Are white men intellectually superior to black men?

[Nigloving]

What's the whole point of this thread? White men have been responsible for most crimes against humanity during the last 500 years. So should nonwhites ban together and exterminate white people? White people seem to be more of a problem than the unscientifically grouped population with 13 points lower average IQ? And it's a mean. So every white guy isn't smarter than every black guy.

But what's the point of this trolling thread? What Are you trying to prove?

 

[Zagg]

We talk a lot about black sexual superiority here, so why not white (and Asian) intellectual superiority? So far as atrocities go, no ethnic group has a qualitative monopoly on them (witness the r..e of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the genocide in Rwanda, and the murderous civil wars all over Africa, just to note a few). If Europeans have a quantitative advantage in atrocities, it's probably due to their superior technology, which is very likely a result of their intelligence.

What's the whole point of this thread? White men have been responsible for most crimes against humanity during the last 500 years. So should nonwhites ban together and exterminate white people? White people seem to be more of a problem than the unscientifically grouped population with 13 points lower average IQ? And it's a mean. So every white guy isn't smarter than every black guy.

But what's the point of this trolling thread? What Are you trying to prove?

 

[Nigloving]

We talk a lot about black sexual superiority here, so why not white (and Asian) intellectual superiority? So far as atrocities go, no ethnic group has a qualitative monopoly on them (witness the r..e of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the genocide in Rwanda, and the murderous civil wars all over Africa, just to note a few). If Europeans have a quantitative advantage in atrocities, it's probably due to their superior technology, which is very likely a result of their intelligence.

What's the whole point of this thread? White men have been responsible for most crimes against humanity during the last 500 years. So should nonwhites ban together and exterminate white people? White people seem to be more of a problem than the unscientifically grouped population with 13 points lower average IQ? And it's a mean. So every white guy isn't smarter than every black guy.

But what's the point of this trolling thread? What Are you trying to prove?

See, and that's the problem with this whole IQ issue. Any speculation outside of the proven IQ differences are just that: unsupported, unscientific speculation. Nevertheless, the IQ disparities between groups are used to support crackpot social theories that are not supported by evidence. Not only that, the unsound theories are used to contradict and challenge hard scientific and historical facts and understanding.

Take for example your theory that "If Europeans have a quantitative advantage in atrocities, it's probably due to their superior technology, which is very likely a result of their intelligence." If that's the case, why have not Asians developed technologies in weaponry even remotely comparable to Western Europeans? The historical record answers the question.

After the fall of Rome and before the Age of Exploration, Europe was internally undeniably the most vicious place on the planet. Europeans were constantly waging war against one another and consistently building bigger and better weapons to gain an advantage over a rival. By the beginning of Age of Exploration, Western Europeans had developed weaponry far superior to all other non-Europeans. So this allowed Western Europeans to easily conqueror people for a simply reason: most human populations have never undergone this process of constant warfare as Europeans. And to make a long story short, Europeans have been able to maintain this dominance over the world and this dominance is the main cause of a lot of suffering in the Global South.

But we have IQ test so white people can toss history in the trash and claim that Latin Americans, Africans, South and Southeast Asians, and Pacific Islanders IQs are the main cause of the their suffering. Not the continuing process of r..e and privileging we have been subjecting them to since we left Europe.

 

[Zagg]

The IQ data in the US and Europe are beyond quibble. In other countries the data are much less complete. My knowledge of Asian history is considerably less than that of European history, but I don't see anything that suggests that premodern Europeans were any more violent than premodern Asians. The reason they were able to conquer much of the world is that after the 14th century they had ocean-going sailing ships and firearms (there are organizational factors as well, of course). The Asians have been pretty innovative technologically: paper, printing, gunpowder, etc. They failed to apply those technologies as widely and deeply as the Europeans did for a millennium, but the balance seems to be shifting now. There's hardly any doubt that Asia is the technological and economic powerhouse of the 21st century. I doubt that the "Global South" will fare much better under the Chinese than it did under the Europeans.

We talk a lot about black sexual superiority here, so why not white (and Asian) intellectual superiority? So far as atrocities go, no ethnic group has a qualitative monopoly on them (witness the r..e of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the genocide in Rwanda, and the murderous civil wars all over Africa, just to note a few). If Europeans have a quantitative advantage in atrocities, it's probably due to their superior technology, which is very likely a result of their intelligence.

What's the whole point of this thread? White men have been responsible for most crimes against humanity during the last 500 years. So should nonwhites ban together and exterminate white people? White people seem to be more of a problem than the unscientifically grouped population with 13 points lower average IQ? And it's a mean. So every white guy isn't smarter than every black guy.

But what's the point of this trolling thread? What Are you trying to prove?

See, and that's the problem with this whole IQ issue. Any speculation outside of the proven IQ differences are just that: unsupported, unscientific speculation. Nevertheless, the IQ disparities between groups are used to support crackpot social theories that are not supported by evidence. Not only that, the unsound theories are used to contradict and challenge hard scientific and historical facts and understanding.

Take for example your theory that "If Europeans have a quantitative advantage in atrocities, it's probably due to their superior technology, which is very likely a result of their intelligence." If that's the case, why have not Asians developed technologies in weaponry even remotely comparable to Western Europeans? The historical record answers the question.

After the fall of Rome and before the Age of Exploration, Europe was internally undeniably the most vicious place on the planet. Europeans were constantly waging war against one another and consistently building bigger and better weapons to gain an advantage over a rival. By the beginning of Age of Exploration, Western Europeans had developed weaponry far superior to all other non-Europeans. So this allowed Western Europeans to easily conqueror people for a simply reason: most human populations have never undergone this process of constant warfare as Europeans. And to make a long story short, Europeans have been able to maintain this dominance over the world and this dominance is the main cause of a lot of suffering in the Global South.

But we have IQ test so white people can toss history in the trash and claim that Latin Americans, Africans, South and Southeast Asians, and Pacific Islanders IQs are the main cause of the their suffering. Not the continuing process of r..e and privileging we have been subjecting them to since we left Europe.

 

[Nigloving]

Zegg, this is my last response to you, because I joined this thread because I love interracial porn. Not to have political debates. Doesn't my sentence stating, "Any speculation outside of the proven IQ differences are just that: unsupported, unscientific speculation," agrees with your claim that "The IQ data in the US and Europe are beyond quibble"? I don't have a issue with the data but I do have a problem with the racist speculation in the social sciences over what the data means -- as in the case of the psychologist Rushton's "Race, Evolution, and Behavior". The IQ data would not be of any importance if America wasn't such a racist society and if speculation over the data could not be used as propaganda to legitimize oppression.

Also, please just check the historical record. Europe was much, much more violent. I'm not claiming Europeans are genetically more violently than any other group. Nothing proves that. You mean the Chinese have been pretty innovative technologically. Asians are not one big happy racial group. Genetic evidence proves that.

The IQ data in the US and Europe are beyond quibble. In other countries the data are much less complete. My knowledge of Asian history is considerably less than that of European history, but I don't see anything that suggests that premodern Europeans were any more violent than premodern Asians. The reason they were able to conquer much of the world is that after the 14th century they had ocean-going sailing ships and firearms (there are organizational factors as well, of course). The Asians have been pretty innovative technologically: paper, printing, gunpowder, etc. They failed to apply those technologies as widely and deeply as the Europeans did for a millennium, but the balance seems to be shifting now. There's hardly any doubt that Asia is the technological and economic powerhouse of the 21st century. I doubt that the "Global South" will fare much better under the Chinese than it did under the Europeans.

We talk a lot about black sexual superiority here, so why not white (and Asian) intellectual superiority? So far as atrocities go, no ethnic group has a qualitative monopoly on them (witness the r..e of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the genocide in Rwanda, and the murderous civil wars all over Africa, just to note a few). If Europeans have a quantitative advantage in atrocities, it's probably due to their superior technology, which is very likely a result of their intelligence.

What's the whole point of this thread? White men have been responsible for most crimes against humanity during the last 500 years. So should nonwhites ban together and exterminate white people? White people seem to be more of a problem than the unscientifically grouped population with 13 points lower average IQ? And it's a mean. So every white guy isn't smarter than every black guy.

But what's the point of this trolling thread? What Are you trying to prove?

See, and that's the problem with this whole IQ issue. Any speculation outside of the proven IQ differences are just that: unsupported, unscientific speculation. Nevertheless, the IQ disparities between groups are used to support crackpot social theories that are not supported by evidence. Not only that, the unsound theories are used to contradict and challenge hard scientific and historical facts and understanding.

Take for example your theory that "If Europeans have a quantitative advantage in atrocities, it's probably due to their superior technology, which is very likely a result of their intelligence." If that's the case, why have not Asians developed technologies in weaponry even remotely comparable to Western Europeans? The historical record answers the question.

After the fall of Rome and before the Age of Exploration, Europe was internally undeniably the most vicious place on the planet. Europeans were constantly waging war against one another and consistently building bigger and better weapons to gain an advantage over a rival. By the beginning of Age of Exploration, Western Europeans had developed weaponry far superior to all other non-Europeans. So this allowed Western Europeans to easily conqueror people for a simply reason: most human populations have never undergone this process of constant warfare as Europeans. And to make a long story short, Europeans have been able to maintain this dominance over the world and this dominance is the main cause of a lot of suffering in the Global South.

But we have IQ test so white people can toss history in the trash and claim that Latin Americans, Africans, South and Southeast Asians, and Pacific Islanders IQs are the main cause of the their suffering. Not the continuing process of r..e and privileging we have been subjecting them to since we left Europe.

 

[Zagg]

I did misinterpret your first sentence. Sorry. IQ testing is specific, quantifiable, and replicable. Testing for general statements such as "Europe was much, much more violent." isn't. I've read some of the history of China, India, and the Middle East, and, just like Europe, it's war and violence all over the place. There's an era of Chinese history known as the Warring States period. On the other hand, there's the Pax Romana. I'm not sure what sort of a metric would suffice to quantify historical violence, but I'm not aware that any reputable historian has done so. You're surely right that if one really wanted to be accurate, you'd have to cut much finer than, European, Asian, and (sub-Saharan) African. None of the "races" is one big happy family. Regarding Rushton, I think his basic approach is fruitful and promising. Unfortunately, he's working with such limited data that just about all of his conclusions are very provisional at best. It's really should be taken more as heuristic than constitutive. It certainly wouldn't be my intent to use any empirical results to legitimize oppression, but I don't think that trying to suppress empirical results will lead to greater understanding between ethnic groups. Like you I come here mainly for IR porn, but we do have the General Discussion for general discussion. Zagg

Zegg, this is my last response to you, because I joined this thread because I love interracial porn. Not to have political debates. Doesn't my sentence stating, "Any speculation outside of the proven IQ differences are just that: unsupported, unscientific speculation," agrees with your claim that "The IQ data in the US and Europe are beyond quibble"? I don't have a issue with the data but I do have a problem with the racist speculation in the social sciences over what the data means -- as in the case of the psychologist Rushton's "Race, Evolution, and Behavior". The IQ data would not be of any importance if America wasn't such a racist society and if speculation over the data could not be used as propaganda to legitimize oppression.

Also, please just check the historical record. Europe was much, much more violent. I'm not claiming Europeans are genetically more violently than any other group. Nothing proves that. You mean the Chinese have been pretty innovative technologically. Asians are not one big happy racial group. Genetic evidence proves that.

The IQ data in the US and Europe are beyond quibble. In other countries the data are much less complete. My knowledge of Asian history is considerably less than that of European history, but I don't see anything that suggests that premodern Europeans were any more violent than premodern Asians. The reason they were able to conquer much of the world is that after the 14th century they had ocean-going sailing ships and firearms (there are organizational factors as well, of course). The Asians have been pretty innovative technologically: paper, printing, gunpowder, etc. They failed to apply those technologies as widely and deeply as the Europeans did for a millennium, but the balance seems to be shifting now. There's hardly any doubt that Asia is the technological and economic powerhouse of the 21st century. I doubt that the "Global South" will fare much better under the Chinese than it did under the Europeans.

We talk a lot about black sexual superiority here, so why not white (and Asian) intellectual superiority? So far as atrocities go, no ethnic group has a qualitative monopoly on them (witness the r..e of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the genocide in Rwanda, and the murderous civil wars all over Africa, just to note a few). If Europeans have a quantitative advantage in atrocities, it's probably due to their superior technology, which is very likely a result of their intelligence.

What's the whole point of this thread? White men have been responsible for most crimes against humanity during the last 500 years. So should nonwhites ban together and exterminate white people? White people seem to be more of a problem than the unscientifically grouped population with 13 points lower average IQ? And it's a mean. So every white guy isn't smarter than every black guy.

But what's the point of this trolling thread? What Are you trying to prove?

See, and that's the problem with this whole IQ issue. Any speculation outside of the proven IQ differences are just that: unsupported, unscientific speculation. Nevertheless, the IQ disparities between groups are used to support crackpot social theories that are not supported by evidence. Not only that, the unsound theories are used to contradict and challenge hard scientific and historical facts and understanding.

Take for example your theory that "If Europeans have a quantitative advantage in atrocities, it's probably due to their superior technology, which is very likely a result of their intelligence." If that's the case, why have not Asians developed technologies in weaponry even remotely comparable to Western Europeans? The historical record answers the question.

After the fall of Rome and before the Age of Exploration, Europe was internally undeniably the most vicious place on the planet. Europeans were constantly waging war against one another and consistently building bigger and better weapons to gain an advantage over a rival. By the beginning of Age of Exploration, Western Europeans had developed weaponry far superior to all other non-Europeans. So this allowed Western Europeans to easily conqueror people for a simply reason: most human populations have never undergone this process of constant warfare as Europeans. And to make a long story short, Europeans have been able to maintain this dominance over the world and this dominance is the main cause of a lot of suffering in the Global South.

But we have IQ test so white people can toss history in the trash and claim that Latin Americans, Africans, South and Southeast Asians, and Pacific Islanders IQs are the main cause of the their suffering. Not the continuing process of r..e and privileging we have been subjecting them to since we left Europe.

 

[sass]

With all due respect, i think the argument regarding IQ is specious at best, since IQ testing usually reflects literacy, not mental ability. I was classified an MGM when i was a child, and mostly it was due to being a 'quiet little bookworm' as my mother put it. Your study reflects more cultural and economic factors, not mental capability. I heard the same arguments about why girls didn't score well on math as boys (although i did just fine, thanks) in standardized testing while i was growing up. It was biased science then, and it hasn't improved. This 'girl' can tell you one thing; statistics, like politics, is the 'last refuge of a scoundrel'.

 

[Zagg]

There are many different tests, many of which contain nonverbal sections, or which are completely nonverbal. IQ tests pretty accurately predict future academic performance. I think what's really important here is realizing that different ethnic groups have different evolutionary histories and have evolved different talents. No one complains that blacks dominate track events and are very overrepresented in almost all of the major team sports. Likewise, people should be able to accept the fact that whites and Asians score higher on IQ tests than blacks without claiming bias or racism.

With all due respect, i think the argument regarding IQ is specious at best, since IQ testing usually reflects literacy, not mental ability. I was classified an MGM when i was a child, and mostly it was due to being a 'quiet little bookworm' as my mother put it. Your study reflects more cultural and economic factors, not mental capability. I heard the same arguments about why girls didn't score well on math as boys (although i did just fine, thanks) in standardized testing while i was growing up. It was biased science then, and it hasn't improved. This 'girl' can tell you one thing; statistics, like politics, is the 'last refuge of a scoundrel'.

 

[saintvillain]

Interesting question....

Menial and relatively of little value on a site that supports the "worship of 'niggers' "; primarily their sexual prowess and presence/ je ne sais quoi, but I digress as zagg and I have beat this topic from different sides once before only to agree to disagree (or so I thought).
There is something that I think the OP neglects as a factor to said IQ test and variations of intellectual capacity tests and the fact remains that tests of the like are primarily created by western culture.
We could beat the drum about what it means to be "white" or of European extraction (hence the genome project results)but the fact remains that African Americans(in particular American )/blacks have a different value system and outlook by in large due to their history in America.
One could argue that this system has been based on survival and perseverance in a western system governed by a group who had little regard for them as people let alone intelligent people.
Even when those same contrived notions of intellectual inferiority are historically proven wildly inaccurate via contributions to literature,mathematics, astrophysics{one of my heroes Neil Degrasse Tyson),politics, invention and philosophical decrees which reshaped the world perspective the question of intellectual viability remains constant.
Racial segregation laws in America were still in effect as recent as 1961; to put that in perspective I personally know active, healthy, cognitive whites who are older than that...
In other words I think the question of black intellectual inferiority might be an incendiary and slanderous debate at best considering the systematic barriers the black race has obviously transcended here in America{such as laws against learning to read, free but not equal statuses in the educational system and barred opportunities to higher education which many whites still resent although the economic status of many whites have had quite a leg up since the 1960's and earlier} despite admitted and confirmed efforts to keep said group behind in virtually every aspect of American society.
Keep in mind this isn't a pity party/race card stance, but food for thought based on the post and if anything pertinent should be taken from my opinion it should be : How intellectually resilient the black race MUST be to elevate themselves from chattel slavery so far as to stand toe to to in ANY arena with the descendants of slave owners{of which many white Americans consider themselves but by in large aren't}.
As a side note the post about being in the Army and blacks being in trouble...etc....I'm in the Army as well and it's DEFINITELY a good ole boy system so much in fact that to keep things at least somewhat equal there's a huge board at the pentagon noting how many of each race are in what positions of authority.
I've watched a white soldier {who is also a friend of mine} go to a board late and hung over then walk out with his gimme' from a primarily white board, I've watched a boys will be boys mentality sweep pervasively through an entire Battalion and should a minority of ANY sort repeat and offense{practical joke} measuring half the recklessness of a white soldier, the hammer is dropped.
One could say this is speculation or solely MY experience and that everyone gets the big green weenie but the stories I hear are similar across the board and don't say a word about it out loud because at that point you're weak or the army is going soft or you're playing a race card.
On two occasions I've had wildly racist run ins with prejudice in the Army that stood out so glaring...A black soldier told an NCO he was being singled out to perform a task every time because he was black{he was clearly using a race card no doubt and could have handled the matter in another way}, however being the only other black in the area on the detail the NCO runs out of the arms room yelling "...ain't gonna stand for none of that race card BS soldier" and when he was done I remained at parade rest and smirked stating "I think you're looking for Sgt C, Sarge..." Another NCO,Sgt. Sanchez backed me and said "yeah that was Sgt.C not P. who said that..." Needless to say his face turned 12 shades of foot in mouth and without saying a word he carried on to find Sgt.C

{It was pathetic and funny at the same time and I've prattled on too much so I'll cut it short with this}
The military is the LAST place intelligence should be evaluated in any capacity with emphasis on the Army of whom labels their claymore mines with "This side facing Enemy" only to be surpassed in idiotic antics by the Marines with "run through the ambush".

 

[Zagg]

Interesting anecdotes about the army, saintvillain. Asserting that there are real differences in intelligence (and other characteristics) between ethnic groups doesn't in any way commit one to denying that there is still considerable favoritism displayed toward some groups in the major institutions of society. You're certainly right that the notion of "intelligence" and intelligence tests are Western creations. So is the notion of "gravity" and that doesn't mean that an object dropped in a vacuum by a black person doesn't accelerate at 32 feet per second per second (if my memory of high school physics serves me). As I said in the earlier post, what I think the real significance of the IQ data is, is that it points us away from the old liberal notion that behavioral differences are all cultural and can be altered by cultural change. There are real evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups, with no one group being superior <i>simpliciter<\i>. Different groups have different abilities, and we shouldn't use a "one size fits all" approach in our social expectations and policies.

Interesting question....

Menial and relatively of little value on a site that supports the "worship of 'niggers' "; primarily their sexual prowess and presence/ je ne sais quoi, but I digress as zagg and I have beat this topic from different sides once before only to agree to disagree (or so I thought).
There is something that I think the OP neglects as a factor to said IQ test and variations of intellectual capacity tests and the fact remains that tests of the like are primarily created by western culture.
We could beat the drum about what it means to be "white" or of European extraction (hence the genome project results)but the fact remains that African Americans(in particular American )/blacks have a different value system and outlook by in large due to their history in America.
One could argue that this system has been based on survival and perseverance in a western system governed by a group who had little regard for them as people let alone intelligent people.
Even when those same contrived notions of intellectual inferiority are historically proven wildly inaccurate via contributions to literature,mathematics, astrophysics{one of my heroes Neil Degrasse Tyson),politics, invention and philosophical decrees which reshaped the world perspective the question of intellectual viability remains constant.
Racial segregation laws in America were still in effect as recent as 1961; to put that in perspective I personally know active, healthy, cognitive whites who are older than that...
In other words I think the question of black intellectual inferiority might be an incendiary and slanderous debate at best considering the systematic barriers the black race has obviously transcended here in America{such as laws against learning to read, free but not equal statuses in the educational system and barred opportunities to higher education which many whites still resent although the economic status of many whites have had quite a leg up since the 1960's and earlier} despite admitted and confirmed efforts to keep said group behind in virtually every aspect of American society.
Keep in mind this isn't a pity party/race card stance, but food for thought based on the post and if anything pertinent should be taken from my opinion it should be : How intellectually resilient the black race MUST be to elevate themselves from chattel slavery so far as to stand toe to to in ANY arena with the descendants of slave owners{of which many white Americans consider themselves but by in large aren't}.
As a side note the post about being in the Army and blacks being in trouble...etc....I'm in the Army as well and it's DEFINITELY a good ole boy system so much in fact that to keep things at least somewhat equal there's a huge board at the pentagon noting how many of each race are in what positions of authority.
I've watched a white soldier {who is also a friend of mine} go to a board late and hung over then walk out with his gimme' from a primarily white board, I've watched a boys will be boys mentality sweep pervasively through an entire Battalion and should a minority of ANY sort repeat and offense{practical joke} measuring half the recklessness of a white soldier, the hammer is dropped.
One could say this is speculation or solely MY experience and that everyone gets the big green weenie but the stories I hear are similar across the board and don't say a word about it out loud because at that point you're weak or the army is going soft or you're playing a race card.
On two occasions I've had wildly racist run ins with prejudice in the Army that stood out so glaring...A black soldier told an NCO he was being singled out to perform a task every time because he was black{he was clearly using a race card no doubt and could have handled the matter in another way}, however being the only other black in the area on the detail the NCO runs out of the arms room yelling "...ain't gonna stand for none of that race card BS soldier" and when he was done I remained at parade rest and smirked stating "I think you're looking for Sgt C, Sarge..." Another NCO,Sgt. Sanchez backed me and said "yeah that was Sgt.C not P. who said that..." Needless to say his face turned 12 shades of foot in mouth and without saying a word he carried on to find Sgt.C

{It was pathetic and funny at the same time and I've prattled on too much so I'll cut it short with this}
The military is the LAST place intelligence should be evaluated in any capacity with emphasis on the Army of whom labels their claymore mines with "This side facing Enemy" only to be surpassed in idiotic antics by the Marines with "run through the ambush".

 

[Nigloving]

As I said in the earlier post, what I think the real significance of the IQ data is, is that it points us away from the old liberal notion that behavioral differences are all cultural and can be altered by cultural change. There are real evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups, with no one group being superior <i>simpliciter<\i>. Different groups have different abilities, and we shouldn't use a "one size fits all" approach in our social expectations and policies.

As I said in my earlier posts, the IQ data doesn't disprove the evidences that behavioral differences are "cultural and can be altered by cultural change." There's literally no evidences backing the claim that there are any significant "evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups," who European conveniently lumped into racial groups which aren't supported by hard science.

Zagg, I can't fault you. You're a white person on a black site.

 

[Zagg]

You only see "literally no evidence" of evolutionary differences between ethnic groups because you refuse to look. The application of natural selection to behavior is, fortunately, becoming more accepted in the social sciences, although liberal academics are fighting a spirited rear-guard action. This approach goes back at least to evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson with his "Sociobiology" in the early 70s. As noted a scientist as Nobel-Prize winner James Watson explictly addressed the ethnic differences in IQ, which is still controversial enough that he was f...d out of his job at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

As I said in the earlier post, what I think the real significance of the IQ data is, is that it points us away from the old liberal notion that behavioral differences are all cultural and can be altered by cultural change. There are real evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups, with no one group being superior <i>simpliciter<\i>. Different groups have different abilities, and we shouldn't use a "one size fits all" approach in our social expectations and policies.

As I said in my earlier posts, the IQ data doesn't disprove the evidences that behavioral differences are "cultural and can be altered by cultural change." There's literally no evidences backing the claim that there are any significant "evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups," who European conveniently lumped into racial groups which aren't supported by hard science.

Zagg, I can't fault you. You're a white person on a black site.

 

[Zagg]

If you're seriously interesting in evaluating the evidence for natural selection of behavior, you might start with the work of Arthur Jensen. I've already mentioned the work of J. Philippe Rushton.

As I said in the earlier post, what I think the real significance of the IQ data is, is that it points us away from the old liberal notion that behavioral differences are all cultural and can be altered by cultural change. There are real evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups, with no one group being superior <i>simpliciter<\i>. Different groups have different abilities, and we shouldn't use a "one size fits all" approach in our social expectations and policies.

As I said in my earlier posts, the IQ data doesn't disprove the evidences that behavioral differences are "cultural and can be altered by cultural change." There's literally no evidences backing the claim that there are any significant "evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups," who European conveniently lumped into racial groups which aren't supported by hard science.

Zagg, I can't fault you. You're a white person on a black site.

 

[Nigloving]

You only see "literally no evidence" of evolutionary differences between ethnic groups because you refuse to look. The application of natural selection to behavior is, fortunately, becoming more accepted in the social sciences, although liberal academics are fighting a spirited rear-guard action. This approach goes back at least to evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson with his "Sociobiology" in the early 70s. As noted a scientist as Nobel-Prize winner James Watson explictly addressed the ethnic differences in IQ, which is still controversial enough that he was f...d out of his job at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

As I said in the earlier post, what I think the real significance of the IQ data is, is that it points us away from the old liberal notion that behavioral differences are all cultural and can be altered by cultural change. There are real evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups, with no one group being superior <i>simpliciter<\i>. Different groups have different abilities, and we shouldn't use a "one size fits all" approach in our social expectations and policies.

As I said in my earlier posts, the IQ data doesn't disprove the evidences that behavioral differences are "cultural and can be altered by cultural change." There's literally no evidences backing the claim that there are any significant "evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups," who European conveniently lumped into racial groups which aren't supported by hard science.

Zagg, I can't fault you. You're a white person on a black site.

I don't take the social sciences work that is not social research too seriously because it is not science.

Let me ask you a question: is there any hard evidence proving that the behavior of a small group of people, for sampling purposes, belonging to the same ethnic group can't "be altered by cultural change?"

 

[Zagg]

Predictability is one of the main criteria of successful science. IQ test results predict academic achievement. Sometimes the social disciplines produce results that don't predict future behavior. IQ tests do. I'm not quite sure what the meaning of the second question is. What I asserted is that there is increasing evidence that there are genetic influences in behavior, as opposed to the old Durkheimian paradigm that the social sciences are autonomous and that all behavior is culturally determined. If you want to look at some fairly technical essays dealing with genetic influences in one area of human behavior, the political, see Hatemi and McDermott, "Man Is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics" (University of Chicago Press, 2011).

You only see "literally no evidence" of evolutionary differences between ethnic groups because you refuse to look. The application of natural selection to behavior is, fortunately, becoming more accepted in the social sciences, although liberal academics are fighting a spirited rear-guard action. This approach goes back at least to evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson with his "Sociobiology" in the early 70s. As noted a scientist as Nobel-Prize winner James Watson explictly addressed the ethnic differences in IQ, which is still controversial enough that he was f...d out of his job at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

As I said in the earlier post, what I think the real significance of the IQ data is, is that it points us away from the old liberal notion that behavioral differences are all cultural and can be altered by cultural change. There are real evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups, with no one group being superior <i>simpliciter<\i>. Different groups have different abilities, and we shouldn't use a "one size fits all" approach in our social expectations and policies.

As I said in my earlier posts, the IQ data doesn't disprove the evidences that behavioral differences are "cultural and can be altered by cultural change." There's literally no evidences backing the claim that there are any significant "evolutionary differences between the major ethnic groups," who European conveniently lumped into racial groups which aren't supported by hard science.

Zagg, I can't fault you. You're a white person on a black site.

I don't take the social sciences work that is not social research too seriously because it is not science.

Let me ask you a question: is there any hard evidence proving that the behavior of a small group of people, for sampling purposes, belonging to the same ethnic group can't "be altered by cultural change?"

 

[curiousjoe]

WTF whats going to be the next topic blacks guys arent actually bigger in the pants? And also could we lock the homos in there own section, I think its scaring the girls away.
-black man joe

 

[wstaalumni]

I think a lot of that is a bunch of bull. Don't get me wrong & I know what this site is bout, but I've known sum really smart black men & sum white guys with BIG dicks. For me this is a fantasy & one that I luv to fulfill when I can.

In the most simplistic terms I would wholeheartedly agree, with certain reservations, restrictions, and limitations!

Such as, if anyone walking on two legs professing reasonable intelligence where to confront the most absurd misrepresentations foisted upon them daily via every form of geo-political form of governments and their agencies existing on planet Earth, one might believe there was a viable proof of intelligence parading around as whatever form of two legs should be manifested, acting as the Masters of all that they purvey!

But sadly, I've learned long ago, people of all color or persuasions and systems of unsound beliefs, are inclined to go along to get along. Even to their own demise!

Now having said all this, I must profess to being one of the indigenous of planet Earth of the lighter color of complexion so to speak. Know to be highly intelligent and resourceful. Physically, I average height (5'10"), average weight (160+lbs), and a reasonable cock size (8in.+). But when it comes to giving evidence of intelligence based upon ideologies founded upon empirical evidence, I choose to act with both intelligence and wisdom toward the belief that the best sign of intelligence is not believing that doing the same thing over and over will ever solve any unreasonable conditions. Sort of like when your loving partner desires greater physical stamina that you or whoever currently provides and your refusal to seek reasonable solutions to garner your partners happiness in life as much as logically possible. As long as such needs or behavior can be met under safew, secure and sanitary conditions and your needs are equally met as well.

Now to those ends....as far as superiority of any one's intellectual or physical prowess, we all have our abilities to care for another deeply. Whether such arises for whatever reasons, such should be given with the greatest honor each may share with those they may choose to love another or many others as they may singularly or jointly choose to do so, while remaining within such honorable relationships as they each may deem worthy of such agreements!

My best to All Walks of Life!!!!!