quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: And the point being? It's not like Europe created it's own indigenous civilizations with no outside hand in it (and don't come with rome or greece, these were not even real europeans). People influence each other you know, i see nothing wierd or wrong with that. This muscle flexing is so typical american, "we were first", "you got civilized", "we were greatest", "you were last" aargh
His point is that it was unlikely for civilizatin to arise in Africa even though the environment there was ideal: fertile soil and ideal climate; and access to large animals.
How is the climate in africa more friendly than europe, besides Scandinavia and siberia the climate in europe is actually quite mild and relatively pleasent, (not as perfect as in the medditteranian region but quite OK). In Britian, France and Germany the weather is actually comfortable during majority of the months in a year. This is lame excuse. The japanese and the chinese have similar climate as central and northern Europe but they were able to create Indigenous societies that were highly sophisticated, He can't blame the climate, and argue africa had better climate with better conditions than europe, most of Africa has unbarable heat.
quote:I don't know what you mean that the Greeks and Romans weren't real Europeans.
Greeks and Romans were culturally and mentaly more north african and levantine than they ever were central or northern european, just look up the origin of early Roman emperors, when they didn't come from Rome then they came from either north Africa(berbers) or Syria/lebanon. With this knowledge in hand how could anyone call these societies european, they certainly didn't identify as such.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
type in a search term and see what photos get returned.
I did tool and dance. The best thing is that each photo has a text description that goes along with the search.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Sundiata: sshaun002, stop desperately holding on to nonsense, trying to pass it off under the guise of "accepted science". I've already shown you a history mapping the course of this problematic sub-field as it is drenched in pre-conceived assumptions and misappropriation of data. Again, contrary to what you imply here, IQ has NEVER been found to have any genetic basis and after years of rigorous testing and examination, the consensus pretty much affirms what I've stated.
Did you read the text? I've read the entire article before. But from your link:
"The findings of the task force state that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual (but not necessarily population) differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual (again, not necessarily population) differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.
They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. They agree that there are no significant differences between the average IQ scores of males and females. The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction. While they admit there is no empirical evidence supporting it, the APA task force suggests that explanations based on social status and cultural differences may be possible. Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. "
They state that IQ is predictive of school and occupational achievement and that diet does not appear to have any role in IQ. They state that IQ has both environmental and genetic components. They state that there is a large gap in black and white IQ. They conclude by saying that the "little" evidence that points to genetics fails to support a genetic hypothesis for this difference. Does anybody else read between the lines of this obvious attempt at obfuscation?
quote: It is also so painfully obvious that your insistence to promote this seeming "genetic variation" is clouded by biased wishful thinking. I know this because I'd just given you a PDF study preformed by Leonard Lieberman and contributed to by a plethora of other scientists in direct denunciation and refutation of the very race loons that you cite here.
That paper if from 2001 and is simply obfuscation and denial of reality. The "loons" that I cite merely argue a 50/50 contribution of IQ from environment and genetics. Those that you cite argue for virtually a wholly environmental explanation. The data does not support this. Like I said, the science has gone in one direction and the papers I posted from 2005 have yet to be rebutted.
quote: Again, I show you a paper entitled: "How Caucasoids got such big crania and why they shrank : From Morton to Rushton"( Click Here Again!) , and as a supposed rebuttal, you show me a paper by Philippe Rushton himself?! Him and Jensen are virtually the only two "science" quacks holding steadfast to their demonstrably bogus hypotheses, yet their Eurocentric followers hold them dear in that they openly reinforce racial superiority, no matter how many times they've been refuted by mainstream academics, as can be seen here as well (click that).
Jensen and Rushton did not create IQ tests. They're but two people in a long line of people who study individual and group differences. Jensen is a leader in his field and roundly recognized as such by his colleagues. He's a giant in psychology and psychometrics. Read "Bias in mental testing" and the "G Factor" by Jensen. These are two tomes dedicated to answering many of your questions.
The lieberman paper you provide is throw-away obfuscation.
The only standouts are Flynn and some recent studies done by Fagan which point to some potential biases in knowledge based verbal questions on IQ tests.
quote: A lot of their work, ironically have shown opposite conclusions. One minor example is that African Americans seem to possess more neurons (thought to be indicative of mental capabilities) than the average white American. Rushton was caught with his hand in the cookie jar plenty of times, but if this man is your idol, then nothing I show you would probably lead you on the objective path.
I don't like Rushton. I believe he is a racist and that's the ideology that guides his research. However, I seperate what I believe about the man and the research. The research stands on its own as much as I wish it didn't.
quote: Also, some of the main points that I referred to as "fringe" also is the completely absurd notion that Egyptians descent from southeast Asians, or any non-African people for that matter. Funny how when even modern Egyptologists debunk such hyperdiffusionist ideas ( see here), people in need of comfort start resorting to astrophysicists as authorities for biohistory and population genetics. How rich.. [/QB]
[/QUOTE]
Hart's book is essentially a work of history and he's has more than enough credentials to write history. What is history but an aggreggate of primary and secondary sources synthesized into a story that one tries to make as accurate as possible to describe the past?
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
PLEASE do me a favor and READ Hart's book. Don't simply reject it outright, EVEN if you think it is tripe. One doesn't have to agree with everything or even most of something to take it on. You will learn interesting things and hypotheses that he puts forward.
quote:I don't know if the mongols of today are the same as those in the past. I know a lot of them were absorbed into the populations that they conquered.
What does that have to do with "Mongolia" itself? I was'nt talking about the "conquered" populations they absorbed into, we are referring to the homeland to the group in question. Why wouldn't *they* be the same today as they were only 700 years ago?
quote:This data does exist. Irish IQ does differ from Swede which does differ from other European countries. However, all of the averages are close and around 100. Similarly African IQs are around similar values.
Show the data you are referring to. And also somehow prove that The IQ disparity between Africa and Europe (obviously not an even comparison) is *not* due to obvious socio-economic and nutritional differences. And we are not even going into the other data in regards to African educational acheivement abroad.
quote:Hart cites the work of geneticist giant Cavalli-Sforza which shows that people do group into the racial categories established long ago and which we group just by using our eyes. Asians, Africans, Europeans.
And of the more recent data which your completely ignored:
quote:
Previous studies have reported that about 85% of human diversity at Short Tandem Repeat (STR) and Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) autosomal loci is due to differences between individuals of the same population, whereas differences among continental groups account for only 10% of the overall genetic variance.[B] These findings conflict with popular notions of distinct and relatively homogeneous human races, and may also call into question the apparent usefulness of ethnic classification in, for example, medical diagnostics. Here, we present new data on 21 Alu insertions in 32 populations. We analyze these data along with three other large, globally dispersed data sets consisting of apparently neutral biallelic nuclear markers, as well as with a -globin data set possibly subject to selection. We confirm the previous results for the autosomal data, and find a higher diversity among continents for Y-chromosome loci. We also extend the analyses to address two questions: (1) whether differences between continental groups, although small, are nevertheless large enough to confidently assign individuals to their continent on the basis of their genotypes; (2) whether the observed genotypes naturally cluster into continental or population groups when the sample source location is ignored. Using a range of statistical methods, we show that classification errors are at best around 30% for autosomal biallelic polymorphisms and 27% for the Y chromosome. Two data sets suggest the existence of three and four major groups of genotypes worldwide, respectively, and the two groupings are inconsistent. [B]These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.
Chiara Romualdi, David Balding, Ivane S. Nasidze, Gregory Risch, Myles Robichaux, Stephen T. Sherry, Mark Stoneking, Mark A. Batzer, Guido Barbujani 2002 Genome Research v12, no4 p602-612
oh my.
-------------------- Dont be evil - Google Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: How is the climate in africa more friendly than europe, besides Scandinavia and siberia the climate in europe is actually quite mild and relatively pleasent, (not as perfect as in the medditteranian region but quite OK). In Britian, France and Germany the weather is actually comfortable during majority of the months in a year. This is lame excuse. The japanese and the chinese have similar climate as central and northern Europe but they were able to create Indigenous societies that were highly sophisticated, He can't blame the climate, and argue africa had better climate with better conditions than europe, most of Africa has unbarable heat.
Other environmental factors: lack of large wild animals, lack of cereal crops in order to initiate agriculture. Like I said, read the book. It's very interesting. It takes into account environment AND intelligence which is why it is so compelling. I'm not here to repeat verbatim what is in the book. It's a very short read. Haev a look.
quote:Greeks and Romans were culturally and mentaly more north african and levantine than they ever were central or northern european, just look up the origin of early Roman emperors, when they didn't come from Rome then they came from either north Africa(berbers) or Syria/lebanon. With this knowledge in hand how could anyone call these societies european, they certainly didn't identify as such.
They were not culturally and mentally more like North Africans than Northern Europeans. They were more like Northern Europeans. The difference is that civilization was brought to them first. They later brought it to Northern Europe.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You will learn interesting things and hypotheses that he puts forward.
Thats the problem. It remains a "hypothesis" the next step after *conjecture*, furthermore, if nearly all accepted scientific studies are pointing *away* from geographically defined super-groups or "races" (asians, african, europeans) Why is he advocating outdated concepts and using misguided data to support it?
-------------------- Dont be evil - Google Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: I don't know if the mongols of today are the same as those in the past. I know a lot of them were absorbed into the populations that they conquered.
What does that have to do with "Mongolia" itself? I was'nt talking about the "conquered" populations they absorbed into, we are referring to the homeland to the group in question. Why wouldn't *they* be the same today as they were only 700 years ago?[/QUOTE]
I can't answer this question as I'm not familiar enough and it's not addressed in the book. However, given the connections made throughout the book, I'd venture to say he would have a reasonable explanation for this.
quote:Show the data you are referring to. And also somehow prove that The IQ disparity between Africa and Europe (obviously not an even comparison) is *not* due to obvious socio-economic and nutritional differences. And we are not even going into the other data in regards to African educational acheivement abroad.
The majority of IQ data has been compiled in North America and throughout Europe. This is no secret. Populations in Europe vary in average IQ. Ireland is 93, Germany has among the highest with 100 or slightly over.
Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000.
All explanations of raising IQ to make black and white IQ the same have been exhausted. Indeed, nobody has been able to raise IQ substantially at all for any group. Any gains in IQ during childhood from extreme ideal teaching conditions wears off as one ages because g exterts itself more as one gets older.
The the g Factor. Nobody has yet to sufficiently dispute it or its predictive value.
quote: Previous studies have reported that about 85% of human diversity at Short Tandem Repeat (STR) and Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) autosomal loci is due to differences between individuals of the same population, whereas differences among continental groups account for only 10% of the overall genetic variance.[B] These findings conflict with popular notions of distinct and relatively homogeneous human races, and may also call into question the apparent usefulness of ethnic classification in, for example, medical diagnostics. Here, we present new data on 21 Alu insertions in 32 populations. We analyze these data along with three other large, globally dispersed data sets consisting of apparently neutral biallelic nuclear markers, as well as with a -globin data set possibly subject to selection. We confirm the previous results for the autosomal data, and find a higher diversity among continents for Y-chromosome loci. We also extend the analyses to address two questions: (1) whether differences between continental groups, although small, are nevertheless large enough to confidently assign individuals to their continent on the basis of their genotypes; (2) whether the observed genotypes naturally cluster into continental or population groups when the sample source location is ignored. Using a range of statistical methods, we show that classification errors are at best around 30% for autosomal biallelic polymorphisms and 27% for the Y chromosome. Two data sets suggest the existence of three and four major groups of genotypes worldwide, respectively, and the two groupings are inconsistent. [B]These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.
Chiara Romualdi, David Balding, Ivane S. Nasidze, Gregory Risch, Myles Robichaux, Stephen T. Sherry, Mark Stoneking, Mark A. Batzer, Guido Barbujani 2002 Genome Research v12, no4 p602-612 oh my. [/QB] [/QUOTE]
This means very little. It confirms that humans cluster into the major races as historically defined: Asian, European, African. Nobody has argued that these populations are so distinct from another. There is overlap due to gene flow. That doesn't preclude the reality that there are overall different groups. Nobody is going to mistaken a Nigerian from a Japanese, from a Swede.
"among continental groups account for only 10% of the overall genetic variance"
We're supposedly less than 1% different genetically from chimps. Little means a lot. Hart addresses such questions in his book. Once again, I urge you to read it. Ignoring it will do no good.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You will learn interesting things and hypotheses that he puts forward.
Thats the problem. It remains a "hypothesis" the next step after *conjecture*, furthermore, if nearly all accepted scientific studies are pointing *away* from geographically defined super-groups or "races" (asians, african, europeans) Why is he advocating outdated concepts and using misguided data to support it?
Because they're not outdated. They're only outdated in mainstream circles, not in the sciences. Call it what you want - clines, population groups, clusters, breeds, subspecies. They're all synonyms for race.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I call it a troll, trying to pretend that he didn't see the following post, because he has no answers...
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I'll play along with this troll-bait thread for one post.
White American IQ score = 100 Jewish American IQ score = 114
Does Hart explain the IQ gap between Hybrid Jews and Aryan Whites?
Does he explain why Hybrid European Jews who have more African ancestry than whites also have higher IQ's and greater intellectual acheivement, in spite of the racism they face in Europe?
Does he believe whites are genetically inferior to Jews?
Is Jewish intellectual acheivement the result of 'hybrid vigour'? IE - the fact that Jews are a mixture of European Asian and African, unlike low IQ white Europeans who are the product of recessive inbreeding?
Does Hart elaborate on the need for European whites to practise discrimination against Hybrid Jews in order to counter-balance the natural intellectual superiority of Jew Hybrids, and compensate for white racial inferiority?
If that is not the reason for white anti-semitism, what then in Hart's view...is?
quote: Originally posted by rasol: ^ I'll play along with this troll-bait thread for one post.
White American IQ score = 100 Jewish American IQ score = 114
Does Hart explain the IQ gap between Hybrid Jews and Aryan Whites?
He has an entire chapter dedicated to "The Jews" I'm only 2/3 into the book and haven't gotten there yet. I'm sure he addresses this. He holds back nothing in his book.
quote: Does he explain why Hybrid European Jews who have more African ancestry than whites also have higher IQ's and greater intellectual acheivement, in spite of the racism they face in Europe?
I'm not aware of this nor if it is addressed in the book. What's your source?
With regard to their intellectual achievements in spite of racism, he would say it's because they're genetically more intelligent. That's the crux of his entire book. So regardless of the oppression they received, they were able to outsmart and accomplish.
quote: Does he believe whites are genetically inferior to Jews?
I'm not there in the book yet, but I don't doubt that he will argue for circumstances that led to higher Jewish intelligence over Europeans. The only discussion thus far about Jews is their LACK of contribution to anything while in the Middle East with the exception of their religion.
quote: Is Jewish intellectual acheivement the result of 'hybrid vigour'? IE - the fact that Jews are a mixture of European Asian and African, unlike low IQ white Europeans who are the product of recessive inbreeding?
I don't know. Can you provide a source for this? I'm going to assume that Jews that have higher IQ are not hybrids but a small distinct group that evolved under unique pressures.
quote: Does Hart elaborate on the need for European whites to practise discrimination against Hybrid Jews in order to counter-balance the natural intellectual superiority of Jew Hybrids, and compensate for white racial inferiority?
I'm not sure. He may. This is nothing new though as we all know. Get the book entitled The Chosen, which is an indictement on the practices of Harvard, Yale, and other universities that tried to keep Jews out. They couldn't because no matter what, Jews can always out-compete Whites disportionately. The reason is genetics.
quote: If that is not the reason for white anti-semitism, what then in Hart's view...is?
The book may touch on this topic but that's really not central to his thesis. I'm sure he would agree that it plays a role in anti-semitism. "At a 2006 conference, Hart had a public confrontation with David Duke, the former Gran Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and one-time Louisiana politician, over Duke's anti-Semitic remarks." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_H._HartPosts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Funny how Shaun's loud mouth is easily reduced to deafening silence.
'smatter Shaun -
Are you waiting for some other poster to give you something easier to 'troll off' on (??)
Are the questions too hard?
Is your IQ not high enough to answer them?
Then, what's taking so long?
ps - ES posters shold know better than to allow this fool to jerk you around.
Sorry, I had missed your post earlier. That's why I did not respond sooner. Also, I'm busy with other things. Please see my responses above.
Please, I'm not trying to be a troll or combatative. I don't see why you're so unwilling to investigate the book itself. Attack that, not me. If you read it and conclude that it's bunk, fine. If you read it and it reveals details you may not have considered before, we're all the better for it.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by kenndo: arabs wrote that the european were the dumbest folks they knew in the middle ages.certain greeks and romans wrotes than the africans were the smartest folks they knew.why is that different today?because it is not.now i am not saying that modern europeans are dumb like arabs writers said in the past about europeans but africans are highly intelligent just like anyone else today.let's give this scholar hart a iq test and see if you could past in africa.i know there are some african scholars who could put a test together for him and let's see how fars he goes in a african culture today.he will not get far,trust me.
I would take you up on that bet because g is highly correlated. That is, if you're exceptional at math, then you most likely have higher verbal intelligence, spacial intelligence and so forth.
Considering that Hart has degrees from Princeton in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science, I have very little doubt that he'd perform well on an IQ test.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Then, what is the explanation?
You read thesis, you're -sure- he answers the question, but -you don't have the answer?
Why not?
You're not making any sense.
Read his chapter on The Jews. I provided the link for you. I've skimmed the section and he talks about how Jewish intelligence evolved but am not going to read it fully before reading the rest of the book sequently.
posted
sshaun002, You seem to be naively and simplemindedly dazzled by the rants of some professional student name Hart. And who cares whether he is a Jew or Gentile--or fish or fowl.
You chatter on excitedly about Hart's inane musings. This site has covered all the handed down ideas that gets you so excited about Hart.
It's just tedious to have to go over what you could so easily find by going to the archives.
This thing about IQ is absurd. Consider the reported IQs of the follwing countries. What is your take?
Israel 94 Iran(Ancient Persia) 83 Iraq(Ancient Mesopotamia) 87 Greece(Ancient Greece) 92 India (Ancient Harrapan) 81 Pakistan(close to Ancient Harrapan) 81 Saudi Arabia(Origins of Islam) 83 Qatar 78 Syria (Ancient Syria) 87 Spain(Lynn, 1978) 87 Burma 86 Indonesia 89 Nepal 78 Turkey(Ottoman Empire) 90
African scores--Lynn 1978, tests done some 30-45 years ago
Tanzania 88 Uganda 88 South African Zulu children 81, Zulu adults 75, South Africa, Natal(blacks) 87
African American scores
Until the 1970s--85 From 1972(post Civil Rights era)--2002---91(see Flynn and Dickens 2006)
American born children of European migrants to the U.S
The Neanderthals experienced and adapted to the frigid weather of Eurasia for at last 300,000 years yet they were not more technologically advanced than the tropically adapated Africa origined humans.
The tropical-adapted humans survived while the Nenaderthals eventually became extinct.
Those Native Americans that peopled the Americas by way of the Siberian landbridge spent several thousands years in the frigid Eurasian environment yet their IQs are quite low:
The point of course is that IQ is a bogus means of determining the natural cognitive abilities of humans especially transculturally.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read the first two paragraphs of the section about The Jews. He goes headfirst into exploring Jewish high intelligence because intelligence is the major theme of his book. He's thorough, so except reasonable explanations.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
If you can't answer elementary questions regarding your references, then why would anyone waste time clicking on and reading your links?
quote:rasol: Does he explain why Hybrid European Jews who have more African ancestry than whites also have higher IQ's and greater intellectual acheivement, in spite of the racism they face in Europe?
quote:Shaun: I'm not aware of this nor if it is addressed in the book.
translation: You have no answer, and neither does he.
quote:Shaun: What's your source?
For African ancestry in Jews - Per geneticist Cruciani and Underhill, Jews of Europe and the Middle East show up to 20% African paternal ancestry, and 10% or more African maternal ancestry?
For Jewish IQ superiority over whites?
There are many sources, but for irony, try the infamous Charles Murray of the Bell Curve, who states that Jewish score 15% higher than whites on standard tests - which he says is why they out-acheive white Americans.
He states flat out that Jews are smarter than whites.
Is this also your position?
If so, what in your estimation is the cause of white mental inferiority?
quote:Shaun: He's very thurough.
Then why can't you answer our questions? In your last two posts - you've claimed,
- this was not addressed
- that you are *not aware* of it
- and that it was addressed and that Hart was thurough in addressing it.
Of course your claims are contradictory, but they also ring hollow because you never actually answer the question.
Again: How come "racially-hybrid" Afro-European Jews, have higher IQ's than whites?Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: This thing about IQ is absurd. Consider the reported IQs of the follwing countries. What is your take?
Israel 94 Iran(Ancient Persia) 83 Iraq(Ancient Mesopotamia) 87 Greece(Ancient Greece) 92 India (Ancient Harrapan) 81 Pakistan(close to Ancient Harrapan) 81 Saudi Arabia(Origins of Islam) 83 Qatar 78 Syria (Ancient Syria) 87 Spain(Lynn, 1978) 87 Burma 86 Indonesia 89 Nepal 78 Turkey(Ottoman Empire) 90
This is described in Hart's book.
The average IQ of the Middle East is higher than that in Africa but lower than in Europe, thus civilization started there. The environmental factors were access to animals and cereal crops for agriculture. Agriculture allows populations to flourish due to food surplus. This leads to expansion and time for innovation.
quote: African scores--Lynn 1978, tests done some 30-45 years ago
Tanzania 88 Uganda 88 South African Zulu children 81, Zulu adults 75, South Africa, Natal(blacks) 87
Interesting. I'm not aware of these figures - only the ones provided in the book which cite the same author - Lynn. I have Lynn's book "IQ and Global Equality" which is much more updated and aggregate of data on Africa.
quote: African American scores
Until the 1970s--85 From 1972(post Civil Rights era)--2002---91(see Flynn and Dickens 2006)
The issue is whether those gains in IQ are g loaded or not or are "select effects". Note that the Flynn effect has ceased and even begun to regress in some western nations. Yet the black-white gap has not closed regardless of the flynn effect. Some posit that the increase in black-white hybrids over the past 30 years that are "black" also account for some of the increase.
quote: American born children of European migrants to the U.S
As you can see, White populations differ from each other, too. What is your source for these values?
quote: The Cold Weather Hypothesis
The Neanderthals experienced and adapted to the frigid weather of Eurasia for at last 300,000 years yet they were not more technologically advanced than the tropically adapated Africa origined humans.
The tropical-adapted humans survived while the Nenaderthals eventually became extinct.
This is also one of the questions I had when I read the book.
First, why didn't Neanderthals adapt for higher intelligence? And secondly, what explains migrations out of warm fertile areas where food abounds, into cold harsh environments? One would think that hunter-gatherers would follow the food and stay where it's warm.
quote: Those Native Americans that peopled the Americas by way of the Siberian landbridge spent several thousands years in the frigid Eurasian environment yet their IQs are quite low:
This may be because they didn't not reside in the cold regions for very long and moved into the interior of the New World quickly. Ditto for the Innuit now - they're recent migrants.
quote: The point of course is that IQ is a bogus means of determining the natural cognitive abilities of humans especially transculturally.
It doesn't explain everything, but it's not bogus either.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
If you can't answer elementary questions regarding your references, then why would anyone waste time clicking on and reading your links?
Your rebuttal hinges on the fact that I haven't read the chapter dealing with this in the book yet. lol.
I'll read it sometime soon and get back to you. I'm not sure why you feel the need to slam me. I've answered all questions up to these ones because I don't know yet what he says about it. I have to read it first. lol. Better yet, have a read yourself as I'm sure it's all laid out for you.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: For African ancestry in Jews - Per geneticist Cruciani and Underhill, Jews of Europe and the Middle East show up to 20% African paternal ancestry, and 10% or more African maternal ancestry?
That's interesting. I'm not sure what to make of this or what it tells us completely. If Jews were under intense selective pressure it wouldn't preclude them from having African ancestry. You have to remember that IQ is normally distributed for all races. Thus in every race you find intelligent and dull people.
quote: For Jewish IQ superiority over whites?
I don't think there is any question that Jews have intellectual proclivities that make them outshine Whites disproportionately.
How do you explain a group of people that make up 1/4 of 1% of the world in some many positions of power and contributions to science, math, arts - 50% of Nobel Prize Winners. Genes, not culture, are the primary factor.
quote: He states flat out that Jews are smarter than whites.
Is this also your position?
Yes
quote:
If so, what in your estimation is the cause of white mental inferiority?
Unique selection pressures on Jews. What other reason could there be? It's simply evolution.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here it is I’ve been looking for this, this is on the harsh conditions of West Africa to refut what Michael H. Hart said about it
“The Africans an Entry to Cultural history” by Basil Davidson P. 31,
quote: It was, ast it is now, a continent of startling natural extravaganace. Nothing here is done by halves. The dimensions are always big; often they are extreme. There are deserts large enough to swallow half the lands of Europe, there are deserts large enough to swallow half the lands of Europe, where intense heat by day gives place to bitter cold by night...
p. 33 [quote] If you tramp through the African bush you will soon wonder how anyone could ever impose human settlement on this land, much less keep a footing here and steadily enlarge it….. Yet the appearance of lush natural wealth is often misleading. Much of Africa is paved with a lateritic soil of low fertility and shallow depth. Much of it is covered and, it seems, was always covered in historical times by fruitless bush and poorly timbered trees. Much of it is pestered by tsetse fly inimical to beast and man. Only the development of an inherent immunity – but this never complete – has enabled Africans to withstand widespread malaria. Other parasites demand their toll, jiggers and locusts, pestilential water-snails, fever-bearing clouds of flying creatures..….Poor fertility made it inevitable that this early farming, outside the lower valley of the Nile and some areas of western Africa and the Congo Basin, should always be a matter of frequent shifting from place to place. Settlement for a long time in any one village was difficult or impossible. More often, groups rotated though a series of village sites within the area they claimed as their own. And whenever they moved the wilderness came in behind them and raised its barriers once more.
The crucial development in improving this situation was of course, iron
quote:Your rebuttal hinges on the fact that I haven't read the chapter dealing with this in the book yet. lol.
If you admit you haven't read the book then your remarks on it are worthless.
quote: I'll read it sometime soon and get back to you.
You do that. In the meantime, you should probably keep your mouthed closed instead of prattling on in ignorance.
quote:I'm not sure why you feel the need to slam me.
I didn't. I simply asked you questions about your faulty thesis that you can't answer.
Your excuse it to plead ignorance because you haven't read your sources.
But you are responsible for gathering your information prior to formulating your thesis, this excuse makes no sense.
quote: I've answered all questions up to these ones because I don't know yet
The problem is your claims beg questions that you can't answer. Your excuse of not having read the book actually implies that you -should not have made the claims- in the first place.
No one is 'slamming' you. When you open your mouth making brash statements and then can't answer elementary questions - you slam yourself.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I just read the section of the Jews. It took me 2 minutes. His hypothesis is selection pressure. First, above average Jews were exiled and they were the merchants. They intermarried with Europeans which raised the Jewish IQ about 7 points. Those that prospered in their limited fields (they were confined to certain jobs) flourished while the others perished. Over time this evolutionary process selected for the highest IQs and over time you get the 15 point higher average over Europeans.
In other words, Jewish high IQ is a rather recent phenomenon which occured some time during the Middle Ages to the present. This would also explain why Jewish accomplishments were minimal to non-existant until recently.
posted
These selection pressures did not exist for the Greeks, Romans, or anybody else since they weren't oppressed in the same way nor pre-selected to begin with.
lol Rasol, I haven't read the ENTIRE book. Only 2/3 of it. I mentioned this very early on in this discussion.
The reason why the Ancient Greeks and others often attributed intelligence to Africans (or Egyptians) is because they were unaware of pre-existing societies in the Middle East that arose before Egypt (largely because few monuments remained), that invented writing and so forth. This mis-application made Ancient writers over-estimate the contribution to civilization that places like Egypt actually had.
Similarly the great architectural structures that survive in Egypt are striking and attest to understanding of building, planning, and at least simple math. But people forget the other componenets of culture that make them unique and great: their law, philosophies, level of understanding of mathematical theories, sciences, etc.
posted
So I have a question, with the harsh conditions of many places in Africa shouldn't black people have high intelects?
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where Hart is wrong is in arguing that civilization pretty much can't arise in places with IQ's below 80. The historical record shows that this is simply not true. Ancient civilizations arose in all continents among all peoples of all races. The reason, I believe, is that the fundamentals of creating civilization, while not intuitive, are eventually learned by trial and error or by the few geniuses that exist in every society.
Thus agriculture, domestication of animals will arise everywhere. The building of monuments has both cultural and environmental aspects and is not central to civilization. Monuments of various sizes and structures appear on all continents among all people. And in all continents they're the exception, not the rule. The vast majority in all continents in antiquity did not create any monuments.
Where the role of intelligence lies, is in civilizations with greater complexity. The intelligence is needed to give rise to the necessary breakthroughs or "meta-inventions". From that point on, societies will begin to diverge because more emphasis is placed on the need for intelligence for specializations particularily in the higher disciplines.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by markellion: So I have a question, with the harsh conditions of many places in Africa shouldn't black people have high intelects?
That's a point one could certainly argue.
All in all though, the conditions are still more hospitable than in colder climates where death is imminent unless one can find or create shelter, clothing, etc.
My guess is that there probably are a few small select populations in Africa that do in fact have exceptionally high IQs.
But Hart also argues that agriculture only usually gives rise when there is a lack of beasts to hunt. When animals abound and can be hunted for food, there is no impetus for agriculture.
This is why, he suggests, that Southern America developed agriculture. After killing off all the large animals species that once thrived there, the Natives had to find ways to survive. They did so on the few types of crops available.
I didn't even know that there were so many large wild animals that used to live on the Continent. The idea that Natives respect Mother Nature is something of recent mythology.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some of you should read the book and help to put forth a lucid rebuttal. The idea that Christianity lifted elements of Egyptian religion is extremely significant. Hart is also weak in describing Egyptian architecture (he's clearly not without his biases). Sure the pyramids are a simple structure, but those are not the only structures and I cannot believe that these structures did not influence the Greeks to want to build. The use of pillars is first seen in Egypt. And of all the pre-existing civilizations in the Middle East, none have anything to show that they were grand, so they clearly were not responsible for transmitting architecture to Europe.
For all we know, the influence came from Egypt and Nubia and filtered into the Middle East or there was an exchange between the various societies here. This later spilled into Europe when the Middle Eastern people set out to conquer Europe.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Did you read the text?
Yes... I know who Rushton is and am very familiar with him. This is not news.
quote: I've read the entire article before. But from your link:
"The findings of the task force state that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual (but not necessarily population) differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual (again, not necessarily population) differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.
They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. They agree that there are no significant differences between the average IQ scores of males and females. The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction. While they admit there is no empirical evidence supporting it, the APA task force suggests that explanations based on social status and cultural differences may be possible. Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. "
They state that IQ is predictive of school and occupational achievement and that diet does not appear to have any role in IQ. They state that IQ has both environmental and genetic components.
I'm extremely literate, hence, I know how to read, therefore I understand what they've stated. This of course is completely irrelevant to the fact that you side-step their contention that it has no bearing on entire populations and is only confirmed/observable per the individual. Which is is apparent and in no way supports Rushton.
quote:They state that there is a large gap in black and white IQ.
They also state tentatively that the most probable explanation, given the available data, is that it is solely environmental. The little genetic evidence available hardly supports any genetic basis.
quote: They conclude by saying that the "little" evidence that points to genetics fails to support a genetic hypothesis for this difference. Does anybody else read between the lines of this obvious attempt at obfuscation?
There is no obfuscation as what is stated is as clear as anybody willing to take the proper authorities at face value. Searching high and low for a hidden message does us no good in the absence of both data and assertion.
quote:That paper if from 2001 and is simply obfuscation and denial of reality.
2001 is in this same decade as 2007. Also, this is an appeal to novelty, and a pathetic one at that.
The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a logical fallacy in which someone prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern. In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument isn't in itself a valid argument. The fallacy may take two forms: overestimating the new and modern, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be best-case, or underestimating status quo, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be worst-case.
quote:The "loons" that I cite merely argue a 50/50 contribution of IQ from environment and genetics.
And the said loons were soundly refuted on all fronts in both the 2001 paper that you object to for no reason whatsoever, and also the 2005 paper in direct rebuttal to the 2005 paper that you've cited. The 2001 also had a large contribution from many mainstream scientists in their respective fields, all in denunciation of this one loon.
quote: Those that you cite argue for virtually a wholly environmental explanation.
They argue it very effectively as well, given that this is where the evidence leads them. This is how science works. It has nothing at all to do with your own wishful thinking.
quote: The data does not support this.
Of course it does, simply look at the data presented. Truth by assertion in no way contradicts their data, it is simply another fallacy of yours in a desperate attempt to resurrect these primitive assumptions about human variation.
quote: Like I said, the science has gone in one direction and the papers I posted from 2005 have yet to be rebutted.
Obviously I was right and you don't read much. I've already posted a paper from 2005 in direct response to yours.
quote: They're but two people in a long line of people who study individual and group differences.
They're also among a long line of scientists who are completely opposed to their socialist ideas. They are in the extreme minority of what most would consider psuedoscience. On par with Alien abduction and white Egypt. This is well established.
quote:Jensen is a leader in his field and roundly recognized as such by his colleagues.
His "colleagues" however, have all but abandoned his ideas, which is why he is the primary source for such ideas, along with Rushton. His other works aren't being scrutinized here.
quote:He's a giant in psychology and psychometrics. Read "Bias in mental testing" and the "G Factor" by Jensen. These are two tomes dedicated to answering many of your questions.
Another hopeless appeal to authority that has nothing to do with the data in question.
quote:The lieberman paper you provide is throw-away obfuscation.
Obfuscation must be one of your favorite words, however, it is just another fallacy that doesn't address why Lieberman and the rest of his mainstream contributers to the paper are wrong. They've clearly addressed why Rushton and the like are completely off base though.
Of course it isn't, since the data that was refuted was that which is contained in the paper you cite here and not the other way around. Nisbett responds to Jensen and Rushton, not the other way around. You merely have chosen a preference, which is not objective.
quote:The only standouts are Flynn and some recent studies done by Fagan which point to some potential biases in knowledge based verbal questions on IQ tests.
Reductionism only paints you in an ignorant light. Flynn and Fagan are simply the tip of the iceberg, the mainstream view does not support Rushton or Jensen in any shape or form.
quote:I don't like Rushton. I believe he is a racist and that's the ideology that guides his research. However, I seperate what I believe about the man and the research. The research stands on its own as much as I wish it didn't.
This wishing of yours is the problem which compels your insistence of subjectivism as opposed to proof and evidence. The burden has always been on the said racist who you so readily cite to support your view and his evidence simply has not held up to scrutiny. It is very simple.
quote:Hart's book is essentially a work of history and he's has more than enough credentials to write history.
Not more than a historian or Egyptologist who specializes in history and Egyptology. Hart is an Astrophysicist.
Astrophysics is the branch of astronomy that deals with the physics of the universe, including the physical properties (luminosity, density, temperature, and chemical composition) of celestial objects such as stars, galaxies, and the interstellar medium, as well as their interactions. The study of cosmology is theoretical astrophysics at the largest scales where Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity plays a major role.
Therefore, when someone of his credentials tends to contradict mainstream archaeology and anthropology as it concerns history and Egyptology, such conclusions should indeed be taken with a very small grain of salt since it doesn't carry the same merit.
quote:What is history but an aggreggate of primary and secondary sources synthesized into a story that one tries to make as accurate as possible to describe the past?
Cop-out.. See above. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: For African ancestry in Jews - Per geneticist Cruciani and Underhill, Jews of Europe and the Middle East show up to 20% African paternal ancestry, and 10% or more African maternal ancestry?
That's interesting. I'm not sure what to make of this or what it tells us completely. If Jews were under intense selective pressure it wouldn't preclude them from having African ancestry. You have to remember that IQ is normally distributed for all races. Thus in every race you find intelligent and dull people.
quote: For Jewish IQ superiority over whites?
I don't think there is any question that Jews have intellectual proclivities that make them outshine Whites disproportionately.
How do you explain a group of people that make up 1/4 of 1% of the world in some many positions of power and contributions to science, math, arts - 50% of Nobel Prize Winners. Genes, not culture, are the primary factor.
quote: He states flat out that Jews are smarter than whites.
Is this also your position?
Yes
quote:
If so, what in your estimation is the cause of white mental inferiority?
Unique selection pressures on Jews. What other reason could there be? It's simply evolution.
European Jewry and Native American Indians are people who have displayed least sensible intelligence among the worlds population.
Survival is the sole goal of intelligence— at its basest. Their near extermination shows they were not too bright.
The decades leading up to the German cleansing of Jews in Europe, gave opportunity for European Jewry to stall, reverse, or amend perception of them as a threat or infection.
In the Death Camps, if any percentage of the slave laborers were geniuses, they did not show their genius.
Dark smoke of furnaces and human ashes falling on your head, would have told a gathering of vastly intelligent people...it is time to sacrifice our lives by destroying or damaging this ghastly equipment. It is time to gouge out an eye of a guard or by using a brick, brain a German officer. It is time to disrupt the efficiency of this death camp, so to save thousands of others currently being gathered by giving them...time.
These defiant and coldly intelligent acts would have been consensus of an exceedingly logical and vastly intelligent gathering of people were they facing immediate extinction and not solely slavery.
Having a high IQ is not important...having sensible intelligence is most important.
Or, I am entirely wrong and this topic has vastly lowered my IQ and made me insensible is more likely the right answer. Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I can't answer this question as I'm not familiar enough and it's not addressed in the book. However, given the connections made throughout thebook, I'd venture to say he would have a reasonable explanation for this.
Translation: Ofcourse I don't have the answer, only a vague reassurance (or leap of faith) as to this issue being covered in the book and so ....yeah.
quote: The majority of IQ data has been compiled in North America and throughout Europe. This is no secret. Populations in Europe vary in average IQ. Ireland is 93, Germany has among the highest with 100 or slightly over.
Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000.
Again nonsense. If IQ 'predicts" economics how is it that upper-class black are scoring lower on tests?
Furthermore, according to you, Ireland lags a full 7 IQ points behind germany, another european nation, yet interestingly ireland outranks germany in both GDP and quality of life ratings, infact Germany is not even in the top 10:
Apparently even between the same so called "race" the disparities can be huge. You've just proven my point. Thank you.
quote: This means very little. It confirms that humans cluster into the major races as historically defined: Asian, European, African. Nobody has argued that these populations are so distinct from another. There is overlap due to gene flow. That doesn't preclude the reality that there are overall different groups.
Where in that in entire excerpt does it "confirm" such a thing?
quote: Nobody is going to mistaken a Nigerian from a Japanese, from a Swede.
Nobody is going to confuse a short person for a tall person either, both are genetically inherited. You still have yet to prove that there is a fundamental "racial" distinction between "african traits and european traits" as there is between "tall and short". Are they not "races"? There are even geographically correlated "clusters" of "tall and short" people.
So called racial differences are entirely environmental and related among other things to latitude and diet, not pre-supposed racial clusters. They even vary widely within those groups themselves. For example the difference between ethiopians and congolese, or koreans and philipinos.
quote: We're supposedly less than 1% different genetically from chimps. Little means a lot. Hart addresses such questions in his book. Once again, I urge you to read it. Ignoring it will do no good.
Consider the fact that humans have even lesser diversity than chimps in a single troop, and the diversity represented between geographical groups is infinitesimally small in comparison.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm extremely literate, hence, I know how to read, therefore I understand what they've stated. This of course is completely irrelevant to the fact that you side-step their contention that it has no bearing on entire populations and is only confirmed/observable per the individual.
If individuals differ, groups can differ too. They would differ among different races, and the same race. No two populations are identical.
quote:They also state tentatively that the most probable explanation, given the available data, is that it is solely environmental. The little genetic evidence available hardly supports any genetic basis.
This is incorrect as the data shows that genetics is at least of equal importance. Kids who are adopted show IQ's similar to their real parents - not their adoptive parents. Attempts to raise IQ of any group have all failed miserably. Trans-racial adoption studies also show differences in mean averages between races. The worldwide explanatory power is also significant. No matter where you go, Asians tend to have IQs around a certain average, Whites around another, Blacks around another. This suggests culture is not the key factor. The idea that environment is the sole determinant of intelligence is wishful thinking. We all know people that are smarter and dumber than ourselves who lived among us or in our own families who had the same opportunities and experiences we did.
quote:Obviously I was right and you don't read much. I've already posted a paper from 2005 in direct response to yours.
No others have been submitted for obvious reasons.
quote:They're also among a long line of scientists who are completely opposed to their socialist ideas. They are in the extreme minority of what most would consider psuedoscience.
Not true. The science of IQ is very well established and very mainstream especially in academics and admissions. It was only taken out of occupational selection recently because it was said to be biased against minorities who perform worse on average.
quote:His "colleagues" however, have all but abandoned his ideas, which is why he is the primary source for such ideas, along with Rushton. His other works aren't being scrutinized here.
European Jewry and Native American Indians are people who have displayed least sensible intelligence among the worlds population.
Survival is the sole goal of intelligence— at its basest. Their near extermination shows they were not too bright.
The decades leading up to the German cleansing of Jews in Europe, gave opportunity for European Jewry to stall, reverse, or amend perception of them as a threat or infection.
In the Death Camps, if any percentage of the slave laborers were geniuses, they did not show their genius.
Dark smoke of furnaces and human ashes falling on your head, would have told a gathering of vastly intelligent people...it is time to sacrifice our lives by destroying or damaging this ghastly equipment. It is time to gauge out an eye of a guard or by using a brick, brain a German officer. It is time to disrupt the efficiency of this death camp, so to save thousands of others currently being gathered by giving them...time.
These defiant and coldly intelligent acts would have been consensus of an exceedingly logical and vastly intelligent gathering of people were they facing immediate extinction and not solely slavery.
Having a high IQ is not important...having sensible intelligence is most important.
Or, I am entirely wrong and this topic has vastly lowered my IQ and made me insensible is more likely the right answer.
Nobody said that IQ encompasses all of intelligence or that there aren't other factors such as personality traits that play a role.
However, taking out one or two examples extreme in Jewish history says very little, especially considering how few Jews there are to begin with.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Translation: Ofcourse I don't have the answer, only a vague reassurance (or leap of faith) as to this issue being covered in the book and so ....yeah.
I've since read the chapter and addressed the questions.
quote:Again nonsense. If IQ 'predicts" economics how is it that upper-class black are scoring lower on tests?
quote:Furthermore, according to you, Ireland lags a full 7 IQ points behind germany, another european nation, yet interestingly ireland outranks germany in both GDP and quality of life ratings, infact Germany is not even in the top 10:
Apparently even between the same so called "race" the disparities can be huge. You've just proven my point. Thank you.
Ireland is a unique example given its recent history. In other words, it's an outlier or what would be deemed a statistical error. However, IQ does not predict EVERYTHING, thus we can expect to see give and take. But all things being equal, it has tremendous predictive value. Somebody with an IQ of 85 will never be a physicist.
quote:Where in that in entire excerpt does it "confirm" such a thing?
Please refer to Luigi Laca Cavalli-Sforza's book "Genes, Peoples, And Languages" among many other genetic sources.
quote:Nobody is going to confuse a short person for a tall person either, both are genetically inherited. You still have yet to prove that there is a fundamental "racial" distinction between "african traits and european traits" as there is between "tall and short". Are they not "races"? There are even geographically correlated "clusters" of "tall and short" people.
So called racial differences are entirely environmental and related among other things to latitude and diet, not pre-supposed racial clusters. They even vary widely within those groups themselves. For example the difference between ethiopians and congolese, or koreans and philipinos.
Variability within racial groups doesn't mean the racial groups don't exist. Sure, they're fuzzy boundaries, but they're there. Just look.
quote:Consider the fact that humans have even lesser diversity than chimps in a single troop, and the diversity represented between geographical groups is infinitesimally small in comparison.
When it comes to genes, the smallest of the small can have big effects. Heck, you get one bad cell and the next thing you know, you've got full blown cancer.
posted
Note that ideas about nutrition don't seem to hold up in light of the fact that regardless of any deficits in the African American community with regard to intake don't show themselves in the world of athletics; they're disproportionately represented. Nonetheless it was already stated by YOUR sources that nutrition has not been shown to effect IQ.
posted
I'll once again PLEASE ask you to READ Hart's book. It looks into ALL of these questions succinctly. It's extremely easy concise reading. I was quite surprised since reading most history books is like pulling teeth. This guy isn't even a historian and he put together a book of history much more fulfilling and enlightening that any I've ever read. He includes key figures and battles in history, trade, and all the usual factors studied in history books. But he includes the element of population intelligence putting a neat spin on the whole paradigm through which history is looked.
posted
"Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000."
I meant to say that the CHILDREN of middle-class blacks score lower than the CHILDREN of poor Whites. It is thought that this is probably due to regression towards the mean in offpsring.
quote:If individuals differ, groups can differ too. They would differ among different races, and the same race. No two populations are identical.
This is a very indirect and ill-informed conclusion given that individuals vary (genetically) within populations by as much as 85%, which is significantly higher than between groups.
Also, race in its self is a social contruct with no biological basis in reality.
quote:This is incorrect as the data shows that genetics is at least of equal importance.
This is NOT what is reported in the said text that I cited, so really I have no idea why you're repeating the same fallacious dribble, given that this said data that you speak of has either been firmly discounted, or is non-existent and just a figment of your wild-running imagination.
quote: Kids who are adopted show IQ's similar to their real parents - not their adoptive parents.
Not true. IQ is hereditary, according to recent reports, but the trend usually indicates that the offspring will either have a lower or higher IQ. It depends. It's usually never identical though.
quote: Attempts to raise IQ of any group have all failed miserably.
Another falsification. Flynn reports that the Black IQ has risen at least 6 points between 1972 - 2002, relative to whites. In addition, WWII adoptees when raised by white parents, have been noted as possessing the same IQ as their illegitimate siblings.
quote:Trans-racial adoption studies also show differences in mean averages between races. The worldwide explanatory power is also significant.
This is what I mean by misappropriation of data as this is in direct contradiction to Moore and Lieberman.
quote:The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted by white parents had lower IQs than those of mixed-race children adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age at adoption is associated with lower IQ.
A superior adoption study - and one not discussed by the hereditarians - was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in IQ between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Moore's finding that children adopted by white families had IQs 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families.
quote:No matter where you go, Asians tend to have IQs around a certain average, Whites around another, Blacks around another.
You've obviously never seen the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", as that isn't true. There are drastic differences intra-ethnically among many geographically pooled groups, and the poorest nations tend to have the lowest IQs, which reveals the correlation.
quote:This suggests culture is not the key factor.
Well, as far the the table I've alluded to, Wealth seems to. Cultural factors are addressed by some of the people I've already cited.
quote: The idea that environment is the sole determinant of intelligence is wishful thinking.
No, wishful thinking is when one clamps on to an unsupported idea, like racial superiorty, even when there is copious amounts of research in direct refutation to it. Believing in such constructs as race (with out the necessary genetic evidence to support it) is also wishful thinking.
quote: We all know people that are smarter and dumber than ourselves who lived among us or in our own families who had the same opportunities and experiences we did.
Which is why IQ is definitely incumbent on the individual. Surely I'm a lot smarter than many white people I know (I'm not white, nor is my IQ below 120).
^Just posted this above. Though at the end of the day, this is childish. Persistence in racist mythology in no way constitutes a victory. After a while, people like that are just shunned. Rushton has been under repeated attack since the 80s, by countless academics who see him as nothing more than the racialist that he is.
quote:Not true. The science of IQ is very well established and very mainstream especially in academics and admissions.
What does this have to do with genetic causes between "racial" groups for such explanations in IQ difference? Obviously you're running away from what I stated. Their views are among the extreme minority.
quote: It was only taken out of occupational selection recently because it was said to be biased against minorities who perform worse on average.
Redundant..
quote:Jensen abandoned?
Quote: His "colleagues" however, have all but abandoned his ideas
Learn how to read and respond to what you're reading.. Thanx.
What does this have to do with his racist ideas? Nothing I suppose, so why the distraction? I clearly stated that his ideas are what's being scrutinized, none of the rebuttals towards him have appealed to any ad hominem fallacies as you suggest that I'm implying, but rather the ideas of what they're arguing against.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: "Middle-class blacks in America (from families making $70,000 and above) perform worse in school and have lower IQ than Whites from poor families making below $20,000."
I meant to say that the CHILDREN of middle-class blacks score lower than the CHILDREN of poor Whites. It is thought that this is probably due to regression towards the mean in offpsring.
Obviously nonsense, since indigenous black African immigrants out perform both whites and Asians, academically. This trend is seen in both Britain and America.
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
Your original research is very sloppy.
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. 29-31Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Ok, I just read the section of the Jews. It took me 2 minutes. His hypothesis is selection pressure.
That makes no sense whatsover as Jewish IQ is higher than white non Jewish IQ. Therefore Europeans cannot be responsible for *genetically raising* Jewish IQ.
In theory [for those who believe in this sillyness], it could be that Hybrid Jewish AfroAsiatic blood has raised the IQ of whites.
Perhaps this explains why whites could formulate no civilisation prior to the spread of African [E3b] and SouthWest Asian [J] genetic lineages?
Perhaps it also explains why "white" civilisation begins in the mixed race hybrids of Greece and Rome before much later spreading to the genetically recessive white Barbarians of the North?
Moreover both you and Hart have merely dodged the question of whether you are admitting that Jews are intellectually superior to whites?
Yes or no?
So, either you didn't read correctly, or Hart has failed to formulate and intelligible thesis.
quote:Also, race in its self is a social contruct with no biological basis in reality.
Here we go again - more obfuscation. Next time you tell me that you mistook a Nigerian for an Icelander, I'll concede this point.
Regardless, we see differences in performance between the racial constructs that we "created".
quote:This is NOT what is reported in the said text that I cited, so really I have no idea why you're repeating the same fallacious dribble, given that this said data that you speak of has either been firmly discounted, or is non-existent and just a figment of your wild-running imagination.
What's reported is that there is environmental as well as genetics involved in IQ. They only say that the racial gap has little genetic support. It's hard to hold one view and not the other, given the mountains of evidence collated over the past 100 years.
quote:Not true. IQ is hereditary, according to recent reports, but the trend usually indicates that the offspring will either have a lower or higher IQ. It depends. It's usually never identical though.
It's close to their actual parents and FAR from their adoptive parents IQ. That's the point.
quote:Another falsification. Flynn reports that the Black IQ has risen at least 6 points between 1972 - 2002, relative to whites. In addition, WWII adoptees when raised by white parents, have been noted as possessing the same IQ as their illegitimate siblings.
As I've pointed out, increases in IQ does not necessarily mean increases in g. Moreover, there are studies that show the opposite - that in the early 80's IQ gap closed slightly but that it is now as far apart as it always has been.
quote:This is what I mean by misappropriation of data as this is in direct contradiction to Moore and Lieberman.
Can you provide a link to Moore's study. There is no entry for her on wikipedia or the study she's done.
Note that they'll have to do a follow-up study as it's well known that IQ can be "boosted" during young ages but by the time those kids are finishing highschool, all gains are lost. Because g exerts its force ever greater as one ages.
quote:No, wishful thinking is when one clamps on to an unsupported idea, like racial superiorty, even when there is copious amounts of research in direct refutation to it. Believing in such constructs as race (with out the necessary genetic evidence to support it) is also wishful thinking.
This isn't about racial superiority. It's about average differences in cognition between geographic groups. The theory of evolution would predict this. Rejecting it is like rejecting the very process of evolution itself. The fact that Blacks are typically physically stronger then Whites and Asians is also a product of evolution. It doesn't mean blacks are superior to Whites physically, just different. In a game of football, it would lead to Blacks winning more often on average.
quote:Which is why IQ is definitely incumbent on the individual. Surely I'm a lot smarter than many white people I know (I'm not white, nor is my IQ below 120).
Hart makes this point very clear in his book and he notes that it is the very few individuals responsible for all the things we cherish and utilize in society. This, however, does not discount the idea that a populations with AVERAGE higher intelligence isn't going to operate or evolve DIFFERENTLY than one with AVERAGE lower intelligence, all other things fairly equal.
quote:Incorrect once more. Nisbett (2007)
Incorrect. Look at the arguments in the paper and look at the arguments in his rebuttal. Same rehashed arguments that have been thoroughly refuted. This discussion was had elsewhere. Nisbett has turned from a psychologist into a wordsmith. It's sad.
Just to be sure, feel free to post any or all of Nisbett's arguments in any of his papers, and see if I can refute it.
quote:What does this have to do with genetic causes between "racial" groups for such explanations in IQ difference? Obviously you're running away from what I stated. Their views are among the extreme minority.
I studied psychology in University. Open up a psych 101 text. They all discuss the racial gap. The difference is that nowadays (I took the course probably 7 years ago now) they have to beat around the bush or avoid talking about it in detail because the reality that it is unchanging/stable spells potentially ugly realities.
quote:Quote: His "colleagues" however, have all but abandoned his ideas
Learn how to read and respond to what you're reading.. Thanx
Is that why his ideas are among the most cited in psychological literature? They've abandoned admitting to holding his ideas lest they be ostracized like him, but that is all.
quote:What does this have to do with his racist ideas? Nothing I suppose, so why the distraction?
There is nothing inherently racist in the belief that populations in different geographic regions evolved average differences in intelligence, temperament, and any number of features.
^ Agreed. Apparently that's the best you can do, since you still have not answered...
quote:Are you and Hart admitting that Jews are intellectually superior to whites?
Yes or no?
quote:Are you and Hart denying that Jews have more African blood than whites? Yes or no?
^ What's taking so long? Do you need another two minutes to refer back to your source, and then reply with another obfuscating non-answer?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In additional work he investigated geniuses in various fields and noted that their children, while typically gifted, were almost invariably closer to the average than their exceptional parents. He later described the same effect more numerically by comparing fathers' heights to their sons' heights. Again, the heights of sons both of unusually tall fathers and of unusually short fathers was typically closer to the mean height than their fathers' heights.
In your attempt to refute my earlier statement,You have instead basically refuted yourself with your own citing lol. So called High IQ groups like the jews should eventually "regress" towards the mean. Note interestingly again, the average IQ of Israel cited by Sundiata at 94.
Another self-refutal being the fact that you failed to cite a racially tied reference as to why middle-class blacks score lower than poor whites (which is your entire premise), but instead confirmed a statistical anomaly that occurs irrespective of the population group in question.
quote:Ireland is a unique example given its recent history. In other words, it's an outlier or what would be deemed a statistical error. However, IQ does not predict EVERYTHING, thus we can expect to see give and take. But all things being equal, it has tremendous predictive value. Somebody with an IQ of 85 will never be a physicist.
Translation: I cannot suffiently explain why IQ does not correlate with GDP and quality of life as it stands with germany and Ireland, so I opt for and *excuse* (cop-out) as to why it must be so and call it a 'statistical error'.
quote:Please refer to Luigi Laca Cavalli-Sforza's book "Genes, Peoples, And Languages"
Please refer to the study I cited originally and actually *comprehend* it this time, the information being presented. It will answer your question. Thank you.
quote:Variability within racial groups doesn't mean the racial groups don't exist. Sure, they're fuzzy boundaries, but they're there. Just look.
But it *does* mean they don't exist, thats the *point* of the study I cited. there are no "fuzzy" boundaries because the "boundaries" are not there. At least not in the way you are looking at it.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
How rich.. [/QB]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic