best nutrition, and best schools, best opportunity, will invariably end up with a kid with relatively meager IQ.
quote: There seems to be little evidence that IQ scores predict "racial" progress more than it does measure some degree of cognitive ability, and the disparity in that ability seems to shift as environmental circumstances change. Jenson's quackery has seen a long list of rebuttals from various scientists in the field discrediting the premise .
False. Jensen's work is held in high regard and is not considered quackery by those in the field of intelligence.
The argument that IQ tests are valid measures of intelligence rests ultimately on the mathematically complex subject of statistical factor analysis, and therefore cannot be fully understood by people who lack technical training. But common sense should convince any reasonable person that something is fishy.
A typical intelligence test asks a variety of questions, many of which are of the type one learns to answer in school. For example, if you take a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale test, probably the leading IQ test currently in use, you will be asked to define words; to answer factual and comprehension questions; and to do simple arithmetic problems.
An old version of the test, no longer in use, includes the following questions: what is the meaning of the word "reluctant"?; name three kinds of blood vessels; why does the state require people to get a license before they get married?; a coat that normally sells for $600 is reduced by 15 percent during a sale---what is the price of the coat?
Maybe I am missing something, but it seems perfectly plain to me that the likelihood of answering such questions correctly is heavily affected by, among other things, the quality and quantity of the education one receives as well as by one's intelligence.
In fact, it seems obvious to me that how well a person does on an IQ test depends on a variety of factors besides intelligence: education, reading habits, experience with and attitudes toward taking tests, upbringing, and mental and physical health, to name a few.
Intelligence is difficult to define precisely, but we can all agree that it refers to intellectual ability as opposed to intellectual achievement. No one, so far as I know, thinks that physical ability can be reliably measured by having people tested on a variety of physical skills--running, jumping, swimming, doing push-ups, etc.--and then doing a factor analysis of the results. Why should intellectual ability be any different?
Count me among those who regard the study of intelligence as more pseudo-science than science.
Department of Mathematics Quinnipiac College Hamden, Connecticut
Rebuttal to Kaplan:
quote: JACK KAPLAN argues that intelligence tests do not measure intelligence because individuals with more or better education will usually do better at answering the questions. (The same argument is made by Mr. Fischer and his colleagues with reference to the particular test used in Herrnstein and Murray's analyses.) But this assumes, ironically enough, that intelligence is a trait that cannot be affected by education. If we follow Mr. Kaplan's logic to its conclu -sion, we shall soon be holding that intel ligence must be determined completely by genetic and prenatal factors--something it is safe to presume he does not believe.
Psychometric conceptions of intelligence commonly give roles to both "fluid" intelligence, loosely corresponding to the ability to process information in novel ways, and "crystallized" intelligence, or the stored knowledge and methods that assist in problem-solving. Both are associated with general intelligence, but they influence one another as well, and develop differently across an individual's life span. Perhaps Mr. Kaplan considers only fluid intelligence to be "true" intelligence, but it is not possible to separate "intellectual ability" completely from "intellectual achievement." Even if we considered only measures of fluid intelligence as predictors of job performance and other outcomes, the results would probably not differ greatly, since fluid intelligence is the strongest component of general intelligence.
quote: I have also been bothered by the reluctance of many social scientists and others to accept the idea--or in fact the scientific finding--that variations in people's mental abilities may at least be partly founded on genetics. I find it odd that while most people acknowledge the partially genetic basis for many physical diseases and psychological disorders, they regard it as distasteful and unacceptable to think about cognitive ability in terms of genes. We can regret that genes affect many aspects of our lives, but it is more rational to accept this fact and think about ways of helping people (children and adults) to overcome the limitations that may be imposed on them by adverse genes.
- JOHN B. CARROLL
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Check, and ... [mate?]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic