Fighting racism [Archive]

Fadix

03-14-2004, 10:25 AM

Since my interlocutors have done everything to change the subject, I was inclined to start a new thread, where I shall demonstrate that every recent controlled studies demonstrate that the difference of IQ between black and whites is caused by environmental reasons and not racial. Later on, I shall provide other studies demonstrating that the higher level of violence among blacks correlate with the lower IQ among blacks (which is environmental based) rather than their “races.” And to finish, I shall return to the other thread and answer to our two racist members.

To start with, I shall post an article written by Dr. Richard E. Nisbett whom present the old studies and compare them with the newest ones and is inclined to conclude that studies demonstrate that it is the environment which is responsible of the lower IQ. (note, I realise that I may have made a mistake with the study of adopted children, the total number of children in the study was 100, and not 100 black children, only about 20 or so were black, this fact discredit further the study in question.)

First evidences to the court of this board :) against the other party consisting of two racists.

-----
The article has been published in the work C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.) Black-White Test Score Differences. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution. The article has been published in the work C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.) Black-White Test Score Differences. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution. Another version of this article(a less recent one) appeared in the work: The Bell Curve Wars (1995), edited by Steven Fraser.

RACE, GENETICS, AND IQ
Richard E. Nisbett

The question of whether IQ differences between blacks and whites have a genetic basis goes back at least a thousand years, to the time when the Moors invaded Europe. The Moors speculated that Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought. But by the 19th century most Europeans probably believed that they were congenitally superior to Africans in intellectual skills. The IQ test, developed early in the 20th century, re-enforced this view, since whites scored higher then blacks. (Northern Europeans also outscored southern and eastern Europeans, as well as xxxs.) Many psychologists assumed that these group differences were genetic in origin. Some U. S. psychologists also argued that continued immigration by low-scoring groups posed severe economic and social risks. Yet by the last quarter of the twentieth century xxxs and many of the other European groups initially found wanting in intelligence had higher average IQ scores and higher average incomes than northern Europeans in the United States.

Unlike the differences among European ethnic groups, the IQ difference between European and African Americans persisted throughout the twentieth century, and many Americans continue to believe that a substantial portion of the difference is genetic in origin. For decades, whites scored about 15 points higher than blacks on IQ test. If such a difference were wholly or substantially genetic in origin, the implications for American society would be dire. It would mean that even if the environmental playing field were leveled, a much higher proportion of blacks than whites would have trouble supporting themselves, and a much lower proportion of blacks than whites would be professionals and successful business people. A recent example of this claim can be found in the phenomenally successful book The Bell Curve (1994), by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray.

In this chapter I review the evidence on whether the black-white IQ difference (which I refer to as the B/W IQ gap) is wholly or in substantial part due to genetic factors (other than obvious ones like skin color, which affect the way Americans treat each other.) Because The Bell Curve has played such a central role in recent discussions of this issue, I often focus on its claims. For this purpose I will accept the mainstream view on IQ tests and their correlates, including the following assumptions.

1) IQ tests measure something real about intelligence as defined in the modern West.

2) Children's IQ scores predict important life outcomes such as success in school, delinquency and crime, and productive economic behavior. This relationship persists even when we control family background and other social correlates of IQ.

3) Among whites, variation in IQ is to some extent heritable. That is to say, IQ scores vary independently of environmental conditions. Expert estimates suggest that anywhere between 30 and 80 percent of the variation in IQ scores is determined by genetic factors, with 50 to 60 percent being the most commonly accepted range.

4) Estimates of heritability within a given population tell us nothing about the degree to which differences between populations are genetically determined. The classic example is an
experiment in which a random mix of wheat seeds is grown on two different plots of land. Within either plot, the environment is kept uniform, so the height of the different plants is largely or entirely genetically-determined. Yet the average difference between the two plots is still entirely environmental, because the mix of genotypes in each plot is identical. (For a particularly lucid account of heritability and genetic determination in relation to IQ, see Block, 1995).

Despite the fact that the heritability of a characteristic within a population has no necessary relationship to the heritability of differences between populations, many people believe that the large IQ difference between blacks and whites "must" be partly genetic in origin. They argue that if the heritability of IQ within populations is high (especially if it is as high as .8), and if the B/W IQ gap is as large as one standard deviation, the one must assume implausibly large environmental differences between blacks and whites to explain the B/W IQ gap in exclusively environmental terms.

Evidence bearing on the heritability of the B/W IQ gap is of two broad types.

1) Studies of African Americans that correlate their IQ scores with the percentage of their genes that are "European". These are by far the most relevant studies. They are also relatively easy to do in the United States because America classifies individuals as "black" even when they have a very large percentage of "white" ancestors. As much as 30 percent of the "black" American gene pool consists of "European" genes. The conventional genetic hypothesis is that blacks with more European genes should have higher IQ scores. Of course, such a correlation could also arise for environmental reasons. Blacks with lighter skins and more Caucasian features might have social and economic advantages that would make it more likely that they would have high IQs. As a consequence, if there were to be very weak associations between degree of Europeanness and IQ, this would be particularly damaging to the genetic hypothesis.

2) Studies examining the effect of the family environment in which black children are raised. The conventional genetic hypothesis is that rearing blacks in family environments like those of whites should result in little or no gain for blacks. (Of course, even when black children reared in white homes they would be subject to other cultural and social influences that might well depress their IQ scores.)

Despite the assertions of some scholars, including Herrnstein and Murray, a review of the evidence in each of these areas provides almost no support for genetic explanations of the B/W gap.

Studies Directly Assessing Heritability

Five types of studies can make some claim to studying heritability directly. Three types estimate the Europeanness of the genetic heritage of individual blacks — by assessing skin color, by examining blood groups, and by simply asking individuals about their parents and grandparents.

Studies of skin color. Studies relating darkness of skin color and IQ are easy to do and many have been reported over the years. This literature consistently shows that the correlation of IQ with skin color in the black population is quite low. Even Audrey Shuey (1966), one of the most vehement supporters of the view that the B/W IQ gap is genetic in origin, reached the conclusion that IQ is only weakly associated with skin color. Typical correlations are in the range of .15 (and are even less with degree to which facial features are rated as "Negroid"). Even if we ignore the advantages that might accrue to "blacks" with light skin, a correlation of 0.15 does not suggest that European ancestry exerts a strong genetic influence on IQ. On the other hand, many of the studies reviewed by Shuey had small samples and dubious sampling procedures, and moreover the . 15 estimate could be low due to error of measurement. Both skin color and IQ are measured with high reliability, but a major problem with these studies is that while skin color may seem to be a straightforward indicator of degree of European ancestry, it is not. Skin color varies substantially in Sub-Saharan African populations. As a result, some Africans have relatively light skin for reasons that have nothing to do with European ancestry. A strong test of the "European ancestry" hypothesis therefore requires a more reliable indicator.

Studies measuring European ancestry via blood group indicators. Fortunately there are data available that reinforce the null implications of the skin color studies. The frequency of different blood groups varies by race. Under the genetic hypothesis, blacks with mor "European" blood types should have more European genes and hence higher IQs. But Sandra Scarr and her colleagues (Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, & Barker, 1977) found that the correlation between IQ and "European" heritage among blacks was only 0.05 in a sample of 144 black adolescent twin pairs. When skin color and socio-economic status were controlled, the correlation dropped slightly to - .02. Importantly, although they found the typical correlation of. 15 between skin color and IQ, suggesting that the comparable correlations in other studies are due not to Europeanness of genes but to some other factor associated with skin color in the black population.

Loehlin and colleagues (1973) also correlated the estimated Europeanness of blood groups (rather than the Europeanness of individuals, estimated from their blood groups) with IQ in two different small samples of blacks. They found a .01 correlation in one sample and a nonsignificant -.38 correlation in the other sample, with the more African blood groups having higher IQ.

Reported white ancestry. A third approach to estimating blacks' white ancestry is to ask them. Imagine a 15 point B/W IQ difference that is fully genetic in origin. Then think of two groups of blacks: one has only African genes and one has 30 percent European genes. According to the pure genetic model, the first group would be expected to have an IQ 4.5 points lower than the second. If we singled out everyone who had an extremely high IQ — say of 140 — we would expect to find several times as many individuals in the group with 30 percent European genes as in the pure-African gene group.

A study by Witty and Jenkins (1934) identified 63 children in a sample of black Chicago schoolchildren with IQs of 125 or above and 28 with IQs of 140 or above. On the basis of their self reports about ancestry, the investigators classified the children into several categories of Europeanness. The children with IQs of 125 or above, as well as those with IQs of 140 or above, had slightly less European ancestry than the best estimate for the American black population at the time. This study is not ideal. It would have been better to compare the degree of European ancestry of high IQ Chicago children to that of other black Chicago children rather than to the entire black population. But once again, the results are consistent with a model of zero genetic contribution to the B/W gap or, perhaps, a slight genetic advantage for Africans.

Children born to black and white American soldiers in World War II. Eyferth (1961) [ADD UMLAUT TO FURS] examined the IQs of several hundred German children fathered by black American GIs during the post-1945 occupation were compared to those fathered by white GIs. The children fathered by black GIs had an average IQ of 96.5 and the children fathered by white GIs had an average IQ of 97. Inasmuch as the (phenotypic) B/W gap in the military as a whole was close to that in the general population, these data imply that the B/W gap in the U.S. population as a whole is not genetic in origin (Flynn, 1980, pp. 87-88). Note also that the children of the two groups of GIs had similar IQs even though common sense would suggest that environmental conditions were probably inferior for black children.

Mixed race children born to white vs. black mothers. If the black-white IQ gap is entirely genetic, children of mixed parentage should have the same average IQ regardless of which parent was black. If mothers are more important than fathers to the intellectual socialization of their children, and if the socialization practices of whites favor the acquisition of skills that result in high IQ scores, children of white mothers and black fathers should score higher than children of black mothers and white fathers. In fact, [(Willerman et al., 1974) children of white mothers and black fathers have a nine point IQ advantage over those with black mothers and white fathers. This result suggests that most, but perhaps not all of the B/W IQ gap is environmental.

Fadix

03-14-2004, 10:27 AM

(rest of the article)

All of these studies are subject to alternative interpretations. Most importantly, whites who mate with blacks may have lower IQs than whites in general. Blacks who mate with whites may have higher IQs than blacks in general. If whites who mate with blacks were substantially less intelligent than whites in general, for example, their European genes would convey relatively little IQ advantage. Yet the degree of self-selection would have to be extreme to produce no phenotypic difference at all between children of purely African heritage and those of partially European origin. Self-selection by IQ was probably not very great during slavery; it is unlikely, for example, that the white males who mated with black females had lower IQs than other white males. Indeed, if such unions mostly involved male slave owners, and if economic status was positively related to IQ (as it is now), these whites probably had above average IQs. But even if self-selection were substantial in the 18th and 19th centuries, the effects of regression toward the population mean would reveal genetic differences if they were present. Flynn's (1980) also shows that self-selection is a highly unlikely explanation of IQ pavity between children of black and white GIs. (p. 94) and that the assumption of zero heritability of the U. S. B/W IQ gap best fits the data. Flynn's analysis of mixed race children also suggests that the IQ difference between black versus white mothers cannot be accounted for by an reasonable assumptions about selective mating and parental IQ (p. 180).

Studies Examining the Effect of Family Environment

Experiments or quasi-experiments that place black children in different environments avoid the self-selection problem to some degree.

Random assignment of black children to black vs. white adoptive families. In one true experiment, Moore (19[xx]) randomly assigned black children to be raised in adoptive families that were either black or white. Under the assumption that black families would be less likely to instill the orientations that would lead to the sorts of skills that IQ tests tap, she predicted that children raised by white adoptive parents would have higher IQs than those raised by black adoptive parents. This was indeed the case. [more more more]

Rearing of black and white infants in the same environment. An experiment by Tizard and colleagues compared black and white orphans who had all been raised in the same highly enriched institutional environment. At four or five years of age, white children had IQs of 103, black children had IQs of 108, and children of mixed race had IQs of 106. On their face, these results are most compatible with the assumption of a slight genetic advantage for blacks. The black children in this experiment were West Indian and the white children were English. While it is possible that the black parents had unusually high IQs, Flynn (1980) argues that selective migration of West Indians to Britain could not have raised IQ scores by more than a few points.

Adoption of black and white infants into white families. A well-known adoption study by Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinburg and their colleagues (1983) compared the IQs of adopted children from different racial backgrounds. Some of the adopted children had two white biological parents, some had two black biological parents, and some had one black and one white biological parent. Under the simplest model of pure genetic determination of the B/W IQ gap, the white adoptees should have had IQs 15 points or so higher than the black adoptees. Mixed race adoptees should fall in the middle. When the children were about seven years old, their IQs were most consistent with a model of partial genetic contribution to the gap. When they were adolescents, their IQs suggested a larger genetic contribution.

Scarr and Weinberg identified several factors that they thought made it a weak test of the genetic hypothesis. First, the number of children they studied was small (only 25 white children, 29 black children, and xx mixed-race children); Second, agencies may have engaged in selective placement, which would...; Third, the adoptive families were recruited on a voluntary basis, which could have introduced a "self-selection" problem into the sample if...; Fourth, since the natural parents' IQs were not known, it is possible that the white parents could have had higher (genotypic) IQs than the black parents, which by itself could explain why the white adoptees had higher IQs than the black adoptees; Fifth, the black children were adopted at a substantially later age than the white children (although the mixed-race children were adopted earlier than either the black or white children). Consequently, the authors caution against any conclusion at all with respect to the role of heredity.

Suppose we simply look at all the available evidence — the many different types of evidence and the dozens of different studies — on their face. The Scarr and Weinberg evidence is consistent with a large genetic contribution to the B/W IQ gap. But all of the other evidence is most consistent with a zero or near-zero genetic contribution to the gap. The skin color, facial feature, and blood group studies, the European heritage study, the study of World War II children fathered by black vs. white soldiers, the study of mixed-race children born either to black or to white mothers, the experiment assigning black children to black vs. white adoptive families, and the study of the orphanage with an enriched environment all suggest genetic equality between the races or very small genetic differences.

Advocates of the genetic hypothesis can always invent the equivalent of Ptolemaic "epicycles" to explain these results. But there would have to be a good many such convolutions to make much headway. It would have to the case either that whites in the past who contributed European genes to the contemporary black gene pool had extremely low IQs or that blacks who mated with whites in the past had extremely high IQs and that either the black GIs who mated with German women in World War II had extremely high IQs or the white GIs had extremely low IQs or both and that, in the study of children born to unions of blacks and whites, either the white mothers had IQs much higher than the black mothers or the black fathers had much higher IQs than the white fathers and that, in the study of the enriched orphanage environment, the black Caribbean children had unusually high IQs while or the white English children had unusually low ones, or both. That this would be a heroic effort has been demonstrated by Flynn=s (1980) analysis that systematically showed that most of these alternative explanations are highly implausible each one taken by itself, let alone trying to weave a coherent theory for the ensemble of alternatives. theories could be correct. But all these explanations are conjectural.

Herrnstein and Murray (1994), it is important to note, made no serious effort to propound any alternative explanations for the near total absence of positive direct evidence for the genetic hypothesis. What they do instead is to spend a great deal of time discussing the single study that is consistent with a strong genetic interpretation favoring whites - the Scarr and Weinberg study — and then mention only a few of the negative studies, dismissing them with ad hoc self-selection explanations without any mention of the fact that the Scarr and Weinberg study is subject to at least as severe reservations as any of the studies having negative findings that they choose to mention. They also ignore the most comprehensive and sophisticated treatment of the genetic explanation for the B/W gap and alternatives — that of Flynn (1980). By conventional academic standards, the Herrnstein and Murray review of the evidence on the heritability of the B/W gap is shockingly incomplete and biased.

Indirect Arguments for Genetic Determination of the B/W Difference in IQ.

If my summary of the direct genetic evidence is correct, why does anyone pay any attention to the possibility of genetic determination of the B/W gap? There are three main reasons in my view (and in Herrnstein and Murray's view as well, judging by the amount of space they devote to them).

(1) Blacks at every level of socioeconomic status (SES) have lower IQs than whites of the same status. Hence it is difficult to argue that poor socioeconomic conditions alone account
for black's low scores.

(2) Blacks and whites have different ability profiles. Low SES whites with an overall IQ score of, say, 105, show the same average ability pattern as high-SES whites with scores of 105.
But this is not the case for blacks (cites). For example, blacks at a given IQ level are likely to have relatively high ability to recall digit strings but relatively low ability to solve mazes as compared to whites with the same IQ.

(3) Blacks and whites differ most on the "g-loaded" tasks. "G" is the term for the general intelligence factor that some psychologists believe permeates all abilities, but some more than others. Blacks do as well or better than whites on tasks involving simple memory or reaction-time. Blacks are slower than whites on tasks involving complex memory or reaction-time. These latter tasks are more "g-loaded" in that they predict overall IQ scores better.

Let us consider each of these points in turn.

(1) Blacks have lower IQs at every socioeconomic level. On its face, this finding is hard to reconcile with the notion that it is merely poor opportunity that causes blacks to have lower IQs. It is somewhat misleading, however, to compare the IQs of blacks in the higher socioeconomic ranges with those of whites. A white in the top socioeconomic quintile based on income has more than twice the wealth of a black in the top quintile (Smith, in press). More importantly, statistically equating blacks and whites on measures of the environment that include not only traditional indicators of SES but also measures of family and neighborhood quality virtually eliminates the B/W IQ gap (Brooks-Gunn & colleagues, in chapter xx). Such a result could simply mean that less intelligent parents provide their children with less intellectually stimulating environments. Yet, statistically equating mother's IQs does not change these results. Thus, the data are more consistent with a purely environmental interpretation of the B/W gap than with a genetic one.

(2) Blacks and whites have different ability profiles. Such differences hardly seem a strong argument for genetic determination of overall IQ. Systematic differences in the
socialization of black and white children begin in the cradle (e.g., Heath, 1983). If such difference affect overall scores, one would expect them to affect some test more than others. We know that purely social factors can indeed affect ability patterns. A natural experiment produced by World War II illustrates the potential affect of socialization on ability patterns. During the war, fathers in the Armed Forces were absent at different points in their childrens' lives for differing periods of time. Harvard students whose fathers had been in the Army for a long time when they were quite young had verbal Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores that were dramatically higher than average (Carlsmith, 1983).

(3) Blacks and whites differ most on the most "g-loaded" tests. Jensen and others have argued that the black-white gap on complex reaction-time tasks, can not be explained by motivational differences between blacks and whites. But this is merely a hypothesis. In informal work conducted many years ago, I found that white college students with high achievement motivation had faster complex reaction times, but not faster simple reaction times, than those with low achievement motivation. Consequently, I do not regard the motivation hypothesis as at all improbable.

Jensen's "g-loading" point also obtains for tasks that we think of as genuinely intellectual ones. For skills such a spatial reasoning and form perception, the g-loading is relatively low and the B/W gap relatively low. For the even more important and general skills of reading comprehension, mathematics, vocabulary and information tests, the g-loading is high and the B/W gap is high.

One would assume that these more important, and more "g-loaded," skills are the most modifiable. Are they?

Fadix

03-14-2004, 10:28 AM

(conclusion of the article)

Conclusion

The studies most directly relevant to the question of whether the B/W IQ gap is genetic in origin provide no evidence for a correlation between IQ and African (rather than European) ancestry. A few older studies of skin color are consistent with European superiority but most are not. The best modern study indicates little relation between skin color and IQ. One modern study of blood types weakly suggests African superiority; the other two suggest no difference between the races.

Of the studies that control for home environment, all indicate strong environmental effects. One of these studies is consistent with moderate African genetic superiority and one is consistent with substantial European genetic superiority. Thus, the most relevant studies provide no evidence for genetic superiority for one race or the other while providing strong evidence for a substantial environmental contribution to the B/W IQ gap. Almost equally important, rigorous interventions effect IQ and cognitive skills at every stage of the life course, and the evidence on convergence clearly shows that the B/W IQ gap has narrowed in recent decades.

The question "What portion of the 15 point IQ difference between blacks and whites is genetic?" simply makes no sense. To begin with, the empirical gap is currently substantially less than that. Moreover, with the exception of Herrnstein and Murray, few investigators have ever suggested that the entire gap might be genetic in nature. Jensen, one of the best-known proponents of the view of European genetic superiority, estimates that the genetic gap is about seven points [ref.]. As Block (1995) has suggested, the reference point should not be a gap of 15 points or any other specific figure. Rather, it makes more sense to ask how far, and in what direction, the genetically-based difference between the races differs from zero.

If in fact it makes sense to ask the genetic question at all. All evidence points to two extraordinarily important conclusions. First, if there are genetically-determined differences between the races in IQ, they are not sufficiently large to show up with any regularity in studies with a wide range of methodologies. Second, interventions designed to reduce the difference between blacks and whites are effective at every age level. Surely research efforts are best directed at improving these interventions rather than trying to wring blood from a genetic turnip.

Anonymouse

03-14-2004, 11:08 AM

You could have posted this in the other thread, but to somehow show you are the wise savior of egalitarianism, you had to make a new thread. This belongs in the thread under "race", and the moderators should move it to it's rightful place. You attempting to blame the "racist" for "diverting" the intention of the thread in order to create another thread is again unfounded. If you cannot offer rebuttals of the points raised then you run away, to a new thread. I assure you every thing in that thread is on topic, aside from your insults and ad homenim attacks. Stop using that as an excuse for what is initially your inability to keep up and remain cordial. So moderator, move this back to the "race" thread.

Your assertion that I am a "racist" has no basis, other than a smear label, but I know it is the last refuge of the pointles, since you cannot offer anything in the realm of evidence to show that the races are equal, you must naturally de-evolve to such a position. Now you offer a possible counter to the idea that races are just hallucinations. Now that you cannot contend the claim that blacks are more violent than say, whites, you will focus in on this last one issue of intelligence, to try to redeem egalitarianism.

I, nonetheless, found your article interesting, albeit lacking substance in making a case for racial equality ( for the idea of "equality" itself is against nature ). While the author attempts to give an "objective view" as you suggested by comparing studies of yore, to studies of today, he nonetheless makes fatal assumptions about race. Nor does the author take into account studies that are recent as already presented. His first assumption is that race is just "skin color" and throughout his article that is what pervades. From that he is able to deduce everything else for his central point that "race is just environmental hallucinations".

Such quotes in the article:

...studies reviewed by Shuey had small samples and dubious sampling procedures, and moreover the . 15 estimate could be low due to error of measurement.

are highly questionable for what does the author seek to prove? That the .15 could be low due to error of measurement? Did the author or anyone demonstrate it is an error of measurement? Furthermore, is .15 still not a difference? You can call it .15 or .03, a difference is a difference.

These are by far the most relevant studies. They are also relatively easy to do in the United States because America classifies individuals as "black" even when they have a very large percentage of "white" ancestors. As much as 30 percent of the "black" American gene pool consists of "European" genes. The conventional genetic hypothesis is that blacks with more European genes should have higher IQ scores. Of course, such a correlation could also arise for environmental reasons. Blacks with lighter skins and more Caucasian features might have social and economic advantages that would make it more likely that they would have high IQs. As a consequence, if there were to be very weak associations between degree of Europeanness and IQ, this would be particularly damaging to the genetic hypothesis.

Notice the words "could also arise from environmental reasons" or even below in the paragraph, "if there were to be very weak associations between degree of Europeannness and IQ, this would be particularly damaging". The words "could" and "if", don't suggest anything.

These are by far the most relevant studies. They are also relatively easy to do in the United States because America classifies individuals as "black" even when they have a very large percentage of "white" ancestors. As much as 30 percent of the "black" American gene pool consists of "European" genes. The conventional genetic hypothesis is that blacks with more European genes should have higher IQ scores. Of course, such a correlation could also arise for environmental reasons. Blacks with lighter skins and more Caucasian features might have social and economic advantages that would make it more likely that they would have high IQs. As a consequence, if there were to be very weak associations between degree of Europeanness and IQ, this would be particularly damaging to the genetic hypothesis.

It is a common fact that blacks in the United States, for the most part are a result of mixtures. Look at this globally, all civilizations rise and fall based on race and mixing. Societies that mix exponentially never come out. You can look at all mixed societies such as the Middle East, or North Africa, Central and South America, and you can see why those areas are poor, crime ridden, and breed exponentially. All civilizations rise and fall based on this model of mixing, and you can follow this pattern all throughout history.

For example

This literature consistently shows that the correlation of IQ with skin color in the black population is quite low. Even Audrey Shuey (1966), one of the most vehement supporters of the view that the B/W IQ gap is genetic in origin, reached the conclusion that IQ is only weakly associated with skin color.

This assumes all IQ and therefore race is just a result of "skin color" when many other factors go into this, such as cranio-morphology and brain size. Just looking at someone who has Negroid features one can see a difference, in head shape, nostrils, forehead, neck, jaw, etc.

But Sandra Scarr and her colleagues (Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, & Barker, 1977) found that the correlation between IQ and "European" heritage among blacks was only 0.05 in a sample of 144 black adolescent twin pairs. When skin color and socio-economic status were controlled, the correlation dropped slightly to - .02.

How were they "controlled"? They were the same? It is stated and not defined. There are exceptions to the rule. No one says all blacks are unintelligent or will score low on IQ, some will definitely be exceptions to the rule. Just like genetic studies, and how genetic frequencies can be manipulated to get results of how we are "similar" and not "different", this could be a result of that. It could be that the authors' study had results that proved this notion wrong, and they simply ignored those and cherry picked only those that agreed with the notion that the results represent equality. In my other excerpt from Richard Lynn, in the other thread which you chose to ignore in fact showed that despite same socio-economic backgrounds, blacks still proved to be more violent. So much for 'controlled' studies.

Children born to black and white American soldiers in World War II. Eyferth (1961) [ADD UMLAUT TO FURS] examined the IQs of several hundred German children fathered by black American GIs during the post-1945 occupation were compared to those fathered by white GIs. The children fathered by black GIs had an average IQ of 96.5 and the children fathered by white GIs had an average IQ of 97. Inasmuch as the (phenotypic) B/W gap in the military as a whole was close to that in the general population, these data imply that the B/W gap in the U.S. population as a whole is not genetic in origin (Flynn, 1980, pp. 87-88). Note also that the children of the two groups of GIs had similar IQs even though common sense would suggest that environmental conditions were probably inferior for black children.

I love this particular segment of the article. When results do show differences, they must be the result of "inferior conditions". Do you know what Japan did after WWII when black American GIs had mixed with Japanese and produced mixed babies? They bundled them up and sent them to Brazil. By your standards I guess Japan would be racist for trying to preserve homogneity.

Lastly, I would like to close this with a historical review, of looking at civilizations throughout history, and how this corroborates to the intelligence of given peoples. It is a fact that no society in sub-Saharn black Africa ever produced any high civilization, no written language, no concept of the wheel. On the other hand, civilizations in Europe and Asia flourished. There is an obvious "environmental" rebuttal to this, but I will prove the illogicistics of that as soon as it is asserted. The most common Afrocentric defense is to somehow claim Egypt as a "black civilization", which only mixed with Nubians, and was one of the results of why it fell.

Anonymouse

03-14-2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Fadix Jensen, one of the best-known proponents of the view of European genetic superiority

I was unaware that Jensen expressed such views. I was under the impression that he stated Asians have higher IQs, than whites, who in turn were higher than blacks. Not that I don't believe you, but can you source that? Pardon my skepticism.

Anonymouse

03-14-2004, 12:29 PM

Ironic that the same Fadix whined about me posting articles is doing the same thing. What a strange world we live in when only those that disagree can do wrong?

Fadix

03-14-2004, 12:36 PM

No ! My thread should be left here, both of you have changed the subject, I already told that I will be returning in that thread to answer both of you, but this thread is independent, given that you have sabotaged your own thread.

Rebuttal you say? What kind of logic is that? It is for you to bring valid evidences to support your claim, you did not do such. Let me remind you what I asked from your part, I asked you to provide any recent controlled studies to demonstrate that the differences of IQ is attributed to race differences rather than being environmental. You have preferred ignoring my demand, and what you did was posting unrelated trash which had nothing to do with what I asked. I repeated and challenged you and Dan to present me any recent controlled serious studies, and have received NADA. What Dan has done best was to question what “serious” means, but of course if he were to study in a scientific field he would know what serious means… or better yet! The guy had to introduce the subject of the Shoah, something that has nothing to do with what we were discussing about. He still believe that the fact that I ignore him and refuse to discuss about the Shoah would somehow “prove” that what he claims is the truth. While I have done two statistical analyses of the xxxish numbers of victims and one critics of Rassinier methodology of over 20 pages introduced in my work regarding McCarthy, and an essay of complete rebuttal of revisionism, I have researched war crimes for 5 years and been banned from a Shoah revisionist site few years ago, because the idiots there were unable to confront me. Do you think I will even bother discussing the matter with someone that passes his days and nights on revisionist sites and think he has “discovered” something…, I do not have the time to answer to everyones barks?

And yes! You are a racist, check the definition of the word “racism” you fit in that definition.

1. Racism: “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”

Is that not what you are doing? Or perhaps will you hide yourself behind the banner of the so-called “racialism” to not be labelled for what you are?

And the rest of your reply show us that you have no any logical thinking, neither have no knowledge of statistical analysis. But still for the benefit of the readers I shall still answer you.

The first point you raise is the .15 correlation factor, here you made a fool of yourself by exposing your ignorance of basic statistics. The reason why he claimed that it might be low is because it is too low to support a direct genetic factor. Read one more time you’ll see what I mean. Since the previous theories were claiming that genetic factors was responsible of the differences and that after this study they found out a correlation of only .15, he concluded that the low correlation could have been attributed to the errors of measurement which would explain why it did not support the genetic theses. This means that the author still kept an open mind and supposed that a better study could have supported more a genetic factor… but the better the study the lower the correlation... this was the whole point here.

Now, the error in the measurement, you have no clue of what you are talking about, the reason this was brought is because of the small sample in the study… more small is the sample, more you will have a higher margin of error, and even more, there is the fact that measurement errors (which are caused by the sampling procedures or other factors etc…) most of the time are even not included in the margin of errors. This is quite known in the pharmaceutical industry and drug trials, this is why new procedures like the cross over trials added to the double blind placebo and the Meta analysis are now used in order to measure the efficiencies of drugs.

This means that when you have small differences that are higher than the error margins, you can not consider the results to draw any conclusions, your results must show differences higher than the range where the error margin is situated in. Any correlation of under 0.20, due to the low samples can not be used to draw any conclusions, only an ignorant like you would claim that a “.03” correlation is a difference, because it is not, when considering the “correlative” margin of error would be in the range of the .1, .2, etc… in most cases in such small sample studies.

There is another thing which must be taken in consideration; the correlation table shows that higher the sample lower it takes as a correlation value to asses to a correlation, the lower the sample, the higher it takes, this is only basic statistics. But as expected, you ignore that as well. But your ignorance could be expected here, as I am starting to be quite habituated reading you write about things which you have no knowledge of, or like the last time about a book which you did even not read. But that you even question the word “controlled” this is beyond belief. Dude, go take some basic statistic courses and come later, I do not have the time to waste with someone that start interpreting and questioning the usage of this word. Before even trying to answer here only to show me you have something to say, at least run a search on google and try to learn what “controlled” means in the statistical world.

Later on, on your empty post, filled with text which means absolutely nothing. As usual you change the subject and quote the author to try to fool both of us into thinking that you wrote anything relevant. Obviously you did not, and finally, you exposed yourself again as someone whom does even not try to understand what he answer.

You write: “When results do show differences, they must be the result of “inferior conditions.”” If you bothered even reading what you try to answer, the author writes: “children of the two groups of GIs had similar IQs…” The word is even not powerful enough, as it was not only similar but could be considered as identical, the difference between 96.5 and 97, when the error margin is above 3 times the differences of 0.5 is considered to not be a difference at all. So no, the results DID NOT shows any differences, so the argument you provide to discredit here the author is just a cheap attempt from your part.

The rest of the trash you wrote is irrelevant to the discussion, as for Lynn, I have already answered that in the other thread, Lynn studies are not credible.

Anonymouse

03-14-2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Fadix No ! My thread should be left here, both of you have changed the subject, I already told that I will be returning in that thread to answer both of you, but this thread is independent, given that you have sabotaged your own thread.

This is not independent, and I don't know if anileve will move this thread to the other thread simply because she agrees with you. I see no reason to claim that this, because it is posted by you, the wisest of the wise, who does "research", should be a separate thread, when it is in reality discussing the same topic. How did I sabotage my thread you say? I made the thread regarding race, and many things are about race, this is about race.

Originally posted by Fadix Rebuttal you say? What kind of logic is that? It is for you to bring valid evidences to support your claim, you did not do such. Let me remind you what I asked from your part, I asked you to provide any recent controlled studies to demonstrate that the differences of IQ is attributed to race differences rather than being environmental. You have preferred ignoring my demand, and what you did was posting unrelated trash which had nothing to do with what I asked. I repeated and challenged you and Dan to present me any recent controlled serious studies, and have received NADA.

I already addressed your assertion on "controlled studies". The "controlled studies" can obviously show both similarities and differences, as any study can, if you cherry pick. Only a study that takes into account every thing without cherry picking certain "controlled" groups or not, will determine a general rule. Thus, I made a point that it could be that the "controlled study", could yield results counter to what the author tries to claim, and he will ignore those and include only that give "similar" results. Let's not forget how scientists, before they become, are social beings, therefore influenced by whatever ideology is present in society, in this case the aroma of egalitarianism. This is akin to genetic studies that ignore all allele patterns that show differentiation, and include only those that show similarities. There are no "pure" races, but only seperated by degrees, and not in kind. Your assertion of "controlled studies" is akin to the studies done by geniticists. If information indicates much more genetic variation within a race than between them, it could be a result of error as well, because many of the egalitarian scientists can measure gene frequencies or allele patterns that are similar in all races, and not measure those that differ between races. Thus with your approach you prove everything and you prove nothing.

Originally posted by Fadix What Dan has done best was to question what “serious” means...B]

This whole paragraph is a non-issue and inconsequential. You whined about how I "diverted from the topic", yet you just posted a paragraph of "trash", as you say.

Originally posted by Fadix [B]And yes! You are a racist, check the definition of the word “racism” you fit in that definition.

Really? Thanks for that enlightening remark! Does this have anything to do with the discussion? Apparently not. It is indeed an ad homenim attack. Does this take anything away from the obvious facts? No it doesn't.

Originally posted by Fadix 1. Racism: “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”

If the facts point to differences in races, does this make me a racist? It appears so. Did I say that all people are bound by race? Apparently not, for there are exceptions to the rule, which I have repeated many times, which means that many blacks are intelligent, and many more do end up successfuly, such as Booker T. Washington. However, when we compare historically, differing civilizations, one is sueprior to another. If you can discredit this please do so because it begs to be discredited. If Europeans subjugated other peoples, were they superior or not? It is only a matter of obviousness. One doesn't have to agree with racism to see the obvious historical fact. Do I like imperialists? No, but you didn't take the time to ask me because you have preconceived views. Do I like governments? Obviously not, but this doesn't deter the local egalitarian from making more gibes.

Originally posted by Fadix Is that not what you are doing? Or perhaps will you hide yourself behind the banner of the so-called “racialism” to not be labelled for what you are?”

I never said I am a "racialist". But that, once again, didn't deter you from making another jeer. I thought I clarifed my position in my thread, which apparently you chose to ignore again, because its much easier to label people names than to look at all the facts, right? Isn't that what you are accusing me of?

Originally posted by Fadix And the rest of your reply show us that you have no any logical thinking, neither have no knowledge of statistical analysis. But still for the benefit of the readers I shall still answer you.?

That is a very fine way of putting it. If you look at my thread it was initially you that came in with a negative manner starting the ad homenim attacks, and no one else; since it was obviously a "sensitive issue" to you, because it threatened to crack your edifice of thought, and when we need to reinforce our "world views" we have to project our fears onto scapegoats in order to reinforce the doctrines that we have been fed, since birth, from every orifice of communication, namely that we are all "equal". I could have just done the same and said, "the rest of your reply show us that you have no any logical thinking", and just refuse to respond. Instead I tried to address you.

Originally posted by Fadix The first point you raise is the .15 correlation factor, here you made a fool of yourself by exposing your ignorance of basic statistics. The reason why he claimed that it might be low is because it is too low to support a direct genetic factor. Read one more time you’ll see what I mean. Since the previous theories were claiming that genetic factors was responsible of the differences and that after this study they found out a correlation of only .15, he concluded that the low correlation could have been attributed to the errors of measurement which would explain why it did not support the genetic theses. This means that the author still kept an open mind and supposed that a better study could have supported more a genetic factor… but the better the study the lower the correlation... this was the whole point here.

The claim itself that "it is too low to support a direct genetic factor" is itself exposing your ignorance. On what evidence does the author base such an assertion? You immediately begin your treatise on this by your first ad homemim response, then taking it from there. The low correlation he says could have been attributed to the errors of measurement, when how do we know that he himself is not committing an error of measurement in his so called "controlled study", by measuring the data of one group that shows similarities, and ignoring the data of another that would obviously show differences? The whole point rests on the two words "could" and "if".

Originally posted by Fadix Now, the error in the measurement, you have no clue of what you are talking about, the reason this was brought is because of the small sample in the study… more small is the sample, more you will have a higher margin of error, and even more, there is the fact that measurement errors (which are caused by the sampling procedures or other factors etc…) most of the time are even not included in the margin of errors. This is quite known in the pharmaceutical industry and drug trials, this is why new procedures like the cross over trials added to the double blind placebo and the Meta analysis are now used in order to measure the efficiencies of drugs.

That is so academic and cordial of you. I should begin my responses with "you have no clue of what you are talking about". If that doesn't highlight frustration, I don't know what does. Even regarding controlled studies with low margin of errors, are we to assume that the data that reflects the view that the tests show similar IQ were not chosen over those that would obviously show differences? It could very well be, that he measures the similarities in one sector, and ignored differences in another. This is a common accusation towards geneticists that claim race is real, by being accused of measuring only the genetic frequences that show differences among races, and ignoring similarities in between races. The same assertion could be made vice versa. You prove everything and you prove nothing.

Originally posted by Fadix This means that when you have small differences that are higher than the error margins, you can not consider the results to draw any conclusions,

Why not may I ask?

Originally posted by Fadix your results must show differences higher than the range where the error margin is situated in. Any correlation of under 0.20, due to the low samples can not be used to draw any conclusions, only an ignorant like you would claim that a “.03” correlation is a difference, because it is not, when considering the “correlative” margin of error would be in the range of the .1, .2, etc… in most cases in such small sample studies.

And what about the margin of error, which itself is just arbitrary, based on different number of trials, and errors. Is there one holy set of margin of error? I've seen margins of error that are +/- 2, or +/-.04, or +/- 5, or +/- 4 percent in anther case. In this case the margin of error is obviously a certain number, and when you expose all results that do not agree with that, then they are "inconsequential", and you will then result with "only an ignorant like you". The margin of error, in other words, is totally arbitrary based on a given study. Maybe you should go back to statistics 101 and review how to make a survey.

Originally posted by Fadix There is another thing which must be taken in consideration; the correlation table suggest that higher the sample lower it takes as a correlation value to asses to a correlation, this is only basic statistics. But as expected, you ignore that as well. But your ignorance could be expected here, as I am starting to be quite habituated reading you write about things which you have no knowledge of, or like the last time about a book which you did even not read. But that you even question the word “controlled” this is beyond belief. Dude, go take some basic statistic courses and come later, I do not have the time to waste with someone that start interpreting and questioning the usage of this word. Before even trying to answer here only to show me you have something to say, at least run a search on google and try to learn what “controlled” means in the statistical world.

If I have no knowledge of anything why are you so perturbed by my presence both here and on the other forum? What's the matter? If you are that intellectual beast that loves never having to resort to frustrations, why the need to even bother? If I have no "knowledge of anything", why respond? You shouldn't even respond. I can say the same thing "Go take some statistics courses and come back, as I do not have time for you". You really only show your desperation. I never questioned your intellect Fadix, I just questioned your humility, and moreover, your inability to remain cordial, calm, and collected when confronted with a differing viewpoint. Just like in the other forum, when someone chiseled a different viewpoint, it automatically threatened the matrix of your mind, so you immediately, just like here, and the other forum, resort to childishness.

Originally posted by Fadix Later on, on your empty post, filled with text which means absolutely nothing. As usual you change the subject and quote the author to try to fool both of us into thinking that you wrote anything relevant. Obviously you did not, and finally, you exposed yourself again as someone whom does even not try to understand what he answer.

You write: “When results do show differences, they must be the result of “inferior conditions.”” If you bothered even reading what you try to answer, the author writes: “children of the two groups of GIs had similar IQs…” The word is even not powerful enough, as it was not only similar but could be considered as identical, the difference between 96.5 and 97, when the error margin is above 3 times the differences of 0.5 is considered to not be a difference at all. So no, the results DID NOT shows any differences, so the argument you provide to discredit here the author is just a cheap attempt from your part.

The fact that I quoted the author of the article to make my point, means nothing, it only means I am making a point, which you choose to dismiss simply because, well, you don't like to be shown differing viewpoints, hence respond with childish invectives. That you are defending the dogma of colorblindness, due to race, and preach the dogma of "tolerance", but only with those whom you agree, means that you didn't take too kind on my thread about race, which was on topic, and was not in anyway "racist", or "hate condoning", other than trying to make an objective discussion which you had to turn into personal attacks. That margin of error itself is arbitrary based on the given study, doesn't mean anything. It only means the researcher was confining his findings, to yield to that given margin of error, which means that he was restricting his research only to certain structure. If you are looking for a 95 percent confidence interval, obviously your margin of error would differ from one that is 90 percent, or what have you. So therefore your argument that because at that given margin of error the results show no difference, holds no weight. Thus when differences are found they are blamed on "inferior conditions".

Originally posted by Fadix The rest of the trash you wrote is irrelevant to the discussion, as for Lynn, I have already answered that in the other thread, Lynn studies are not credible.

Really? What have you demosntrated? I can state "Nisbett studies are not credible". Your point?

Fadix

03-14-2004, 05:11 PM

Here we go again, the never ending cycle of the know it alls never will end. I ask you to return to the thread in question, take off your blinders and read the last two pages, don’t come here and answer how you were right in topic just because you want to write and “prove” me false. I asked a SIMPLE!!! Question, a SIMPLE!!! little question, you and Dan just started posting materials that had NOTHING!!! to do with what I asked; mind you here that when you started your thread you asked others (more particularly anileve) to “prove” your point wrong. Not only was your thread based on assumptions, but what you asked was against any logical rules. You can not start a thread make assumptions that are questionable and then ask people to prove you wrong. It is for you to provide valid evidences for what you affirm, you have not done so, I repeat, you have NOT done so. You failed right away when you started your thread. So, what later I did was to give some sense to your thread, I asked a simple question which would validate your thread. And what have I received as answers? NOTHING!!! Like I said, go at that thread reread your replies and those of Dan and try to find ANYTHING that could be considered as an answer to my simple question. Now, don’t try answering me by telling that you did not need to answer my question, the thread was on topic, because it will invalidate the whole purposes of the thread, which was to ask others to discredit what you presented; when you provided no any clear evidences which will support your claim.

So yes, you have sabotated your own thread, your thread lost any possible value when you ignored to answer me, so the only thing that was left for me was to start a new thread that would deviate from the other one, there was nothing that could be done that could save the other thread, unless a newer one was started and things placed like they should, and THEN! for me to return on the other thread and ask again the same question to expect an answer.

Coming to your answer, as usual, nothing relevant, I am not attacking you here Anon, so stop this kind of intimidations, yes, it is a waste of time to answer you, but I still do it, it is stupid, but I still do it still… and still. On your last reply Anon you bring arguments which are against your own logic, you just again, again and again jump from A to B, without paying attention that the arguments you bring to support B reject A. This is in my sense one of the two major reasons why you make no sense. For instance, you attempt to discuss about “controlled studies” and tell us how searchers will purposely ignore some results or measure others to support their possible biased view, because as humans they can not be totally impartial. I concede you this. But!!! I was NOT the one presenting a proposition or the first theses, you were. So your argument regarding “selectiveness” brought by searchers undermine your own claims. Let me tell you how. You Anon are the one making the proposition; your proposition being that “race” is responsible of the differences of IQ between whites and blacks, so it is to you to bring evidences to support your view, you have to bring evidences which would convince the reader. You and Dan posted some materials, and now you claim that scientists can be biased, so their researches may be influenced by this. Here, you brought a critic of your own materials, because now you shall explain us why this new theses of yours do not apply to the “evidences” you tried to bring. Case in point, Lynn selectively did not include in his publications one of the studies giving an advantages on the Reven test to blacks over whites. I shall return to this later on in my post and provide other examples.

So, I am exposing my ignorance? How come he himself is not making measurement errors? With such arguments, there is absolutely no way to answer you back; you are making no sense at all. The author is not the one conducting those studies, he refer to those studies, he is using every major studies in the article including those that are used on the g- factor(posted by Dan), so he is NOT ignoring any other datas, there is no other datas. And again, you fail to understand why the author brought it up, for the last time I will try to explain it to you. When he says it might have been low, he means that the poor measurement could have been responsible of the low correlation between European ancestry and IQ; he is not trying to justify or say that a correlation was probably found because of mismeasurement. If he were to do that your argument might have some weight, but he says quite the opposite, this is why on the next argument he provide the blood test study as an evaluation to see if a higher correlation could be found with a better sample and a better marker, and as a result we find out an even lower correlation. So again, you are just trying to write to show that you have something to say.

Now, regarding margin of errors, once more you have no clue of what you are talking about. Margin of errors are not arbitrary (and this might be considered by some as unfortunate because of other factors). Margin of errors in statistics are calculated based on the sample compared to the total, in other cases it is some other mathematical formulas, but still they are not arbitrary. In election polls for instance, the usual margin of errors is 19 time on 20, about 2 or 3%, and this is calculated based on the sample and the total population. They are fixed based on mathematical formulas, from it, you add other error factors due to manipulations of instruments, each instruments have their precisions that are measured by the manufacturer… the rest is human measurement errors which in this cases is the major problem, some add it to the error margin, some bring an independent “error factor” independently to be able to calculate a correction value. So I shall say it again, go study some statistics courses and come back to discuss about statistics, this is not a diversion from my part, you obviously don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.

I shall now answer your question regarding differences in race. What you believe makes you a racist, the definition of racism is quite clear, it has nothing to do with if the claim is false or true, you do believe a race classification, and it makes you a racist. Call that truth, observation or what ever other things, you may even do like you do presently by claiming that you do not deny that intelligent blacks exist… you still believe that whites are more intelligent because of their race, this IS a race classification; therefore racism. Having said that, there is your other argument which does not make sense at all. You use ancient civilisation to “prove” your claim. This is a very poor indicator, because the correlation might be environment based it could target one race over the other, for many reasons such as geographical situations etc… and there is even more. If you were to use a computer simulation program based on the best types of computer random generators, a program in which a world is simulated, in this world you select 4 races, with equal mental capabilities, and you place them in different geographical and bio systems situations. What happens? From those 4, there are practically no chances that 2 of them evolve exactly at the same speed, the minute one will evolve, the evolution will become exponential. Now let the simulation to simulate in few thousands of years, some of those civilisations will be more evolved than the others, and still when I have placed those 4, they were all programmed to have the same capacities. In these cases, environmental reasons explain alone the difference between those 4 races. Environmental causes are measurable and any recent datas support it, on the other hand racial reasons for blacks lower IQ is NOT supported by any recent controlled studies. And here again, you can not use civilisations as bases to support your view, because environment alone could explain those differences.

So, where are we now? What evidences have you provided? On one side I have specifically referred to the manipulations by Lynn and others, while you have tried to discredit the author of the article I presented by providing arguments which does not make any senses. I have brought evidences of the exact manipulations, while you started assuming and made some suppositions by giving to your text some pseudo-scientifical taste.

I repost my other post destinated to Dan, where I show where Lynn has manipulated his studies.

So, here is the repost.

Dan, don’t start that s!.t with me, go try to sell your nonsense elsewhere. The g-factor is a joke; the references used are all pass dated uncontrolled studies and known to have been manipulated. The references used as “Lynn” comes from a known misinterpreted and manipulated study by a racist professor living in Ireland calling his research as “Negroid Intelligence.” There is hardly any sane person whom would use this man as reference. His “best study” which he refers uses black students from South Africa who knew a little of English, to pass the test written in English. And more so, one of the studies that were done, the black students scored higher in the Raven test, still Lynn ignored them and decided to not include it. In another study, he used a thousand Zambian miners without any scholarity… While on the other hand, he used for the white population for the comparison, British students or graduates. One wonder how do you ask those Zambian miners who could barely talk English to pass a test to measure their intelligence. And the results were even not on papers, but were reported orally… I can provide a lot of example, such as his other claim regarding Arabs having 75 as IQ, a flawed test, like all his other ones. Murray and Herrnstein Bell Curves uses Lynn works(by the intermediary of the magazine he was associated Editor of “Mankind Quarterly”) 24 times, practically the major bases of the work regarding the blacks IQ. The design of the studies that Lynn himself manipulated was actually from Dr. Ken Owen whom said that the poorer results of those studies had all to do with the fact that blacks had a poorer education under the racist apartheid system without denying the poor quality of those same studies.

Like the reader can realise, I provide concrete examples of manipulations from the part of Lynn, while you on the other hand assume and suppose that the studies supporting environmental causes over racial might be biased, but without actual concrete examples.

As the rest of your post, regarding my activities on other forums etc… or your insulations, not worth any replies. I shall maybe add more to this post later.

Darorinag

03-14-2004, 06:12 PM

1. Racism: “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”
So how is that bad? How is racism bad then?

I think you mean racialist, not racist. :)

And no, the two are not the same. For more, check out your dictionary. :)

I am a racialist in that I strongly believe in bringing racial differences into determining national policies, such as immigration (or anti-immigration), "equality," etc.

Fadix,

racist

adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

The above is a modern definition of the term "racist." Racist in the scientific sense is not racist in the modern sense of the word. :)

Darorinag

03-14-2004, 06:25 PM

I have researched war crimes for 5 years and been banned from a Shoah revisionist site few years ago, because the idiots there were unable to confront me.
I am not surprised. After all, the revisionist board that you were on, I'm sure, was interested in knowledgeable debates rather than fallacies and personal attacks. So far, what you have posted only shows how incompetent you are in "debating."
And of course, the "shoah" has to be with a capital S... How politically incorrect you are... ahhh... :)

yes, it is a waste of time to answer you, but I still do it, it is stupid, but I still do it still… and still.
Yes, I suppose that is one of the fallacies you used at the revisionist forum. :) If you don't want people to answer you because you don't want to answer back, why post on a forum? Create an online journal for yourself and save us all the trouble. You want everyone to keep mum on what you post, and when we don't, you claim it's a waste of time to argue with us. Please, Fadix, and this is not an attack on you, it's a very very honest plea (no matter how evil and racist you might think I am, take this piece of advice from me) - you're diverting your own topic in order to evade questions and arguments. It might help if you didn't do that. You posted 10+ paragraphs of useless arguments about irrelevant issues, yet you claim it's a waste of time to answer Anonymouse. I suggest that you answer Anonymouse's questions or disprove his claims, instead of wasting your time on non-issues, as Anon said. :) But of course, what a white supremacist piece of advice that was!!! :( I always used to think highly of you, but what you have stated so far and the manner in which you have "argued" is not characteristic of anyone who claims he knows a lot about a lot of issues. And this is not because I disagree with you. I am not all that stubborn a person. I used to believe in communism. Now I don't. I have been convinced. And only a good argument can do that.

Please, please, do save me from all this bashing I take at the hands of "anti-racists", and convince me that there are no races, that there are no racial differences, and that therefore racialism is WRONG. This is not meant to be sarcastic. I mean it. I am very willing to admit I was wrong if you prove that I am. There's nothing wrong in being wrong.

Let's all cut the personal attacks and act like we should in an "intellectual lounge." :)

peace.

Fadix

03-14-2004, 07:10 PM

What a farce you are Dan, « racist » as how I described it is the original definition of the word, your definition is the recent one. Its etymology is about “race” based classification, or a belief based on a race classification.

As for your second post, try harder Dan, I am sure you can do better. Were you there on that forum? Can you provide any evidences that support your claim regarding my banning? Why should I be even surprised of your claim which you could not back up? I was banned for the same reason I was banned from Turkey.com, and anyone is free to visit that site and see if I am the one that attack, or I am the one that is attacked. As for me being incompetent in debating, again… suuuree… because Mr. Dan said it so.

Mr. Dan is making a plea… Mr. Dan, my over 10 paragraphs are right in the track, there was only one that had nothing to do with the discussion, and the only reason I brought it was because you were show offing in your forum regarding my non-answer of your posts(which concerns the Shoah).

Answering Anon? Answering what? Convincing you about what? What kind of logic is that? You guys have a belief, you guys are proposing something, it is to you guys to bring valid evidences to support your claims, and not to me to prove you wrong… but until now, you guys were not able to do much… and now you have again Anon trying to discuss about things which he ignores about.

The rest of your post is only intimidations, good going Dan, but you deceived me this time, I was sure you would do better.

loseyourname

03-14-2004, 07:29 PM

I know I'm kind of just jumping in here, but as a relatively impartial third party, Fadix is not attacking you guys, at least not in this thread. He is posting genuine evidence to back up his assertion, and neither of you has either begun to address it, nor have you posted any evidence to support your own view that he hasn't effectively debunked. Now keep in mind, I'm saying this as someone who is pretty firmly wedded to the idea that intelligence is genetically determined.

It would be nice if a discussion could be conducted here where people genuinely address each other's points instead of going haywire when they have nothing of substance to say. I hate to say it, Mousy, but you are showing an extreme lack of knowledge regarding statistical analysis and the conduction of controlled studies.

And to Fadix: I know this is off-topic, but nothing you've posted does anything to debunk a genetic basis for intelligence. Keep in mind that there is just as much genetic variation between members of the same racial population as there is between members of different populations. Furthermore, a black living in North America, whose descendents have been in North America for some time, will have more in common genetically with other Americans than he will with Africans who are still living in Africa. This is because he shares the environmental factors favoring certain alleles over others with his fellow Americans, not with Africans. Skin color and facial structure will fall into line at a far slower rate than other traits because these particular traits are controlled by a very large number of genes. Other traits that are controlled by fewer genes will drift in the same direction as geographic analogs at a much faster rate.

Anonymouse

03-14-2004, 07:42 PM

Darorinag

03-14-2004, 08:29 PM

What a farce you are Dan, « racist » as how I described it is the original definition of the word, your definition is the recent one. Its etymology is about “race” based classification, or a belief based on a race classification.
I was simply mentioning the other part of the definition of racism which you didn't mention. You're jumping the gun again.

Fadix is not attacking you guys, at least not in this thread.
Really...

"What a farce you are Dan"

I hate to say it, Mousy, but you are showing an extreme lack of knowledge regarding statistical analysis and the conduction of controlled studies.
Well it wasn't Mousey who claimed that since there was a higher number of crimes by Whites than there was by blacks, that it meant that Whites in America committed more crimes by percentage than blacks.....

loseyourname

03-14-2004, 08:43 PM

Look, perhaps I can offer up a hypothesis that might satisfy all of you. Let's say that indeed there is a correlation between race and IQ, and that blacks, on average, are less intelligent than whites. A simple explanation for this might be that given the respective histories of the peoples, intelligence was more likely to be selected for in whites than in blacks, the reason being that African culture remained primitive far longer than European culture. Africans, for nearly all of their history, were selected for brute strength and breeding capacity more than anything else. Europeans, on the other hand, with the more advanced technology and social constructs they had, were more likely to live long enough to reproduce if they were cunning, and so over the ages became more intelligent than their cousins living in the jungles and on the savannahs. If intelligence is indeed genetically determined, then this hypothesis would seem pretty reasonable.

Anonymouse

03-14-2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by loseyourname Look, perhaps I can offer up a hypothesis that might satisfy all of you. Let's say that indeed there is a correlation between race and IQ, and that blacks, on average, are less intelligent than whites. A simple explanation for this might be that given the respective histories of the peoples, intelligence was more likely to be selected for in whites than in blacks, the reason being that African culture remained primitive far longer than European culture. Africans, for nearly all of their history, were selected for brute strength and breeding capacity more than anything else. Europeans, on the other hand, with the more advanced technology and social constructs they had, were more likely to live long enough to reproduce if they were cunning, and so over the ages became more intelligent than their cousins living in the jungles and on the savannahs. If intelligence is indeed genetically determined, then this hypothesis would seem pretty reasonable.

This is all I've been saying, but didn't get around to it. Essentially all the "race data" that we draw are in some way, shape, or form, based on the histories. Thank you for that point, you summarized it better than I got a chance to. Does this mean we should hate someone for being a different race? Obviously not, nor did I ever suggest otherwise.

Darorinag

03-14-2004, 08:59 PM

the reason being that African culture remained primitive far longer than European culture
Well, wouldn't intelligence be considered a determining factor in how primitive or civilised people are? Just a question, not an argument. What do you think, loseyourname?

loseyourname

03-14-2004, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Darorinag Well, wouldn't intelligence be considered a determining factor in how primitive or civilised people are? Just a question, not an argument. What do you think, loseyourname?

Not really, Dan. Every race came from the same place if you go back far enough. One didn't have a head-start on another. If I had to speculate as to why African culture remained primitive, I would say it was just geography. It's a lot harder to survive in the jungle than it is in any part of Europe or in the ancient "fertile crescent." When every day is a struggle against nature to survive, you don't have a whole lot of time to develop advanced civilization. In Europe, people didn't have to worry about battling nature so much; they just battled each other.

Darorinag

03-15-2004, 04:49 AM

Now now now, aren't you jumping to conclusions here, loseyeourname? What about Russia? What about the Scandinavian countries? What about Egypt, Lebanon, the crade of civilisations? Are you telling me it was hardEST to survive in Africa? That's a huge assumption right there.... what about the natives in America? They had civilisation. The Aztecs and the Incas. Are we to generalise now and assume that geography treated the blacks unfairly?

When every day is a struggle against nature to survive, you don't have a whole lot of time to develop advanced civilization.
Oh really... so are you saying that.... those peoples who were subjected to daily enemy attacks from neighbouring countries, etc. did nothing but fight them, in order to survive? If that were the case, there would be NO civilisation today.

The Natives had their own medicine, healing processes. That is civilisation. The Europeans did too. So did the Chinese (herbs, etc.). Africans (mostly non-Northern-Africans, as North Africa is close to Europe and hugely benefited from Europe and the Middle East) did not.

But of course, that could always be attributed to SOMETHING. ANYTHING. As long as we can find a justification for it, we're fine, aren't we? Even if the justification is unbased... Africa was more of an exception rather than a universal thing amongst those who lived in tough circumstances. After all, didn't our primitive ancestors too? Are you saying then that they had absolutely no chances of building a civilisation? Where did it all come from then? Appeared just like magic?

In Europe, people didn't have to worry about battling nature so much; they just battled each other.
Really... hmmm.. what about Russia? What about the COLD Scandinavian countries? Surely they were not cold, were they...? Only heat counts, doesn't it? Surely the Vikings don't count...

loseyourname

03-15-2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Darorinag [B]Now now now, aren't you jumping to conclusions here, loseyeourname?

Relax, man. I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I'm just putting forth a hypothesis. It's only speculation. The point still stands that far enough back, all races are descended from a single group of humans. None had an intellectual head start on another. I don't know exactly why Africans didn't develop the way other races did, but I do know living in the jungle, where there is a great deal of competition from non-humans, not to mention a higher incidence of disease, would have made it more difficult to develop civilization.

What about Russia? What about the Scandinavian countries? What about Egypt, Lebanon, the crade of civilisations? Are you telling me it was hardEST to survive in Africa?

The topography of Africa makes it impossible to develop agriculture, which was the precursor to all civilizations.

That's a huge assumption right there.... what about the natives in America? They had civilisation. The Aztecs and the Incas. Are we to generalise now and assume that geography treated the blacks unfairly?

Geography doesn't treat anybody in any way. It is unconscious and completely indifferent. There is nothing unfair about it. It's just luck of the draw. The only thing I can say to your second point is that Native Americans are probably just inherently superior to all other races (that's meant to be cute, by the way).

Oh really... so are you saying that.... those peoples who were subjected to daily enemy attacks from neighbouring countries, etc. did nothing but fight them, in order to survive? If that were the case, there would be NO civilisation today.

That's not what I said. I said the challenges of natural environment were stacked against them. Dealing with enemies is one thing; dealing with tropical diseases and hungry tigers is quite another. Still, the most important factor, presumably, would have been the fact that their jungle environment made agriculture impossible. They never advanced past the hunter-gatherer phase.

The Natives had their own medicine, healing processes. That is civilisation. The Europeans did too. So did the Chinese (herbs, etc.). Africans (mostly non-Northern-Africans, as North Africa is close to Europe and hugely benefited from Europe and the Middle East) did not.

Of course. This all goes back to agriculture. Once you have agriculture, you have enough leisure time to develop civilization. Good luck trying to farm in a rainforest or domesticate a wildebeest or a lion.

But of course, that could always be attributed to SOMETHING. ANYTHING. As long as we can find a justification for it, we're fine, aren't we? Even if the justification is unbased... Africa was more of an exception rather than a universal thing amongst those who lived in tough circumstances. After all, didn't our primitive ancestors too? Are you saying then that they had absolutely no chances of building a civilisation? Where did it all come from then? Appeared just like magic?

When did I say any of that? I don't know all of the factors that went into it. Again, I'm only putting forth a hypothesis. I think I have addressed most of your points. The only one I can't really hit on is the fact that ancient Mayans, Olmecs, and Incas all developed fairly advanced civilizations despite living in jungles. Actually, Incas were able to domesticate llamas and could farm at the high altitudes they lived at, but I don't know what to say about the Mayas or Olmecs.

Really... hmmm.. what about Russia? What about the COLD Scandinavian countries? Surely they were not cold, were they...? Only heat counts, doesn't it? Surely the Vikings don't count...

Russian and Nordic civilizations did not initially develop in Scandinavia or Russia, and neither were very advanced in ancient times. The major ones were Sumerian, Aryan, Greek, Egyptian, and Native American civilizations. All others were descended from these. No pre-existing civilized people ever moved to the jungles of Africa.

Fadix

03-15-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by loseyourname I know I'm kind of just jumping in here, but as a relatively impartial third party, Fadix is not attacking you guys, at least not in this thread. He is posting genuine evidence to back up his assertion, and neither of you has either begun to address it, nor have you posted any evidence to support your own view that he hasn't effectively debunked. Now keep in mind, I'm saying this as someone who is pretty firmly wedded to the idea that intelligence is genetically determined.

It would be nice if a discussion could be conducted here where people genuinely address each other's points instead of going haywire when they have nothing of substance to say. I hate to say it, Mousy, but you are showing an extreme lack of knowledge regarding statistical analysis and the conduction of controlled studies.

And to Fadix: I know this is off-topic, but nothing you've posted does anything to debunk a genetic basis for intelligence. Keep in mind that there is just as much genetic variation between members of the same racial population as there is between members of different populations. Furthermore, a black living in North America, whose descendents have been in North America for some time, will have more in common genetically with other Americans than he will with Africans who are still living in Africa. This is because he shares the environmental factors favoring certain alleles over others with his fellow Americans, not with Africans. Skin color and facial structure will fall into line at a far slower rate than other traits because these particular traits are controlled by a very large number of genes. Other traits that are controlled by fewer genes will drift in the same direction as geographic analogs at a much faster rate.

The thing is that Anon made an affirmation, it is to him to back his claims, since there is no actual valid evidences to support any race « superiority » the only alternative left is environmental –sociocultural model to explain such a variation. Even genes markers are not evidences. For instance if we were to find a gene of intelligence, and that the marker is found more among whites and practically none among blacks, it could still not be a valid evidences. Geneticists that research links between diseases and genes will be the first to affirm it. Some human leukocyte antigens, or haplotypes will be good indicators for some diseases among whites, but they won’t among blacks and vice versa. This could be one of the reasons that one of the most serious studies that researched European ancestries among blacks found a negative correlation. Which gives a genetic advantage for blacks. Why I provide this example, it is because there is no reason why those blacks having “white” ancestries would have a lower IQ, unless “blacks” and “whites” would have different gene markers for intelligence. If that is the cases, a mixture of the genes could end up that from the white part of their ancestry they lacked of the gene which for the whites does not correlate with intelligence, while for the blacks it does. Genetic is very complex, there is no one gene for intelligence, there might be some genes that could favour some types of intelligence, but still intelligence is something very vague, the past few decades IQ tests have been changed, we have to keep in mind the first tests which did not have correction equation for ones variation of age. This means, that decades ago a man of 40 years old that would pass the test would obtain about 70 in the IQ test if he does as well as someone of 17 years of age. There are other factors, for instance, we know that blacks culturally have been conditioned to have a lesser attention spam, which would disadvantages them a lot during IQ tests. Studies have been done among black kids where the IQ test has been slightly changed in order for them to have a better concentration. The level of difficulty was left as the standard one, the only difference is that boys loving cartoons etc… had in their IQ tests cartoon figures etc… things that would interest them, as a result their IQ during the test jumped significantly. Intelligence is not like muscles, genitals size etc… intelligence is something very vague, there are many types of intelligences, some cultures favour some types against others, in Japan, mathematical thinking is very favoured, among black culture in general it is not.

There is the argument of brain sizes as well brought here. Yes! whites brain is a little bigger, but still, a brain density, cerebral activities of about 3% differences does not account for the difference of IQ here, if it were, blacks and whites would have nearly the same IQ (97-100). In fact, the differences between a blacks and whites brain size is nearly as much as the differences between the mass of the brain of a man and a woman brain. Still, there are no evidences that a man is more intelligent than woman.

There is as well a problem when we classify whites and blacks as races. Whatever or not there exist really races among humans is still debated, the fact that we can find among many in the population more genetic similarities between a white and a black than two blacks is very uncommon in nature, unless we talk about some birds like canaries, which are only different by the colour of their feather and other such insignificant differences. The categorisation of species have changed many times in the past with sub-categories, we know now, and have clear evidences that homo Sapiens Sapiens genetically could have been mixed with homo Sapiens Neanderthals, some classes them as two distinct species because they consider that races already exist among humans(Caucasoid, mongoloid etc…), but there are as much differences between those two(Neanderthals and Sapiens) as there is between other races in the rest of the animal kingdom which are really considered as races. If in fact, those two types of Homo sapiens are of different races; this would invalidate the theses that there exist different human races in present time, because the differences between blacks and whites is smaller than the differences between other races of humans. (Neanderthals and Sapiens) Applying the same standards for humans as we apply for the rest of the species, we are forced to conclude that the differences between blacks, whites, yellows etc… are too small to consider them as races. The categorisation of races among humans has been invented in a time where people were trying to justify the mistreatment of the blacks, the apartheid etc… because if independently without biases we had to use the same exact standards, like I said, that we apply to classify other species, we are forced to conclude races among humans is non-existent.

Civilisation, yet! Dan brings this up again. There are many factors, MANY, that explains why in Africa civilisation was not developed, humanity started from there, humans acquire experiences while they move on… some stayed there, others moved elsewhere, those that moved evolved, they faced a new echo-system they had to adapt to it, build new tools, eat new things etc… it is this adaptation the environment that made the differences, while those in Africa were left there in the middle of the jungle fighting to survive, this was their typical life, they had no time to think about mathematics, physics etc…, those are needs that come after, first you must satisfy your primary needs, when they are entirely satisfied, then the rest follows. But here again, in order that this “rest” follows, conditions exist, if you take a baby and you leave it in the jungle, and only give him what he needs to survive, this baby has all the basic needs to survive, when he become a child, and that he still has all he need to survive, this kid will start playing with things, and will have other needs that are not directly linked with survival. On the other hand, if a kid is left in the jungle and he must fight to survive, and that he need to find food all by himself, find where to live etc… this kid is occupied by the needs he has, those basic needs.

The same goes with the said “lack of black civilisation.” The fact that there is not similar black civilisation as there is found among others, has nothing to do with them being black, but rather with the fact that those people live where humanity has originated, they have not moved much, while those that moved, had to face new echo systems, find new ways of survivals, those life experiences were transmitted as knowledge from generation to generation, while people moved on, it was becoming more easier for them to adaptate because they had knowledge, and more knowledge you have more questions you start asking. Kind of: “This wood here, is not of the same colour, why?” “It is cold on north, why?” “Here the vegetation is not the same, why?” And later on, trying to answer them… this spark and evolution become exponential, they start having other needs, trying to solve questions, answering questions, etc… philosophy emerges etc…

Now, regarding Anon, do you agree with me that when someone wants to discuss about something and claim that you are in the wrong, the basic should be that this individual know of what he is talking about? It becomes really stupid to discuss about things with someone that has only beliefs to support his beliefs. I was discussing with this individual in another board, the guy start shouting books, and by chance I had read one of those books, to discover later that from the answers he gave it was evident that he did even not read the book he proposed. Not only this, he reject anything scientifical. How can you even try to support your point when you face such a person, when that person doesn’t even accept “methodology,” “logic” etc…? When that person reject basic known observed, measured, calculated, expected realities? Tell me how could you even try to have an intellectual debate with such a person? And the amazing in all this, is that he claims to have provided evidences, and he post even articles written by said “scientists.” How can you answer such a person? I mean, he accept no scientific bases, and later on try to uses “science” to support his point. How ironic is that? Was I in the wrong, telling this guy to go and learn what he want to discuss about, before coming and discussing about it? Here an example, he still maintains that error margin are arbitrary figures? With him words don’t have any sense at all, because he could change the entire significance o a word, and write even a thesis to explain us why saying that the sky is red is not wrong. The same goes with the word racist; he accuses me of attacking him. I am only applying the original definition of the word, nothing more or less. Am I not doing that?

loseyourname

03-15-2004, 02:16 PM

Darorinag

03-15-2004, 04:12 PM

Of course. This all goes back to agriculture. Once you have agriculture, you have enough leisure time to develop civilization.
Leisure time to develop civilisation? So you mean they sit down and decide, "hey, let's develop a civilisation!"? Civilisation doesn't happen overnight, and it isn't a decision that one arrives to. And it almost always isn't a result of leisure time. You have trouble with lions, you THINK about what might help you in reducing the risk. You can't gather enough food, you THINK about solutions to it. You feel cold, you THINK about solutions for it. On the contrary, the struggle for survival seems to be a PREREQUISITE for civilisation and improvement.

Fadix

03-15-2004, 04:15 PM

Loseyourname, don’t forget that the whole discussion is about race vs IQ. So yes! it makes a lot of differences if the lower IQ is caused by the environment rather than being an issue of difference of races. So here, I do not see how you can say that it does not make a difference.

Secondly, the differences I provide are not enough to conclude that whites and blacks are of different races. If it were a bases, we would have hundreds of races. As for leukocytes, leukocytes are not but Human Leukocyte antigens are genetic markers, and the most widely used in the medical community to study the predisposition of one to a particular disease. And genetic diseases here could mean two things, in the common sense it could be caused by a mutation, in other cases, people have the marker, and those markers show a predisposition to certain type of diseases and not other, other markers could indicate a protection against some diseases etc…

Your question regarding the negative correlation, the answer is in the article I posted in this thread, one of the studies was regarding blacks with European ancestry, and how that would influence IQ. It would be too long to rewrite what is already written on that article, I may copy past that part, but will I not. :D

Thirdly, knowledge is very important and has a direct role in the determination of intelligence. It is by learning that a child brain makes connections, it is about interacting with the environment. Learning is knowledge. Yes gifted child exist, yes some genes could play a role here, but their role does not account for the difference of IQ between blacks and whites. Don’t forget that we are not talking about exceptions, we are not talking about the minority, we are talking about blacks and whites in general.

Fourthly, I think I was not clear enough in my point regarding the non-existence of races. Neanderthals are believed to be Homo sapiens, the same numbers of chromosomes, with compatible corresponding genes. So here we have two different races of Homo sapiens, if both are different races, blacks and whites are both Homo sapiens sapiens as opposed to Homo sapiens Neanderthals. In the classification of races, the third words indicate the race. This is what I mean; of course some searchers classify Neanderthals as homo Neanderthals, without the sapiens, which would indicate that they are different sub-species rather than races. But the most recent research suggests both to be Sapiens. Nothing is black and white when classifying groups in races, this is why they uses the term “sub” and even in some cases “sub-sub.” Even then, if we have two Homo sapiens, we would have two races. In this case one would be Neanderthals and the other Sapiens. Now, blacks and whites are Sapiens, here sapiens is the third word, the third word indicate the race. We are forced to conclude that there should be at least sub-races… so we have pushed the race barrier now, since blacks and whites would be at least sub-races of the same race. But again, sub-races are classified by similar genetic makeup’s, which means that if we find out that there could be more similarities between one black and a white and two whites, we would be forced to classify the black and the white in the same sub-race. This is how sub-races are differentiated. Where are we now? Sub-sub races? At that point, I think it is useless to even continue further.

loseyourname

03-15-2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Fadix Loseyourname, don’t forget that the whole discussion is about race vs IQ. So yes! it makes a lot of differences if the lower IQ is caused by the environment rather than being an issue of difference of races. So here, I do not see how you can say that it does not make a difference.

It doesn't make a difference if the average black still has a lower IQ than the average white. It doesn't matter how this came to be. It only matters that it is.

Secondly, the differences I provide are not enough to conclude that whites and blacks are of different races. If it were a bases, we would have hundreds of races.

Who says? What is your standard for what constitutes a distinct race? The only significant difference is in appearance, but so what? The only significant difference between a poodle and a great dane is appearance. They are still separate breeds.

As for leukocytes, leukocytes are not but Human Leukocyte antigens are genetic markers, and the most widely used in the medical community to study the predisposition of one to a particular disease.

Leukocytes indicate the presence of a disease, not a genetic predisposition to a disease.

And genetic diseases here could mean two things, in the common sense it could be caused by a mutation, in other cases, people have the marker, and those markers show a predisposition to certain type of diseases and not other, other markers could indicate a protection against some diseases etc…

A genetic disease is a disease caused, in part, by the presence of a gene that makes one vulnerable to that particular disease. I'm not talking about mutations that take place during the lifespan of the patient; I mean an inherited mutated gene that does not perform the function that a non-mutated gene would.

Thirdly, knowledge is very important and has a direct role in the determination of intelligence. It is by learning that a child brain makes connections, interaction with the environment. Learning is knowledge.

Knowledge has no role in the determination of intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to learn, not the fact that one has learned. If that were the case, George Bush would have to be considered more intelligent than Mozart at age 5. Obviously, this is not the case.

Yes gifted child exist, yes some genes could play a role here, but their role does not account for the difference of IQ between blacks and whites. Don’t forget that we are not talking about exceptions, we are not talking about the minority, we are talking about blacks and whites in general.

You don't know that genes do not account for the deficit. I have already explained exactly why that may be the case, how physically advantageous traits would have been selected in Africa, where brute strength was the most important factor in one's survival, whereas in Europe, intellect and cunning would have been selected, because these factors were more important.

Lastly, I think I was not clear enough in my point regarding the non-existence of races. Neanderthals are believed to be Homo sapiens, the same numbers of chromosomes, with compatible corresponding genes. So here we have two different races of Homo sapiens, if both are different races, blacks and whites are both Homo sapiens sapiens as opposed to Homo sapiens Neanderthals. In the classification of races, the third words indicate the race. This is what I mean; of course some searchers classify Neanderthals as homo Neanderthals, without the sapiens, which would indicate that they are different sub-species rather than races.

I understood your post perfectly. My only point was the fact that the difference between blacks and whites is less than the difference between modern humans and Neanderthals doesn't mean there isn't a significant enough difference to consider blacks and whites a separate race. I even gave an example to illustrate, of difference breeds of dogs. A labrador has more in common with a German shepherd than it does with a xxxxzu, but labrador's and shepherds are still separate breeds. They are all the same species, they can all interbreed, but they are not the same.

loseyourname

03-15-2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Darorinag Leisure time to develop civilisation? So you mean they sit down and decide, "hey, let's develop a civilisation!"? Civilisation doesn't happen overnight, and it isn't a decision that one arrives to. And it almost always isn't a result of leisure time. You have trouble with lions, you THINK about what might help you in reducing the risk. You can't gather enough food, you THINK about solutions to it. You feel cold, you THINK about solutions for it. On the contrary, the struggle for survival seems to be a PREREQUISITE for civilisation and improvement.

Dan, however you want to cut it up, the development of agriculture is a necessary prerequisite for civilization. It wasn't possible to develop agriculture in Africa; they remained hunters and so didn't have the energy resources to devote to writing poetry and building temples. I think it should be interesting to note, however, that several African civilizations did exist. I forget the name, but there was as city on the Ivory Coast that existed in the times just before the Portuguese began the slave trade. It had a university and a library and all that.

Fadix

03-15-2004, 05:50 PM

Loseyourname, the thread is about IQ and races; I don’t see how you can say it does not matter, when the thread in question is about this « matter. » How can you ask me to develop about this issue when you tell me that it does not matter at all why blacks have a lower IQ. The whole point here is to demonstrate that the lower IQ is due to environmental reasons and to bring evidences that since races do not exist, giving races as reasons for the lower IQ is irrelevant in the first point.

louseyourname, two times I have written human leukocyte antigens, and two times you have answered me “leukocytes.” I am talking about the antigen, the human leukocyte “antigens,” referred as HLA. They do not show the presence of a disease, but rather the predisposition. There is no HLA that shows the presence of any disease. Human leukocyte antigens are glycoproteins that are found in high concentration on the surface of leukocytes and they are the major histocompatibility antigens for tissue recognition. They are considered as genetic markers. And don’t worry, I know what a genetic disease is.

Intelligence is subjective, at age 5, Mozart had most of his brain neurons, and the most important interconnections between those neurons completed. Knowledge is VERY important here, like I said it has to do with learning, making connections, this is how the brain works. Depending what you learn, how you learn, your environment, this will modify your brain. The most important years are during the first few years. So intelligence is influenced with the way the brain has developed, and the environment has a MAJOR role in this developpement.

Now coming to races, if we were to use your logic, we could separate humans in hundreds types of races, depending of the minor physical differences. The fact is that, blacks and whites are classified as part of the Homo Sapiens sapiens, the scientific term for humans, in every scientifical classification of species, the third word indicate the race, I have not invented that, it is like that. So, here again, from the scientific term, blacks and whites are of the races of the sapiens.

Anonymouse

03-15-2004, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Fadix The thing is that Anon made an affirmation, it is to him to back his claims, since there is no actual valid evidences to support any race « superiority » the only alternative left is environmental –sociocultural model to explain such a variation.

This is unsubstantiated and a twisting of the facts, and what I posted. I claimed races are different on a biological level. Scientific fact will not say who is superior or inferior it will only put out differences on a biological level. When put into a historical context, it is evident that the differences are responsible for the backwards of one group, compared to another.

Originally posted by Fadix There is the argument of brain sizes as well brought here. Yes! whites brain is a little bigger, but still, a brain density, cerebral activities of about 3% differences does not account for the difference of IQ here if it were, blacks and whites would have nearly the same IQ (97-100). In fact, the differences between a blacks and whites brain size is nearly as much as the differences between the mass of the brain of a man and a woman brain. Still, there are no evidences that a man is more intelligent than woman.

That brain size and IQ form a correlation is indeed valid. To argue that "3 % differences" shouldn't make it so, is fallacious, for the margin of error is arbitrary as already pointed out. The only alternative position you can take is "even if correlations are valid, they account for only a small percentage of differences" or in this case trying to marginalize it by stating "it is only 3%", nevermind where you got that figure from.

Originally posted by Fadix Whatever or not there exist really races among humans is still debated, the fact that we can find among many in the population more genetic similarities between a white and a black than two blacks is very uncommon in nature

The only way you can find genetics similarities in between populations is by measuring gene frequencies which are similar in all races, but failing to measure gene frequencies which do vary widely and are different between the races. This is how data gets twisted and skewed, by any scientist in his egalitarian wisdom deciding to skew the facts to favor one world view. Moreover, criminologists and forensics rely on DNA testing, which obviously relies on different races for it work, for capturing criminals, or establishing a body, or what have you. Any forensic anthropologist will tell you the cranio morphological differences are real between the races.

Originally posted by Fadix The categorisation of races among humans has been invented in a time where people were trying to justify the mistreatment of the blacks, the apartheid etc… because if independently without biases we had to use the same exact standards, like I said, that we apply to classify other species, we are forced to conclude races among humans is non-existent.

This is simply Marxian-lite politically correct history. While not capable of doing genetics studies, the world of antiquity readily recognized differing racial groups as evidenced from their writings. No one was justifying "mistreatment of blacks", you act as if blacks are somehow the most downtrodden people of the world. Why is it that blacks could not defend against the evil European? Could it be because they were inferior? And could it be that they were inferior in civilization, in technology, in military, that they were ultimately subjugated? Could this be because of racial differences? How dare we veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences.

Originally posted by Fadix Civilisation, yet! Dan brings this up again. There are many factors, MANY, that explains why in Africa civilisation was not developed, humanity started from there

This is an assumption that humanity started from "Africa". The "African Eve" theory isn't a holy law. It is based on the assumption of evolution being true. It is accepted as fact that all women are descended from the African "Eve". This conclusion was based upon mtDNA studies which assume that its only inherited only from mothers. This assumption has been repeated so much now that it has become a sort of "holy law", and it is disseminated in egalitarian and other media circles. Recent studies would suggest that some paternal mtDNA actually does get into eggs and recombines with maternal mtDNA. Moreover, the "African Eve" theory has been challenged so much that it is believed that it is only the mother of sub-Saharan black Africans.

Originally posted by Fadix it is this adaptation the environment that made the differences,

This may sound like a nice explanation, but it is only an assumption, and one that is further based on the assumption of evolution.

Originally posted by Fadix The same goes with the said “lack of black civilisation.” The fact that there is not similar black civilisation as there is found among others, has nothing to do with them being black, but rather with the fact that those people live where humanity has originated, they have not moved much, while those that moved,,

The idea that "they have not moved much" is an assumption based on evolutionary theory. The fact that there is no black or Negroid civilization only shows that that particular group has a far less limited potential, than the other racial groups, for civilization, rather culture, is only an outward manifestation of that given people. It reflects the people that create it. Culture does not create people, but any given people create the culture that reflects those people. This is simply logical, you can argue against it all you want, and you can justify it as "they didn't move much", doesn't change the fact that they produced no civilization, that would rival the "Mongoloids" or the "Caucasoids".

Originally posted by Fadix Now, regarding Anon, do you agree with me that when someone wants to discuss about something and claim that you are in the wrong, the basic should be that this individual know of what he is talking about?

You speak as if you yourself know what you're talking about, always quick to point out the "lack of knowledge" of those that threaten your matrix, and in the haze of your conceit, both here and in the other forum, react like a child by speaking down on others because they dare question or disagree with you.

Originally posted by Fadix It becomes really stupid to discuss about things with someone that has only beliefs to support his beliefs. I was discussing with this individual in another board, the guy start shouting books, and by chance I had read one of those books, to discover later that from the answers he gave it was evident that he did even not read the book he proposed.?

It becomes really tiresome arguing with adults who act like children and who themselves have their beliefs based on beliefs. Your assumption that because my answer didn't sit well with your conception of how things should be and that means I didn't read the book is unfounded. The only shouting that has ever occured has been by you here and on the other board when someone dares to critique the great Fadix.

Originally posted by Fadix Not only this, he reject anything scientifical.

When did I reject anything "scientifical"? "Theories" are not concrete proofs and are open to discussions. If you don't like someone questioning the theory you hold dear, you might as well not be on a forum.

Originally posted by Fadix How can you even try to support your point when you face such a person, when that person doesn’t even accept “methodology,” “logic” etc…? When that person reject basic known observed, measured, calculated, expected realities? Tell me how could you even try to have an intellectual debate with such a person? And the amazing in all this, is that he claims to have provided evidences, and he post even articles written by said “scientists.” How can you answer such a person? I mean, he accept no scientific bases, and later on try to uses “science” to support his point. How ironic is that? Was I in the wrong, telling this guy to go and learn what he want to discuss about, before coming and discussing about it? Here an example, he still maintains that error margin are arbitrary figures? With him words don’t have any sense at all, because he could change the entire significance o a word, and write even a thesis to explain us why saying that the sky is red is not wrong. The same goes with the word racist; he accuses me of attacking him. I am only applying the original definition of the word, nothing more or less. Am I not doing that?

I am really amazed at your hang up with me, since you hate me so much you have made me the topic, and can't get enough of replying about me. You are infuriated that someone dares to question the great Fadix, and reveal his conceit both here and on the other board. When his theories are subjected to scrutiny he simply starts to name call and resort to childish remarks "He doesn't know what he is talking about, he should go learn before he talks about something", and that coming from the Fadix that thinks margin of errors are not arbitrary depending upon a given study. It's indeed a shame you are a Fadix and not Unix. This is all to be expected from the nerfbrain who first came to the "Race" thread and demanded to see my credentials since he was so horrified that I actually posted a contrarian thread. Of course, Fadix first came and registered, and I saw his name hovering around in the users browsing this forum bracket. He perhaps thought to himself "Hmmm Anonymouse really made me feel inferior and gave me a crack in my thinking in the other forum, should I take my chances and respond? Maybe I can somehow get him this time!". And thus he began to justify his ignorance with constant whining and name calling, and here it continues. Isn't the internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many conceit freaks without having to pay to see them in movies? I am not going to insult you anymore. I assume that you have suffered enough in life and in the other forum and here by me. Besides, I never insult people, I only reveal to them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.

loseyourname

03-15-2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Fadix Loseyourname, the thread is about IQ and races; I don’t see how you can say it does not matter, when the thread in question is about this « matter. » How can you ask me to develop about this issue when you tell me that it does not matter at all why blacks have a lower IQ. The whole point here is to demonstrate that the lower IQ is due to environmental reasons and to bring evidences that since races do not exist, giving races as reasons for the lower IQ is irrelevant in the first point.

Look, Fadix, I've explained how environmental factors, over a long span of time, can lead to a genetic predisposition for lower intelligence in a particular group of people. Are you going to address that or not?

loseyourname, two times I have written human leukocyte antigens, and two times you have answered my “leukocytes.” I am talking about the antigen, the human leukocyte “antigens,” referred as HLA. They do not show the presence of a disease, but rather the predisposition. There is no HLA that shows the presence of any disease. Human leukocyte antigens are glycoproteins that are found in high concentration on the surface of leukocytes and they are the major histocompatibility antigens for tissue recognition. They are considered as genetic markers.

Sorry. I misunderstood you. Never mind what I said about that then. Nonetheless, HLA markers indicate a predisposition to a certain disease, not necessarily a genetic disease. But forget this anyway, because it's way off the point. The part about disease, not about genetic markers. I see what you're saying now.

Intelligence is subjective, at age 5, Mozart had most of his brain neurons, and the most important interconnections between those neurons completed. Knowledge is VERY important here, like I said it has to do with learning, making connections, this is how the brain works. Depending what you learn, how you learn, your environment, this will modify your brain. The most important years are during the first few years. So intelligence is influenced with the way the brain has developed, and the environment has a MAJOR role in this developpement.

This doesn't change the fact that some people are born with a greater capacity for learning. Sure, the first several years of your life are important for actually developing this capacity, but the capacity is either there or it isn't. A human isn't more intelligent than a bird because a human possesses more knowledge than a bird. In fact, a two-month old child probably possesses less knowledge than a several year-old bird, in particular song birds with cognitive mapping capabilities. Nonetheless, the human child is more intelligent, because he has a greater capacity to comprehend and to attain knowledge in a way that is usable. An aneuploid person can read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica; he still isn't going to more intelligent than I am.

Now coming to races, if we were to use your logic, we could separate humans in hundreds types of races, depending of the minor physical differences.

Of course you could. The degree to which you assign certain individuals to certain groups is completely arbitrary. The fact that they are different is not.

The fact is that, blacks and whites are classified as part of the Homo Sapiens sapiens, the scientific term for humans, in every scientifical classification of species, the third word indicate the race, I have not invented that, it is like that. So, here again, from the scientific term, blacks and whites are of the races of the sapiens.

First off, there is no such word as "scientifical." Second, taxonomy isn't exactly an exact science. Phylogenic classification changes by the time the ink is dry on a new textbook. You act as if the jury has handed in its verdict.

Anonymouse

03-15-2004, 06:12 PM

Hahaha loser that was funny, great points.

loseyourname

03-15-2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Anonymouse This is unsubstantiated and a twisting of the facts, and what I posted. I claimed races are different on a biological level. Scientific fact will not say who is superior or inferior it will only put out differences on a biological level. When put into a historical context, it is evident that the differences are responsible for the backwards of one group, compared to another.

Indeed. It would be nice if we could just discuss the facts and quite mischaracterizing each other's arguments.

The only way you can find genetics similarities in between populations is by measuring gene frequencies which are similar in all races, but failing to measure gene frequencies which do vary widely and are different between the races. This is how data gets twisted and skewed, by any scientist in his egalitarian wisdom deciding to skew the facts to favor one world view. Moreover, criminologists and forensics rely on DNA testing, which obviously relies on different races for it work, for capturing criminals, or establishing a body, or what have you. Any forensic anthropologist will tell you the cranio morphological differences are real between the races.

Quite true. Enough of this citing of HLA markers. What about SSU-rRNA? What about an actual genomic sequence? The fact that respective immune system glycoproteins are similar does not mean there is no genetic difference. If you only going to cite one aspect of gene expression, you could use the same argument to show that Chimpanzees and Humans are not separate species because they have virtually the same hemoglobin amino acid sequences.

Fadix

03-16-2004, 08:11 AM

Oh my gosh, oh my gosh… Anon, are you doing it on purposes? If you are, STOP IT NOW. Margin of errors are NOT determinated arbitrary. STOP talking about things which you ignore. I am saying this for the LAST time. Margins of errors are calculated depending on the sample vs the total or other formulas when the total is unknown. They are not coming from an arbitrary formula, they comes from the laws of statistics. Everyone can calculate it when having the sample and the total, example let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times on 20(the average confidence used usually) of the time. Let take 100 as the sample, and for the estimation of a population of 100,000. If I apply the formula I find 9.8%. This is NOT! arbitrary, STOP, STOP! repeating the same thing over and over and over again when you have been shown to be in the wrong, you have done that countless numbers of times on many other occasions, and it is becoming REALLY annoying. The laws of statistics show us that more the total population is bigger, lower the quotient sample/population could be to maintain the same error margin. It is purely statistical; it has nothing to do with an arbitrary figure. For instance if I have 1,000,000 as the total population and 1,000 as the sample, if I apply the formula to calculate the margin of error I would obtain 3.1%. Even if in both cases the quotient sample/population are the same. It is from there that we can draw a graphic and make a projection for a bigger population, and when we increase the sample, let say above 5,000, the variation of the population higher than a million won’t change much, it will stabilise. This is how we can in some cases ignore the total population. This was what I meant when I was referring to formulas that ignores the total.

Now regarding IQ and brain size. First of all, the 3% difference was an average I did between studies, when the most serious study for man, in a sample of above a thousand give for the cranial capacity for black man(excluding women) 1449cm3 and whites men 1468cm3. Which means that statistically speaking the brain sizes are about the same. And more, the same study for Asians find out 1464cm3. From your logic, whites should have a higher IQ than yellows because they had 4cm3 bigger cranial capacity. The fact is that the measures of brain size were measured by using body parameters which are now proven to not have much correlation with brain masses or cerebral activities.

Here is what Dr. M. Peters writes regarding the pass dated list of cranial capacity between races.

“The former values for the three groups represent cranial capacity estimates which are based on values corrected for body parameters (Rushton, 1992). To perform this correction, Rushton used slopes for the log/log plot of brain against body weight which are not appropriate for within-species comparisons (Harvey, 1988). For comparison of individuals drawn from the same species, a slope which is almost horizontal is appropriate, and should be close to the .08 determined empirically by Reed and Jensen (1993). This is borne out by other available evidence. Wickett et al. (1994) state that for their sample of white women, it would appear that the size of the brain is largely independent of body size (p. 836). Similarly, Jerison (1979) found no significant association between body weight or height and brain weight for men within the age range of 29 to 41 years of age. A conservative conclusion is that there is no legitimate reason for using steep slopes in comparing brain/body size relations across races. As a result, statements about brain size differences between races should not rely on adjusted values, and it is not appropriate to conclude that higher IQ's in Asians are linked to larger brain size.”

(Source: “Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology” Vol. 49, No. 4)

He also writes:

“The issue of race/brain size/IQ invites a return to the sex/brain size/IQ issue. Rushton's (1992) data show that the estimated cranial capacity of Negroid-American men is some 13-14% higher than that of Caucasoid-American women, even though the average IQ for the former is presumably lower. How can this be integrated into a model of larger brain => higher IQ without qualifying the meaning of brain size comparisons across sexes, or revisiting the issue of what factors other than brain size have a bearing on IQ? This question once again emphasizes the unresolved issues of how brain weight/body parameters can be compared across sexes, races, and age cohorts.”

So first, it is even not clear whatever or not blacks brain size is smaller than those of whites, second even if it were, it does not obviously explain why blacks have a lower IQ, since black man have a bigger brain than white woman, but still they have a lower IQ.

Dr. M. Peter adds:

“It is legitimate to ask whether the contemporary Negroid- and Caucasoid-American samples described in the common 1988 age cohort could not differ as much from each other in undefined demographic and nutritional variables as the cohort samples from 1950 and 1967 differed from each other.”

This is very important, and still I have not developed the nutritional issue, we know that most of the brain mass is formed of fat, fatty acids and other important nutriments plays a part on the mass of the brain, as well as many nutriments such as vitamins, minerals etc… not only do they play a role in the developpement of the brain, but as well have a major role on the foetus, and this foetus in its turn when it grows, and become a man or a woman it will breed as well and transmit this “problem”… a deficient nutrition can have an impact for the hundreds of years to come.

Now coming to the race issue again. Do you not realise that you still contradict yourself? You tell me that the only way to find genetic similarities is to measure the gene frequencies which are similar in all races. But why searching for the differences would be more valid than searching for the similarities? Both you and louse have not addressed this issue. This the whole point, if we were to classify races based on some genetic differences we would have hundreds of different races. This is not how races are classified, they are classified by group, and when you find two goes in the same group, and that there is two groups, you will have to conclude that each of those groups are races, which would mean the two in one of the groups are of the same races. What constitute a difference which would make two groups different races? This is the whole point. But here again, you won’t change a yota, you will even not consider what I proposes because you reject evolution, you believe in some sort of alien creation of humanity, where they have made many trials, and whites are superior, one of the good results of those trials, and blacks as being the less “good” ones. You see Anon, this was one of the reasons why I called you a racist. You do not believe in evolution, but still use science in your advantages, when science supports your belief, it is a truth, when it does not, this science becomes a belief. And no, it is not believed that humanity started from Africa because of the “African Eve,” it is believed so because the oldest human remains are found from there… but of course for you this is not evidence, since you believe to an alien intervention rather than evolution.

“The idea that "they have not moved much" is an assumption based on evolutionary theory. The fact that there is no black or Negroid civilization only shows that that particular group has a far less limited potential, than the other racial groups, for civilization, rather culture, is only an outward manifestation of that given people. It reflects the people that create it. Culture does not create people, but any given people create the culture that reflects those people. This is simply logical, you can argue against it all you want, and you can justify it as "they didn't move much", doesn't change the fact that they produced no civilization, that would rival the "Mongoloids" or the "Caucasoids".”

Are you trying to fool both of us into believing you said something here? Simply logical? So, if we were to have two groups of white people in two different environments, and that in ones environment there is everything needed for their most basic needs and in the other cases not, if one group evolve more, are we to assume that they are superior? Simply logical? Your above paragraph is only pseudo-science; it does not make any sense at all.

“It becomes really tiresome arguing with adults who act like children and who themselves have their beliefs based on beliefs. Your assumption that because my answer didn't sit well with your conception of how things should be and that means I didn't read the book is unfounded. The only shouting that has ever occured has been by you here and on the other board when someone dares to critique the great Fadix.”

Belief based on belief. Do you mean like your claim of alien intervention which could not be supported by any valid evidences? You are just playing the mirror game, just redirect the attack and wish that it would stick. Shouting you say? Again a redirection of attacks. Anon, are you trying to fool yourself? Anyone is free to go at the other board, the only person having a problem with me there is you (beside Dan), and I was not the only person having a problem with you. How do you explain that? If I am the one starting shouting on people that disagree with me, how do you explain that my only problem beside Dan(whom had problem with practically everyone) was you? And no, you did not read the book, it was evident you had no clue of what you were talking about, you even rejected something that is observed, calculated, measured and expected as a belief and refused to accept it as something that is “known.” So you wanted to know something “scientifical” you rejected? I gave you one example just here.

Now, as for the rest of your mumbling, I will add just a few things here. I have debated with many persons whom disagreed with me, the other board is an example, the only persons I had problems with were Turks(it is understandable why), ethnic haters and you and Dan. While on the other hand, you will hardly find anyone whom you did not have any problems with. The other forum is an example. You pop on the middle of a conversation and start making comment inflaming the board. You did that from the beginning, for example, one of the members was suspended for 2 weeks, and you knew it, you still started talking on his back knowing you won’t have any answers… When people disagree with you, you start shouting how they have a big ego, or start accusing them of doing what you are doing.

"Hmmm Anonymouse really made me feel inferior and gave me a crack in my thinking in the other forum, should I take my chances and respond? Maybe I can somehow get him this time!"

Can a moderator give me the permission to post the link of the discussion we had to see of what he is talking about and how he made a fool of himself? When did you gave me a crack in my thinking? Do you mean when you started talking about how the shifting of the axes that is observed (I even proposed you to show you how to observe it yourself), measured, calculated and expected was just a BELIEF??? While you consider alien “invention” of humans just more their a belief? Is that what you mean by saying that you made me feel inferior? Dude! Stop projecting on others everything you feel yourself, you are becoming quite predictable… try writing something new the next time.

And to end up, I shall quote your last statement here.

“Isn't the internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many conceit freaks without having to pay to see them in movies? I am not going to insult you anymore. I assume that you have suffered enough in life and in the other forum and here by me. Besides, I never insult people, I only reveal to them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.”

Any readers, read the similarities between this above comment made by him, and the one made by a Turk from a Turkish forum slandering me.

“Isn't the Internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many freaks without having to pay to see them? Pr.k, I haven’t insulted you. I surmise that you have suffered enough in life. Besides, I never insult people. I merely tell them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.”

This guy is really a psycho, if telling this is worth a warning, then I shall have one. Someone that is after my internet activities like this psycho should consult some psychiatrists ASAP!!! This same psycho think that I have registered here because of him.

Louseyourname, I will try to answer you soon…

Darorinag

03-16-2004, 09:28 AM

So Fadi, let me ask you this, why isn't there a marginal error BETWEEN WHITES then, but only between blacks and whites? Surely there must be a marginal error WITHIN a certain category? We are talking about averages here. We're not talking about exceptions, as exceptions are just THAT - EXCEPTIONS!!!!

Try explaining advanced Calculus or Discrete Math to a black person in the same year level as you, and see what I mean. Try it on more than one person, and see what I mean.

The absence of blacks in science is not a result of racism. If there were racism, there wouldn't have been any chinese in computer science; and there are TONS of them...

There was ONE black guy in my physics class in first year, there were 500 students in that course... he was also in my math logic class. he dropped out of both. now I'm not using this to generalise and say that all blacks drop out of science courses. I'm just trying to point to their ABSENCE from those fields..

if it were racism, no blacks would've been in arts either. in fact, look at the number of black / white / asian students. and we are not talking about first-generation post-racism families here. we're talking about the children of those who could attend college/university...

Racism is an irrelevant concept here. Firstly because it hasn't been proven that it is racism that prevents blacks from majoring in science fields... Sour grapes...

Perhaps instead of being bitter about not being able to be involved in science on a large-scale, and yell out foul play, they should think about and admit their limitations, or try to overcome them by other means. because they sound like whiney little kids.

There isn't even any anti-black racism in university admissions. on the contrary, affirmative action goes on under the name of "equal opportunity"... well, equal opportunity for who? For supposedly "equal" races? Or for people with equal abilities? University is not about race, it's about abilities. Ironically, they are engaged in reverse racism while at the same time they whine about being victims of racism....... they want to use the concept of race when it comes to equality and abandon it when it comes to differences.

Darorinag

03-16-2004, 03:36 PM

As per the title of the thread ("fighting racism"), I am posting this news story because I think it's relevant to racism and "fighting" racism... (please note that it's NOT from a white supremacist website, it's from The Sun Newspaper).

---

Banned for being white
By PHILIP CARDY

A CHARITY worker’s invitation to a ritzy celebration bash was withdrawn because she is WHITE.

Linda Sims, who spent months knitting clothing to raise cash for the needy, was chosen to go as one of the Experience Corps charity’s most hard-working volunteers.

Overjoyed Linda, 54, was looking forward to mingling with VIPs at the event in Portcullis House, opposite Parliament in London.

But unknown to her — and the regional organiser who nominated her to attend — the do was specifically for African and Caribbean volunteers.

When charity chiefs found out she was neither, a representative called on her and told her she could not go due to a “misunderstanding”.

Mum-of-two Linda, of Chorlton, Manchester, said: “I was so angry. I felt used. I was really looking forward to it.”

Linda told how she had knitted “mountains of stuff”, including more than 70 baby jackets, that Experience Corps sold to raise money.

The charity encourages people aged 50 or over to use their skills to benefit the deprived.

It has staged events to thank various women helpers, including Sikhs, xxxs, Hindus and Muslims.

Spokeswoman Sarah Joy said some local organisers did not realise next week’s do, hosted by Treasury Chief Secretary Paul Boateng, was for African and Caribbean volunteers.

She added: “Normally we would have welcomed Mrs Sims with open arms but this event wouldn’t be relevant to her.”

Linda WILL be invited to a “heroes” do in June.

But she said: “The explanation has come a bit late. I’ve a feeling my knitting will go to the Salvation Army now.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004120393,,00.html
---

I know what your reactions will be like, and I'm not going to talk about that right now... but I always thought blacks wanted equality on the bases that race didn't really matter (because all races are supposedly equal...). So now, I ask you, what is this, then? Anything other than hypocrisy? They want equality yet segregation. They want privileges yet deny others just that. They want equality yet they want to be different (when it suits them)... But if a white group had banned a black person for attending an all-white event, they'd be labelled as racist, discriminatory, and other derogatory terms, including the ever-so-famous one, "white supremacist." Enough said already. They need to see the "thorn in their eye" before they see the "log in the other person's eye." Irents achkin pousheh nakh togh desnen, vercheh ourishin achkin keraneh...

Fadix

03-16-2004, 04:11 PM

Dan, read my upcomming answer to loseyourname, it will answer every points you make. As for your second post, please delete it and post it on the other thread, it has nothing to do with the discussion. This was one of the reasons I have started another thread. I never denied there was racism against whites, but this again is another subject which has nothing to do with this discussion.

Anonymouse

03-16-2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Fadix Oh my gosh, oh my gosh… Anon, are you doing it on purposes?If you are, STOP IT NOW. Margin of errors are NOT determinated arbitrary. STOP talking about things which you ignore. I am saying this for the LAST time. Margins of errors are calculated depending on the sample vs the total or other formulas when the total is unknown.

In which the sample vs the total is dependent upon each given study. There is no holy law that says the margin of error IS 3%, rather it is based on that particular study based ont he particular sampling methods. "Doing it on purposes" you say?

Originally posted by Fadix They are not coming from an arbitrary formula, they comes from the laws of statistics. Everyone can calculate it when having the sample and the total,

Precisely, anyone can calculate the margin of error in that particular study, depending on the sample in relation to the total. You yourself proved my point by then going on below to give your own example, which only shows it is arbitrary based on a study, as can be seen from the following phrase "let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times...."

Originally posted by Fadix let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times on 20(the average confidence used usually) of the time. Let take 100 as the sample, and for the estimation of a population of 100,000. If I apply the formula I find 9.8%. This is NOT! arbitrary, STOP, STOP! repeating the same thing over and over and over again when you have been shown to be in the wrong, you have done that countless numbers of times on many other occasions, and it is becoming REALLY annoying.

No one said it is "arbitrary" in the sense of making it up out of thin air, what I have maintained throughout, which you continuously ignored, is that it is arbitrary based on studies, as each study, given the different confidence intervals, will differ in its margin of errors. You keep jamming the same point either intentionally or unintentionally, perhaps out of your own misunderstanding of statistics, by spouting "laws of statistics" as if margin of errors are a holy number, which they are dependent on each given study.

Originally posted by Fadix The laws of statistics show us that more the total population is bigger, lower the quotient sample/population could be to maintain the same error margin. It is purely statistical; it has nothing to do with an arbitrary figure. For instance if I have 1,000,000 as the total population and 1,000 as the sample, if I apply the formula to calculate the margin of error I would obtain 3.1%. Even if in both cases the quotient sample/population are the same. It is from there that we can draw a graphic and make a projection for a bigger population, and when we increase the sample, let say above 5,000, the variation of the population higher than a million won’t change much, it will stabilise. This is how we can in some cases ignore the total population. This was what I meant when I was referring to formulas that ignores the total.

If you knew anything about statistics you would know that the sample size affects the margin of error, and in fact is crucial to affecting the margin of error. Even in your petty example you are using a random sample size, a random example, which will produce a margin of error based on that.

Originally posted by Fadix Now regarding IQ and brain size. First of all, the 3% difference was an average I did between studies, when the most serious study for man, in a sample of above a thousand give for the cranial capacity for black man(excluding women) 1449cm3 and whites men 1468cm3. Which means that statistically speaking the brain sizes are about the same. And more, the same study for Asians find out 1464cm3. From your logic, whites should have a higher IQ than yellows because they had 4cm3 bigger cranial capacity. The fact is that the measures of brain size were measured by using body parameters which are now proven to not have much correlation with brain masses or cerebral activities.

This is a common example of deception via semantics. Here you go into the details of brain size measurements, nevermind where you got your numbers from. Here even though you acknolwedge differences you cloud them in the zone of "statistically speaking they are about the same", which is another way of marginalizing differences found. Which study are you quoting from? From Peters'? Rushton has replied to Peters. In fact, according to Rushton in The General Psychologist Summer 2002, Volume 37:2 there is:

1) a .04 correlation between brain size and cognitive ability 2) mean group differences in brain size with East Asians = 1,364cm^3; Whites = 1,347cm^3; Blacks = 1,267cm^3; and 3) mean group differences of IQ scores of East Asians = 106; Whites = 100; Blacks = 85; sub-Saharan Africans = 70.

Originally posted by Fadix Here is what Dr. M. Peters writes regarding the pass dated list of cranial capacity between races.

“The former values for the three groups represent cranial capacity estimates which are based on values corrected for body parameters (Rushton, 1992). To perform this correction, Rushton used slopes for the log/log plot of brain against body weight which are not appropriate for within-species comparisons (Harvey, 1988). For comparison of individuals drawn from the same species, a slope which is almost horizontal is appropriate, and should be close to the .08 determined empirically by Reed and Jensen (1993). This is borne out by other available evidence. Wickett et al. (1994) state that for their sample of white women, it would appear that the size of the brain is largely independent of body size (p. 836). Similarly, Jerison (1979) found no significant association between body weight or height and brain weight for men within the age range of 29 to 41 years of age. A conservative conclusion is that there is no legitimate reason for using steep slopes in comparing brain/body size relations across races. As a result, statements about brain size differences between races should not rely on adjusted values, and it is not appropriate to conclude that higher IQ's in Asians are linked to larger brain size.”

(Source: “Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology” Vol. 49, No. 4).

He also writes:

“The issue of race/brain size/IQ invites a return to the sex/brain size/IQ issue. Rushton's (1992) data show that the estimated cranial capacity of Negroid-American men is some 13-14% higher than that of Caucasoid-American women, even though the average IQ for the former is presumably lower. How can this be integrated into a model of larger brain => higher IQ without qualifying the meaning of brain size comparisons across sexes, or revisiting the issue of what factors other than brain size have a bearing on IQ? This question once again emphasizes the unresolved issues of how brain weight/body parameters can be compared across sexes, races, and age cohorts.”

I am glad you found Dr. Peters to copy and paste, for what else would you have relied on? I'm beginning to wonder if you know what you are copying and pasting, or if you are merely doing it to have something to reply with. Rushton replies:

"Peters (1993) misstates when and why it is appropriate to correct for variation in body size (e.g., height or weight) when analyzing human attributes. It is only appropriate to correct for body size if one wishes to determine whether two (or more) individuals or groups are relatively different in some attribute, when it is already known that they are absolutely different in that attribute and/or in body size. For example, men and women differ in both absolute brain size and absolute body size. Thus, it is appropriate to correct for body size to determine if men have relatively larger brains. But, it would be inappropriate to correct for body size to determine if men have absolutely higher IQs.

Consider this simple analogy: John Doe is 178 cm tall and can jump 1 m off the ground, whereas basketball star Michael Jordan is 208 cm tall and can jump 1.17 m off the ground. There are two questions that we can ask from this: (1) For his size, can Michael Jordan jump higher? (Answer is no he's 17% taller and can jump 17% higher), and (2) Can Michael Jordan jump higher? (Answer is, obviously, yes).

Now, consider Peters' argument that to determine if larger brains produce (absolutely) higher IQs, one must correct for body size. This, as can be seen from the above, makes no sense. A higher IQ is a higher IQ (just as a higher jump is a higher jump) regardless of body size. On average, taller people have higher IQ's, not because they are taller, per se, but because, on average, they have larger brains. Correcting for body size reduces the question to a nullity, i.e., do tall people with their larger brains have relatively higher IQ's?

Originally posted by Fadix So first, it is even not clear whatever or not blacks brain size is smaller than those of whites, second even if it were, it does not obviously explain why blacks have a lower IQ, since black man have a bigger brain than white woman, but still they have a lower IQ.

Notice the words "even if it were"? It explains perfectly well why blacks have lower IQs in correlation to their brain size, irregardless of comparing it to women, as Rushton has already claimed, that they are of different sexes. You would get the same results if you compared the brains of Black women to those of White women, as Rushton notes:

Peters (1993) correctly noted the absolute male/female difference in brain size. He was, however, incorrect that comparisons of brain size across sex cannot be made because there are (supposedly) no appropriate scalars of body size. Ankney (1992) reexamined Ho et al.'s (1980) autopsy data on 1,261 Americans aged 25 to 80 after excluding obviously damaged brains. Using allometric technIQues that are standard in comparative biology, Ankney (1992) found that at any given surface area or height, brains of European-American men are heavier than those of European-American women and brains of African-American men are heavier than those of African-American women. For example, among 168 cm (5'7 ) tall European-Americans (the approximate overall mean height for men and women combined), brain mass of men averages about 100 grams heavier than that of women.

As Rushton further points out:

Haug noted that most female data points lay above the regression line (i.e., women average more neurons for a given brain size than do men). This suggests that women's brains are differently organized than are men's, and so causes and results of race differences in brain size may be different from those of sex differences.

Thus it is not a valid comparison to compare the sex with race.

Originally posted by Fadix Now coming to the race issue again. Do you not realise that you still contradict yourself? You tell me that the only way to find genetic similarities is to measure the gene frequencies which are similar in all races. But why searching for the differences would be more valid than searching for the similarities?

This shows your lack of understanding regarding genetics, and the issue of gene frequences. There are gene frequencies that exist in everyone, and there are gene frequences that do not, and are limited to certain groups. If geneticists measure gene frequences that are similar in all the racial groups, they will conclude that "we are all 99.9% similar". This means that they measured more frequences that are common to all the racial groups, and ignored many gene frequencies which are not. This is not a question of which is "more valid", but a question of scientific objectivity. Obviously there are genetic frequences similar, but why only measure the similar ones simply due to ideological bias? There are many many gene frequences and allele patterns that are different in between the racial groups, that will show differences.

Originally posted by Fadix Both you and louse have not addressed this issue. This the whole point, if we were to classify races based on some genetic differences we would have hundreds of different races. This is not how races are classified, they are classified by group, and when you find two goes in the same group, and that there is two groups, you will have to conclude that each of those groups are races, which would mean the two in one of the groups are of the same races.

Because classification is such a complicated issue, to further corroborate racial differences on a genetic level, we see races differ on a morphological and cultural level. Classification is complicated and has always changed, but you don't see scientists stopping classification of other species, why should humans be exempt simply for the sake of ideological bias? Just because classification is difficult doesn't mean scientists should cease, even for bacteria, but you don't see scientists stopping that. Moreover, simply classifying races due to genetic frequences is misleading as races do not just different because of allele patterns. As Rushton concluded, in his classirfication of the populations along more traditional lines, on 60 differing variables, i.e. brain size, intelligence, reproductive behavior, etc., and found that Mongoloids and Negroids are on the opposite ends this measurement, and whites in the middle ground. Rushton states:

"In sum, race is a biological concept. Races are recognized by a combination of geographic, ecological, and morphological factors and gene frequencies of biochemical components. However, races merge with each other through intermediate forms, while members of one race can and do interbreed with members of other races."

Anonymouse

03-16-2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Fadix you believe in some sort of alien creation of humanity, where they have made many trials, and whites are superior, one of the good results of those trials, and blacks as being the less “good” ones. You see Anon, this was one of the reasons why I called you a racist. You do not believe in evolution, but still use science in your advantages, when science supports your belief, it is a truth, when it does not, this science becomes a belief. And no, it is not believed that humanity started from Africa because of the “African Eve,” it is believed so because the oldest human remains are found from there… but of course for you this is not evidence, since you believe to an alien intervention rather than evolution.

My belief in intelligence guiding human "evolution" is no different than your belief in evolution guided by random mutations and natural selection. As for my disagreement for "African Eve", it is justified and there is evidence to the contrary, as I already stated, there is always room to disagree with any given theory, as theories are theories, treat them all the same. You on the other hand have no resorted to dismissing it simply because it conflicts with your view of how things should be. If the oldest remains are found in Africa, does that mean anything? So what? The second oldest remains are found somewhere else. It could be that Aliens planted these groups in different parts in different times for all we know. Evolution is a big guess, don't put your whole faith in it. Last time I checked Darwinian evolution was a theory, meaning it is open to interpretation and disagreement.

J. Hey and E. Harris, have presented data suggesting that the famous African Eve was the mother of only modern sub-Saharan Africans and everyone else descended from an entirely different Eves.

Source: Pennisi, Elizabeth; "Genetic Study Shakes Up Out of Africa Theory," Science, 283:1828, 1999. Bower, B.; "DNA Data Yield New Human-Origins View," Science News, 155:181, 1999.)

Originally posted by Fadix Are you trying to fool both of us into believing you said something here? Simply logical? So, if we were to have two groups of white people in two different environments, and that in ones environment there is everything needed for their most basic needs and in the other cases not, if one group evolve more, are we to assume that they are superior? Simply logical? Your above paragraph is only pseudo-science; it does not make any sense at all.

You don't need to resort to name calling Fadix, I already know you fear me and are threatened by me, but please keep it on the mellow side. I am suggesting exactly what I said earlier. Did you not read? I said that no white person living in sub-Saharan Africa would "evolve" into a Negroid, with black skin, a change in gene frequences, and cranio-morphology, and skeletal morphology of the body.

Originally posted by Fadix Belief based on belief. Do you mean like your claim of alien intervention which could not be supported by any valid evidences?

The evidences presented by Sitchin, Hancok, Danekan, Sagan, etc., are enough to be a valid theory, no different than evolutionary theory. That you hate this alternative to evolution, which gives a crack in your edifice of thought is no ones problem but your own, only showing you have your matrix which you will defend at all costs. What is "valid evidences"? I can argue that evolutionary theory lacks "valid evidences". Your point? You shouldn't get off topic with this Fadix, since you whined and cried about me doing this in the other thread. If you want to discuss evolution go to my evolution thread.

Originally posted by Fadix You are just playing the mirror game, just redirect the attack and wish that it would stick. Shouting you say? Again a redirection of attacks. Anon, are you trying to fool yourself?

It's simply observable that the only one who started the personal attacks, the intolerance towards dissenting views, was you.

Originally posted by Fadix Anyone is free to go at the other board, the only person having a problem with me there is you (beside Dan), and I was not the only person having a problem with you. How do you explain that? If I am the one starting shouting on people that disagree with me, how do you explain that my only problem beside Dan(whom had problem with practically everyone) was you?

It's quite simple you see, my life is not about seeking validation from other forumers unlike you. You are a pseudo-intellectual "adult" perhaps way over my own age, yet you have behaved immaturely. If anyone on the other forum has a problem with me, they certainly have not made it known. And whatever "problems" others in the other forum have with me, is because they are all threatened when their ego is met with a challenge, and therefore, must compensate for it by shouting. In none of my threads have I started to shout and name call anyone, unless I was attacked first, and the so called "adults" are the most intolerant and childish when it comes to those who disagree, and pose a potential crack in their worldview, you being no exception. I only came to the other forum because I thought it was more calm and more mature, but the higher the age group, the more childish they are. Whatever thread I started and argued in that forum, I argued because I could back myself up, it was only when people like you, who cannot defend their arguments resort to the tactics which you have resorted to, ad homenim fallacies.

Originally posted by Fadix And no, you did not read the book, it was evident you had no clue of what you were talking about, you even rejected something that is observed, calculated, measured and expected as a belief and refused to accept it as something that is “known.” So you wanted to know something “scientifical” you rejected? I gave you one example just here.

And here the great self styled expert Fadix, tries to tell me what I have or have not read, he appears to be psychic.Because my reply questioned Fadix theory, it "logically" follows ( in Fadix' mind ) that I didn't read.

Originally posted by Fadix Now, as for the rest of your mumbling, I will add just a few things here. I have debated with many persons whom disagreed with me, the other board is an example, the only persons I had problems with were Turks(it is understandable why), ethnic haters and you and Dan. While on the other hand, you will hardly find anyone whom you did not have any problems with. The other forum is an example. You pop on the middle of a conversation and start making comment inflaming the board. You did that from the beginning, for example, one of the members was suspended for 2 weeks, and you knew it, you still started talking on his back knowing you won’t have any answers… When people disagree with you, you start shouting how they have a big ego, or start accusing them of doing what you are doing.

This is all a non-issue and a clear example of you posting off topic things which you whined and cried about. As for me "popping" in the middle of a conversation" and "start making comment inflaming the board", that is unsubstantiated. As for your assertion of "one of the members banned for 2 weeks" and I "started talking behind his back", what does that prove? I talk about who I want to talk about. It is a forum, I was unaware he was suspended until the second week. What is your hangup? You simply came here with preconceived notions of me and your hatred of me, and you are spilling junk from the other forum into this forum. This forum "sucks" for you, so why are you here? Ahhh, it's becuse I created a vortex in your mind in the other forum, and now you are here whining in the same manner. The only time I "shout" is when I am shouted upon. It was who who shouted to Hye Acher simply because she gave a reply you didn't like with your "Waaah this is my thread, waaaaaaaah". You need to be more mature for a pseudo intellectual.

Originally posted by Fadix Can a moderator give me the permission to post the link of the discussion we had to see of what he is talking about and how he made a fool of himself? When did you gave me a crack in my thinking? Do you mean when you started talking about how the shifting of the axes that is observed (I even proposed you to show you how to observe it yourself), measured, calculated and expected was just a BELIEF??? While you consider alien “invention” of humans just more their a belief? Is that what you mean by saying that you made me feel inferior? Dude! Stop projecting on others everything you feel yourself, you are becoming quite predictable… try writing something new the next time.

This is what I mean by you bringing junk from the other forum and spilling it here. You are the most childish pseudo intellectual I have encountered on the internet, a true forum troll. You are not even a pseudo intellectual, you are a pseudo intellectual and a half. The shifting of the axis, is based on a theory, which is based on another theory that we revolve around the sun, theories are theories treat them all the same, and the numbers used to measure are based on our arbitrary measurement of time, i.e. a "year". Uhh duuude, stop whining you are becoming quite predictable...

Originally posted by Fadix And to end up, I shall quote your last statement here.

“Isn't the internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many conceit freaks without having to pay to see them in movies? I am not going to insult you anymore. I assume that you have suffered enough in life and in the other forum and here by me. Besides, I never insult people, I only reveal to them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.”

Any readers, read the similarities between this above comment made by him, and the one made by a Turk from a Turkish forum slandering me.

“Isn't the Internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many freaks without having to pay to see them? Pr.k, I haven’t insulted you. I surmise that you have suffered enough in life. Besides, I never insult people. I merely tell them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.”

Which "forum" is this from? And can anyone be blamed for using the same insult? It is a pretty well known phrase much like the insult you use "You know nothing of what you are talking about, you should go learn about statistics and then come back to me" I am beginning to see that you are truly obsessed with me and everything about me, even the statements I hurl at you, for you have attained a mystical quality, in which you cannot even sleep before checking your forum to see if I replied.

Originally posted by Fadix This guy is really a psycho, if telling this is worth a warning, then I shall have one. Someone that is after my internet activities like this psycho should consult some psychiatrists ASAP!!! This same psycho think that I have registered here because of him.

Hey nerfbrain, you're the one that came in this forum with name calling and hatred and trying to spill childish invectives and issues from the other forum into this one. It's funny that you say I am after your internet activities when it is you that followed me here into these boards, and since I already made you feel like insignificant little bacteria in the other forum, you tried to have one last shot at trying to redeem whatever value you had left, which is obviously zero. Ever since I challenged the matrix of the great Fadix, he has held a grudge against me simply because the only way he can compensate for his myopic worldview, is by childish name calling. Although both arrogant and ignorant, his attempts to get the better of his betters leave him constantly trying harder and harder. When will Fadix give up? Only time will tell.

Darorinag

03-16-2004, 05:37 PM

Look, the thread title says "fighting racism." You changed the topic in the other thread, and then started a thread of your own and now are saying that I shouldn't post an article that demonstrates how racism is not being "fought" against, or if it has, it's being fought against selectively.

None of the articles you've posted so far have provided proofs that race doesn't exist. They have only tried to disprove the other side, and unsuccessfully so - without numbers, only with words.

Clearly, what you initially posted was not a scientific paper. It selectively chose the "favourable" studies and ignored the rest of it. That hardly qualifies as a "proof." Fallacy of exclusion.

It wasn't possible to develop agriculture in Africa; they remained hunters and so didn't have the energy resources to devote to writing poetry and building temples.
"It wasn't possible to develop agriculture in Africa." Yes, because they were primitive. Not the other way around. Clearly, there are many examples out there of humans being able to surpass the limitations of their geographical location. Most of Egypt was not a particularly agricultural place, yet they had a great civilisation. What explains THAT? And what explains the fact that Natives could have a civilisation and culture?

Today, there IS agriculture in Africa. Thanks to who? The Europeans. If it hadn't been for Europeans, Africa would still be plagued by every disease you can think of.

Fadix

03-16-2004, 06:07 PM

For the sake of this board, this is my last reply to Anon(actually this reply will take two posts), loseyourname, I am sorry to not respect chronology by replying him before you, but since I will not be wasting my time with him anymore I think your patience will be fully rewarded, as I always leave those that are after having the last word, having the last word, as it is the only satisfaction they have in their life.

Anon, I hope that you do realise that you are again trying to change what you have said previously. Here let repost what you have written here, and loseyourname, or anyone here that have a knowledge of statistics or have studied in a scientifical field, I leave you guys explain him why what he says has no sense, as I am done with it, I do not have the interest nor the energy to try to resonate someone that is not interested to. So here Anon, this is what you wrote: “You can call it .15 or .03, a difference is a difference.” Anyone making such a claim has to be totally ignorant of what error margins are. Since any studies finding a variation that is smaller than the error margins would never be considered as evidences to support anything, and the difference found will NOT be considered. Which means that it won’t be an evidences for a “difference,” the conclusion for such a study would be “inconclusive.” I do not have the energy to explain that to you, and even if I had, it is obvious that you are even not interested to learn. Now, let repost what you added later when I told you that you can not consider a study where the difference found is lower than the error margin: “Why not may I ask?” Here, I still considered you and tried to explain you, even if such a question would discredit you entirely on every opinion you may give regarding statistics, and those that know of what I am talking about will know why. Now, I shall post the most important part, you continued and wrote:

“And what about the margin of error, which itself is just arbitrary, based on different number of trials, and errors. Is there one holy set of margin of error? I've seen margins of error that are +/- 2, or +/-.04, or +/- 5, or +/- 4 percent in anther case. In this case the margin of error is obviously a certain number, and when you expose all results that do not agree with that, then they are "inconsequential", and you will then result with "only an ignorant like you". The margin of error, in other words, is totally arbitrary based on a given study. Maybe you should go back to statistics 101 and review how to make a survey.”

This was just purely wrong, it has nothing to do with trials and errors, they are not based on different numbers of trials. Now let post all definitions of the word arbitrary:

“Arbitrary \Ar"bi*tra*ry\, a. [L. arbitrarius, fr. arbiter: cf.
F. arbitraire. See Arbiter.]
1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed
rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment.

It was wholly arbitrary in them to do so. --Jer.
Taylor.

Rank pretends to fix the value of every one, and is
the most arbitrary of all things. --Landor.

2. Exercised according to one's own will or caprice, and
therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the
possession of power.

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the
ruins of liberty abused licentiousness.
--Washington.

3. Despotic; absolute in power; bound by no law; harsh and
unforbearing; tyrannical; as, an arbitrary prince or
government. --Dryden.

Arbitrary constant, Arbitrary function (Math.), a
quantity of function that is introduced into the solution
of a problem, and to which any value or form may at will
be given, so that the solution may be made to meet special
requirements.

Arbitrary quantity (Math.), one to which any value can be
assigned at pleasure.”

Neither of those definitions applies, arbitrary means that you could just attach margin of errors to any given trials, you CAN NOT do that. I won’t even continue to debate about that, it is really pointless, obviously you won’t admit your ignorance neither your mistake.

Let see what you ended up answering here now:

“Precisely, anyone can calculate the margin of error in that particular study, depending on the sample in relation to the total. You yourself proved my point by then going on below to give your own example, which only shows it is arbitrary based on a study, as can be seen from the following phrase "let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times...."”

Proved your point. This is what you are saying. While I show you why margins of errors are not arbitrary figures, you now twist and tell me that I am proving your point. You again are contradicting yourself. Calculating something using a known law, can not give any arbitrary results, neither the fact that each studies have their error margins makes error margins any more arbitrary, because they do not come out of the wind. It is expected now that you will twist that, and tell me how arbitrary to the sense of this or that… as you do just here:

“No one said it is "arbitrary" in the sense of making it up out of thin air, what I have maintained throughout, which you continuously ignored, is that it is arbitrary based on studies, as each study, given the different confidence intervals, will differ in its margin of errors. You keep jamming the same point either intentionally or unintentionally, perhaps out of your own misunderstanding of statistics, by spouting "laws of statistics" as if margin of errors are a holy number, which they are dependent on each given study.”

I really am not interested, as I will just let you have the last word and leave you sleep knowing you had it… I will just ask to the rest of the readers to read his above explanation and later on reread once more the definition of the word arbitrary and his past posts which I quoted, and see how this man is not humble enough to admit he just did a mistake, and in fact he had no clue of what he was talking about…. Try you’ll see it is not hard to admit your mistake…. But again, I do not expect much from you.

“If you knew anything about statistics you would know that the sample size affects the margin of error, and in fact is crucial to affecting the margin of error. Even in your petty example you are using a random sample size, a random example, which will produce a margin of error based on that.”

No! I don’t know anything about statistics, I just studied inferential statistics regression models, chronological series (autoregressive processes predictions), survival analysis, non parametric regression etc… yes! I do not know anything about it, nothing… this man studying history will teach me my field… obviously again, you have no clue of what you are talking about, randomness here is non-existent, as more the sample is big, and the total huge, the total will play a small role, and we will obtain an asymptote, for this reason we ignore the total population.

The rest of everything that concerns races, I answer in my coming answer to loseyourname, as it is useless to even discuss with you by now.

The second post will come tomorrow.

Anonymouse

03-16-2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Fadix “And what about the margin of error, which itself is just arbitrary, based on different number of trials, and errors. Is there one holy set of margin of error? I've seen margins of error that are +/- 2, or +/-.04, or +/- 5, or +/- 4 percent in anther case. In this case the margin of error is obviously a certain number, and when you expose all results that do not agree with that, then they are "inconsequential", and you will then result with "only an ignorant like you". The margin of error, in other words, is totally arbitrary based on a given study. Maybe you should go back to statistics 101 and review how to make a survey.”

This was just purely wrong, it has nothing to do with trials and errors, they are not based on different numbers of trials.

The fact that you just quoted me out of context proves you are missing the point. I already maintained that margin of errors are not "made up" out of thin air, but are dependent on that given study, in relation to the sampling size.

Originally posted by Fadix Let see what you ended up answering here now:

“Precisely, anyone can calculate the margin of error in that particular study, depending on the sample in relation to the total. You yourself proved my point by then going on below to give your own example, which only shows it is arbitrary based on a study, as can be seen from the following phrase "let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times...."”

Proved your point. This is what you are saying. While I show you why margins of errors are not arbitrary figures, you now twist and tell me that I am proving your point. You again are contradicting yourself. Calculating something using a known law, can not give any arbitrary results, neither the fact that each studies have their error margins makes error margins any more arbitrary, because they do not come out of the wind. It is expected now that you will twist that, and tell me how arbitrary to the sense of this or that… as you do just here:

“No one said it is "arbitrary" in the sense of making it up out of thin air, what I have maintained throughout, which you continuously ignored, is that it is arbitrary based on studies, as each study, given the different confidence intervals, will differ in its margin of errors. You keep jamming the same point either intentionally or unintentionally, perhaps out of your own misunderstanding of statistics, by spouting "laws of statistics" as if margin of errors are a holy number, which they are dependent on each given study.”

I really am not interested, as I will just let you have the last word and leave you sleep knowing you had it… I will just ask to the rest of the readers to read his above explanation and later on reread once more the definition of the word arbitrary and his past posts which I quoted, and see how this man is not humble enough to admit he just did a mistake, and in fact he had no clue of what he was talking about…. Try you’ll see it is not hard to admit your mistake…. But again, I do not expect much from you.

“If you knew anything about statistics you would know that the sample size affects the margin of error, and in fact is crucial to affecting the margin of error. Even in your petty example you are using a random sample size, a random example, which will produce a margin of error based on that.”

No! I don’t know anything about statistics, I just studied inferential statistics regression models, chronological series (autoregressive processes predictions), survival analysis, non parametric regression etc… yes! I do not know anything about it, nothing… this man studying history will teach me my field… obviously again, you have no clue of what you are talking about, randomness here is non-existent, as more the sample is big, and the total huge, the total will play a small role, and we will obtain an asymptote, for this reason we ignore the total population..

The fact that you have studied statistics in-depth makes no difference, for I have just taken basic statistics, and I know enough to tell you that the sample size affects the margin of error, so depending upon the sample size in relation to the total, you will get a different margin of error. You don't have to like it, but that is the way it goes. In your above reply, you didn't even bother to dispute this because you know it be true. Instead of disputing my claim that sample size affects the margin of error, you instead kept whining more and saying "No" and then going on to list the fields you have supposedly studied in statistics, as if stating you have studied these fields gives any more validity and weight to your mistaken position. For all we know you are making it up, but that isn't for me to dispute, the fact that you are denying that sample size affects margin of errors, shows that you a) either haven't studied statistics or b) you are intentionally denying it because it proves fatal to your argument.

The rest of your treatise simply lacks depth and as usual you presented no evidence that the races are equal, or that races do not exist, but only tried to copy and paste data that attempts to dismiss evidence of clear cut racial differences. Contrary to what you believe about "having the last post", this wasn't at all about that, but rather it was an attempt by me to have a cordial dialogue but apparently an "adult", and I am guessing you are in your late 20s or mid 30s, is unable to separate his emotions from a rational discourse, and anyone can look at my "Race" thread and see who started the whining and name calling and who now attempts to put the blame on the other side.

patlajan

03-17-2004, 06:52 AM

Don't you fools realize you are playing right into his hands. Everytime you argue he replies and increases his post count. It's not even about you.

loseyourname

03-17-2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Darorinag "It wasn't possible to develop agriculture in Africa." Yes, because they were primitive. Not the other way around.

Dan, you don't know that, and neither do I. Unless the black race arose separate from the rest of humanity, again, the rest of humanity had no head start. They all began in the same place intellectually. Europeans, Native Americans, and Asians advanced at a faster rate than Africans. I'm going back very far here, before anybody had developed agriculture or civilization or even written language, which is of course another necessary precursor. Now, I doubt the Phoenicians were any more skilled linguistically at this point than the average sub-Saharan African. Phoenicians were merchants, they traded with other people, and so they needed to keep records, so they developed a written language. Africans living in the middle of the Congo did not often come into contact with anyone else, as they did not live in easily traversed land and there were no large, navigable bodies of water near by, so they didn't need a written language. The Atlantic ocean doesn't count, either, as no one at that time would have been very successful trying to contact and trade with other people across a body that large. That is why written language developed along the Mediterranean.

Clearly, there are many examples out there of humans being able to surpass the limitations of their geographical location. Most of Egypt was not a particularly agricultural place, yet they had a great civilisation. What explains THAT?

Seasonal flooding of the Nile made the soil of the banks and flood basins rich for agriculture. They had plenty.

And what explains the fact that Natives could have a civilisation and culture?

I have already said, Dan, I have no answer for that one. I'm not saying this hypothesis is set in stone; it is just a hypothesis, as is yours. Everything I have outlined is evidence for my hypothesis, whereas the arising of advanced civilization in Native America, particularly the Mayan civilization, as Incan can be explained by high-altitude agriculture and Aztecs as an offshoot of the Mayans, counts as evidence against my hypothesis. It isn't devestating evidence that by itself falsifies the claim. That will remain to be seen.

Neither of us really knows what happened all the way back then. The best we can hope to do is build theories based on common sense and to examine the evidence given to us by archaeologists. Keep an open mind here, Dan. I'm not trying to say I'm right and your wrong here. I'm just advancing a possible explanation, as are you. So far, you have done exactly what you have criticized Fadix for doing; that is, you have only critiqued my hypothesis, but have presented no evidence in favor of your own. The problem with your hypothesis is that you really can't find any evidence for it. You would have to be able to test the IQ's of Africans vs. the rest of the world in ancient times, before the development of civilization anywhere. That is obviously not possible to do. The best you could do would be to measure the sizes of respective brain cavities, but even that would be dubious at best, as it isn't even clear that the size of the brain has much to do with measuring intelligence. You would need more information, such as the distance between synapses, a comparison of the respective masses of gray matter vs. white matter, and an exact knowledge of the total biomass of the organism being studied. None of that can be known from a fossil.

Today, there IS agriculture in Africa. Thanks to who? The Europeans. If it hadn't been for Europeans, Africa would still be plagued by every disease you can think of.

First off, Africa is still plagued by every disease you can think of. This has nothing to do with civilization. It is because there exists more biodiversity there than anywhere else in the world, and so there are more species that are capable of carrying exotic diseases that can be transmitted to humans.

Second, this is completely beside the point. Of course Europeans brought civilization to Africa. They also brought additional diseases, slavery, and imperialism. Is this really evidence to be counted for the superiority of Europeans? Also, we are discussing how the civilization of the Europeans arose in the first place (it didn't arise in Europe, either, by the way) and why the same thing didn't happen in Africa. It is irrelevant to bring the discussion into modern times, because by then, everything we are trying to get at had already taken place. Keep the focus here.

Darorinag

03-17-2004, 09:11 AM

Dan, you don't know that, and neither do I.
Well, you are right in that you don't know it either, which makes any claim (whether it insists on racial equality or difference) only a hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. And the one that has better scientific support would be the preferable one, no? (albeit it might have some gaps in it)..

Europeans, Native Americans, and Asians advanced at a faster rate than Africans.
They might've all come from the same place, namely Africa, but that doesn't mean they were all the same race from the beginning. The fact that whites do not turn black by staying for prolonged periods in Africa supports that claim. That means that development is not completely influenced by geographic and environmental situations. Again, we are talking about Northern Africa here, particularly Egypt, where there was an impressive civilisation. Those were "Africans" in the geographic sense of the word. Just like the whites in South Africa. But they weren't black per se, unless you believe the Afrocentric fantasy. The ancient Egyptians were Mediterranid Caucasoids.

Phoenicians were merchants, they traded with other people, and so they needed to keep records, so they developed a written language.
As the popular saying goes, "necessity is the mother of invention." Not applicable to blacks. So when those Africans had to struggle for survival, why didn't they, unlike the Europeans and Natives and Asians, develop means to overcome those hurdles? Again, I am not talking about language here. I am talking about basic things, from which one can further jump into more complex developments that fall into the realm of "civilisation."

Seasonal flooding of the Nile made the soil of the banks and flood basins rich for agriculture. They had plenty.
I did some research on the history of agriculture in Africa, and it turns out that there were significant possibilities for agriculture, as the soil was not infertile.. For example, in Ghana and Benin. And many more examples.

Neither of us really knows what happened all the way back then.
But we have significant archaeological findings. Again, black Africans claim that ancient Egyptians were black, but testing the mummies, their facial features, etc. shows that they were Caucasoids. That is the last attempt by blacks to validate themselves as holders of A civilisation. Blacks were used for labour in building the pyramids. Those were Nubians (from Sudan).

http://queerhye.delri.net/hor2.jpg
Notice the blue eyes.

http://queerhye.delri.net/38.jpg
Notice the Nordic features - this is Queen Hatshepsut

So far, you have done exactly what you have criticized Fadix for doing; that is, you have only critiqued my hypothesis, but have presented no evidence in favor of your own.
My evidence to disprove your claims simultaneously supports my claim. Because the evidence I provide against the presence of any black civilisation (despite the fact that there WAS agriculture) supports my theory.

First off, Africa is still plagued by every disease you can think of.
No it is not. There were a lot of other diseases that were put under control thanks to European medicine. Today's health situation in Africa in no way can be compared to what it would've been like had the Europeans not brought in their medical advancements to the continent. Again, so many diseases are widespread in Africa due to their lack of awareness and their very primitive nature. People with AIDS having babies... This is the most irresponsible thing anyone can do. And it doesn't really need EDUCATION to realise that this is just wrong and pointless! It's simple LOGIC. A 10 year old kid would be able to reason it out.

The development of medicine was also significant in the Arab (muslim) world, particularly with Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Ibn Rushd. Those are the most famous physicians. There were many, many more. They were also in contact with Europe through their rule over Cordova (Spain). And not only medicine, but also astronomy, physics, and chemistry. The Greek medical system also had a big influence, especially on Ibn Sina. Anyway, point is, those people came from various places, including Iraq, Persia, etc. And they were Semites. They were not Negroids.

It is because there exists more biodiversity there than anywhere else in the world, and so there are more species that are capable of carrying exotic diseases that can be transmitted to humans.
And that doesn't apply to the hugely "biodiverse" Brasil? Again, hygiene is a very important part of any civilisation. Ancient Egyptians even had menstrual hygiene techniques. When you don't live in primitive ways, you stand a better chance of warding off diseases, althoug still not completely immune to them. Consider South Africa. Compared to other African countries, there are less diseases there. Why? Because it is relatively more civilised.

Second, this is completely beside the point. Of course Europeans brought civilization to Africa. They also brought additional diseases, slavery, and imperialism. Is this really evidence to be counted for the superiority of Europeans?
The fact that Europeans enslaved Africans is in no way a disproof of the argument that Europeans were superior. On the contrary, that Europeans were better armed and organised and thus enslaved the Africans and installed "imperialism" is a positive pointer to my argument.

Also, we are discussing how the civilization of the Europeans arose in the first place (it didn't arise in Europe, either, by the way)
Maybe, but there was great cultural contact with other areas, the Greeks and Arabs for example. And this thanks to their development of trade ships and their contact with Phoenicians and throughout the centuries with Arabs.

It is irrelevant to bring the discussion into modern times, because by then, everything we are trying to get at had already taken place.
Why is it irrelevant? It is not irrelevant. On the contrary. We are talking about the correlation between ancient civilisations and their origins, as well as today's situation between Africa and Europe/Asia. Time doesn't stop. That history has taken place doesn't mean that yesterday is not history, and that today's history is any less significant than the very "old" history. Of course, we might see each and every development today as insignificant, but that is because we are living IN it. But may I remind you that centuries from now, they will be studying our civilisation(s) and our achievements, just like we study the civilisations of the past...

Fadix

03-17-2004, 09:43 AM

Edited by loseyourname: Thank you, Anonymouse, you're right. This is not a smear forum.

Fadix

03-17-2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by patlajan Don't you fools realize you are playing right into his hands. Everytime you argue he replies and increases his post count. It's not even about you.

Actually, it was my last answer to him. :D

Anonymouse

03-17-2004, 11:34 AM

Once you get personal, you lose. Thus Fadix lost long ago. I love reading about his obsession about me though. I only refer the reader to his latest discharge of simplistic repitition through which, he has constantly proven, time and again, of how he is irrational, and appeals to his emotions and ignorance in resorting to personal attacks because he feels threatened by someone intellectually superior. Indeed, as Fadix' own desperation is evident, and through his fluent dyslexic speech and spelling errors of "scientifical" magnitude, this has been the most one sided intellectual clobbering I have ever unleashed, and I don't want to brag or exude conceit, especially since Fadix is the king of conceit, but that is what it looks like. What else can you expect from someone who spends 5 years researching nothing but Holocaust and Genocide? Ignorance in every other field, be it statistics, or the rudiments of biology. That is to be expected when the challenger Fadix, is a few upgrades short of being Unix.

loseyourname

03-17-2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Darorinag Well, you are right in that you don't know it either, which makes any claim (whether it insists on racial equality or difference) only a hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. And the one that has better scientific support would be the preferable one, no? (albeit it might have some gaps in it)..

Of course. It is very difficult to reconstruct the ancient past, in particular the prehistoric past. I just don't want you speaking, as you were earlier, as if you are completely certain that the reason Africans never developed civilization was because they were intellectually inferior from the get go. There is absolutely no way to substantiate that claim, as it is impossible to measure the intelligence of large groups of people that existed nearly ten thousand years ago.

They might've all come from the same place, namely Africa, but that doesn't mean they were all the same race from the beginning.

Then what were they, Dan? Did multiple races of humans beings just spontaneously come into existence at the same time? From where? From what?

The fact that whites do not turn black by staying for prolonged periods in Africa supports that claim.

Ten thousand years from now, we'll see if that's actually true. The time scales we are talking about is a little different than Europeans that have been there a couple hundred years. Don't forget, also, that the reason a group of people's skin color would darken over evolutionary time is that dark skin color would be selected by females that realize it is advantageous for survival. European women living in Africa today are not thinking about this. They live in houses and have sunscreen. In fact, they are more likely to mate with the whitest person they can find, not the darkest, because they are making the decision based on cultural values, not biological necessity.

As the popular saying goes, "necessity is the mother of invention." Not applicable to blacks. So when those Africans had to struggle for survival, why didn't they, unlike the Europeans and Natives and Asians, develop means to overcome those hurdles?

What hurdles? Africans survived perfectly fine. They didn't need any civilization. The only point at which lack of civilization and technology became disadvantageous to them is when other civilizations came in and began to conquer them. By then, it was too late.

I did some research on the history of agriculture in Africa, and it turns out that there were significant possibilities for agriculture, as the soil was not infertile.. For example, in Ghana and Benin. And many more examples.

Rainforest nutrients are contained primarily in the upper canopy. If you clear the trees, which would be the first major (and I mean major) obstacle to agriculture, the ground soil would only be fertile for three season at most. Also, there are no domesticable animals in sub-Saharan Africa, except possibly the zebra and hyena, but these would not be suitable as food stock. Furthermore, there exist no plants that could be grown as crops in sub-Saharan Africa. All of the food plants are trees, and trees take years to grow. Agriculture is dependent on seasonal crops.

But we have significant archaeological findings. Again, black Africans claim that ancient Egyptians were black, but testing the mummies, their facial features, etc. shows that they were Caucasoids. That is the last attempt by blacks to validate themselves as holders of A civilisation. Blacks were used for labour in building the pyramids. Those were Nubians (from Sudan).

And? What's your point, Dan? Finding a couple of tomb's doesn't give you anyway to measure the intelligence of groups of dead people.

My evidence to disprove your claims simultaneously supports my claim. Because the evidence I provide against the presence of any black civilisation (despite the fact that there WAS agriculture) supports my theory.

It only supports the fact that Africans did not develop civilization. No one is disputing this. Your evidence does nothing to say why they didn't develop civilization. Your attributing it to an innate lack of intelligence is entirely speculation. There is no way of determining whether or not, ten thousand years ago. sub-Saharan Africans were on average less intelligent than Europeans.

No it is not. There were a lot of other diseases that were put under control thanks to European medicine. Today's health situation in Africa in no way can be compared to what it would've been like had the Europeans not brought in their medical advancements to the continent.

Sure, there were plenty of diseases put under control. And there were plenty of diseases that came in take their place, because of exactly the reason I gave. There is a huge stock of bacterial and viral genetic variability in Africa. It is likely that the disease problem will never go away, at least not any time in the foreseeable future. There is too much variability and too much opportunity for mutations. As soon as you find a way to stop one disease, it mutates into another, and three more you never knew existed come out of the jungle because of people treading where people had never tread before.

Besides, you act as if Africans were dying by the thousands and had no hope of survival until Europeans came in and saved their asses. That's ridiculous. There was a larger, healthier African population living in Africa before the arrival of Europeans than there is today. Along with healthcare, Europeans brought civil unrest and large-scale technological warfare that has made Africa one of the most dangerous places in the world to live, if not the most dangerous.

Again, so many diseases are widespread in Africa due to their lack of awareness and their very primitive nature. People with AIDS having babies...

You could say the same thing about the south Pacific Islands, or about many rural parts of South America. Let us not forget either, that disease does not kill off nearly as many Africans as malnutrition and large-scale warfare, two things that were not a problem until Europeans came onto the scene.

This is the most irresponsible thing anyone can do. And it doesn't really need EDUCATION to realise that this is just wrong and pointless! It's simple LOGIC. A 10 year old kid would be able to reason it out.

It is believe in some African cultures that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. A lot of Americans in the bible belt refuse medical treatment and prefer to pray to cure their cancer. These are equally stupid ways of dealing with illness. Illogicality is not confined to any one race.

Again, hygiene is a very important part of any civilisation. Ancient Egyptians even had menstrual hygiene techniques. When you don't live in primitive ways, you stand a better chance of warding off diseases, althoug still not completely immune to them. Consider South Africa. Compared to other African countries, there are less diseases there. Why? Because it is relatively more civilised.

Again, Dan, you are talking here about what has happened well after the advent of civilization. That is beside the point. We are discussing one thing and one thing only here. Why did Africa never develop civilization? You say it was because they were less intelligent. I say it was because the environment they lived in did not favor agriculture, and as a result, physical strength was the prevalent trait selected for, whereas in the parts of the world where agriculture did develop, intelligence was the prevalent trait selected for.

The fact that Europeans enslaved Africans is in no way a disproof of the argument that Europeans were superior. On the contrary, that Europeans were better armed and organised and thus enslaved the Africans and installed "imperialism" is a positive pointer to my argument.

It is evidence that they were more technologically advanced and were mightier. That does not mean superior, unless in your book, might makes right. If that is indeed the case, then you are not a very virtuous person. I've seen your picture Dan, and I'm willing to bet any African out there could take you in a fight. Hell, I could probably take you, and I'm a twiggy little powder-puff.

Why is it irrelevant? It is not irrelevant. On the contrary. We are talking about the correlation between ancient civilisations and their origins, as well as today's situation between Africa and Europe/Asia. Time doesn't stop. That history has taken place doesn't mean that yesterday is not history, and that today's history is any less significant than the very "old" history. Of course, we might see each and every development today as insignificant, but that is because we are living IN it. But may I remind you that centuries from now, they will be studying our civilisation(s) and our achievements, just like we study the civilisations of the past...

Relax, Dan. It is irrelevant to a discussion of why civilization only arose in certain places in ancient times. I never said it's completely irrelevant.

Fadix

03-17-2004, 12:35 PM

Here, louseyourname, this is the first part of my answers, I will have many long posts, so I decided to cut them.

My first part is about the brain size between “races”

So here my post is about brain sizes and the numbers provided by Philippe and Elizabeth Rushton. I first decided to copy past an essay I have written about this issue months ago, but unfortunately it was one of the things I have lost when I lost my hard drive.

My critic is regarding a study by Rushton titled: “Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits.”

First of all, before criticising his work, I shall point out one fact which is ignored by those advocates of the “race” superiority. We know that the brain is like a muscle, we know that brain activities modify the brain (I shall come to this later), and probably slightly influence its mass. Just like any other muscles in the body. So here is a serious argument to consider. If in fact the brain masses of blacks is lower than those of whites, is it because of lack of education? Think about this, if blacks did not have the same opportunities in life, and that they did not exercise their brains as much as whites, how much of this brain mass differences, if there is any, was due to the fact that as any other muscle in the body the brain that was not exercised as much as others was lighter than those others? This is just something to consider.

Now, my critic, first let quote Rushton study of 6000 U.S. Army personal, Rushton writes:

“The three populations under consideration have mean absolute cranial capacities of African Americans (1356 cm3), European Americans (1371 cm3), and East Asian Americans (1383 cm3). These cranial sizes are taken from the stratified random sample of over 6000 U.S. Army personnel studied by Rushton (1992) prior to corrections made for body size, sex, and military rank.”

This was one of the studies where the sample was considerable, from this study, the absolute cranial capacities of blacks was 1% lower than whites, and 2% lower than yellow. Again difference lower than the margin of error. What this means is that if we were to take two groups of whites and make the comparison we would find differences under the margin of error (similar differences). Only the differences in nutrition and other factors are enough to induce such insignificant differences that are even not statistically significant.

Cranial capacity for the three groups is about the same, in fact, we can take two groups of whites and find the same differences. Now, how was Rushton able to find 1364cm3 for Asians, 1347cm3 for whites and 1223cm3 for blacks? How? After all, his own recent study using US military personal, we find out that the three groups in the study had about the same cranial capacity? Actually how he did it is way out of his field of study. He is a psychologist, NOT a neurologist. The way he came to this number is by… let quote him.

“They are also found for the world averages calculated by Rushton (1995) from a review of over 150 years of research”

People might believe that he took the cranial capacity to estimate, not!..., from those researches he took the numbers and applied his “calculations” of body size etc… which have been shown recently to have practically no link with the size of the brain. His methodology, neurologists reject it. Recent studies of the physiology of the brain shows that Rushton can not be more wrong. Of course Rushton do justify his methodology by referring to autopsy data using the allometric technIQues, but the problem is that it IS specifically this technique that is questioned by neurologists. In fact, Rushter own reference to this technique and the variation of a 100g between the mass of the brain of a woman and man shows his own methodology flawed. As new recent researches indicate, the difference is a little lower than that. Secondly, from his own admission the brain of a black man is heavier than a white woman; in fact, his own studies “claim” that a black man brain size is between the one of a white woman and a white man. If we were even to consider that, we would find out that from his own admission the brain of a black man is heavier than his own numbers.

Now, let return to the military personal sample, Rushton correct it based on stature and weight (method under dispute as one of the questioned parameters), by doing so, he came with the corrected figures as being 1359, 1380, 1416 respectively. In his correction he add 3cm3 for blacks, 9cm3 for whites and 33cm3 for yellows.

To justify his corrections he writes:

“Although analysis of covariance is typically used to control for the small differences found among humans, it is to some degree an overcorrection, because head size itself is part of stature and body weight. Regardless, in the present study, it is inapplicable for the three, mainly rank-ordered, data sets. Although there is no real theoretical justification for controlling for body size in this study, nonetheless, a correction is made for it based on Jerison and Jerison encephalization quotient (EQ), which is used in zoological studies, and occasionally in the human literature, too (e.g., Rushton, 1991).”

The EQ he refers to is used to compare brain sizes among species and not waiting species. This technique in question is one of the parameters that is disputed when using the allometric techniques. By doing such, Rushton is able to reduce the size of blacks brain and increase those of whites and yellows, and finally adding what he calls the 150 years of study, without even paying attention that those that were completed decades ago were flawed, as any new one shows no statistical differences between the cranial capacity of whites compared with blacks, and that the only way of finding any differences is by using his correction values which are now known to not be valid and flawed.

I will continue later.

loseyourname

03-17-2004, 12:41 PM

Whoa there, Fadix. I don't care about brain size or cranial capacity. I never said Africans had smaller heads then Whites. I just said that there is a difference between the races, that is all. Don't start posting pages upon pages of irrelevant material. Please stick to addressing the several points I have outlined in my posts to you.

Fadix

03-17-2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by loseyourname Whoa there, Fadix. I don't care about brain size or cranial capacity. I never said Africans had smaller heads then Whites. I just said that there is a difference between the races, that is all. Don't start posting pages upon pages of irrelevant material. Please stick to addressing the several points I have outlined in my posts to you.

Louseyourname, cranial capacity is a parameter among others that is used to claim that whites and blacks are different enough to consider them as different races, so it is expected that I cover each of the claims one by one. I just though that this would be the first to cover since it was the most irrelevant one and wanted to clarify that up before starting.

loseyourname

03-17-2004, 12:52 PM

Just address the points I gave you, or post evidence to show that race does not exist. Don't refute arguments I didn't make. I am sick of everybody's straw man tactics around here.

Anonymouse

03-17-2004, 02:12 PM

Edited by loseyourname: Cool it guys. Keep your arguments private.

Fadix

03-17-2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by loseyourname Just address the points I gave you, or post evidence to show that race does not exist. Don't refute arguments I didn't make. I am sick of everybody's straw man tactics around here.

Louseyourname, cranial capacity is part of MY argument to discredit the theses of different races, it is a physiological claimed differences that some uses to justify the classification of people under different races. I never claimed you discussed about the differences of the brain size. And as well, have in mind that I told Dan that he would find the answers for his questions in my reply to you. If you want that I address to Dan when discussing those issues of brain size etc... I can do that, I would have no problem doing that.

Edited by loseyourname: Don't worry about it, Fadix. Let's all be civil here. Both of you.

Anonymouse

03-17-2004, 03:07 PM

If you are going to edit posts, you might as well edit Fadix' above essay on smearing me.

Darorinag

03-17-2004, 04:20 PM

There is absolutely no way to substantiate that claim, as it is impossible to measure the intelligence of large groups of people that existed nearly ten thousand years ago.
Yes, but I am talking about looking at current trends of race vs. intelligence and relating that to those who existed 2000 years ago (not necessarily 10,000 years...). We do know that there was no significant civilisation developed by blacks (in Africa). And we know that all the other civilisations were either developed by whites (Caucasoids/Meds/Nords) or Natives, or Asians (mongols, etc.). Negroids are the only ones who don't have a civilisation attributed to them. We might not be able to measure the intelligence of those who lived 10,000 years before us, but we can compare all the circumstances (environmental, etc.) between the different peoples of ancient times, and arrive to a pretty accurate guess about what it was that caused this absence of civilisation for blacks... Agriculture existed for almost all civilisations (so if you consider agriculture to be a necessity for the development of a civilisation, you have it in Africa too, and they had it 10,000 years ago most probably). Harsh weather circumstances, you have that everywhere. In fact, cold is a bigger impediment than heat...

Then what were they, Dan? Did multiple races of humans beings just spontaneously come into existence at the same time? From where? From what?
No.... they all came from Adam and Eve, and then they had black and white and asian babies... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

the reason a group of people's skin color would darken over evolutionary time is that dark skin color would be selected by females that realize it is advantageous for survival. European women living in Africa today are not thinking about this. They live in houses and have sunscreen. In fact, they are more likely to mate with the whitest person they can find, not the darkest, because they are making the decision based on cultural values, not biological necessity.
So you're saying that women naturally chose black (by instinct)? Somehow I doubt it. Because if it were true then, it would be true now. And if culture plays a role now, it would've played a role then.

Africans survived perfectly fine. They didn't need any civilization.
Yes, and that is why I am claiming that Africans were primitive. Therein lies the difference. They had no other aspirations and abilities. All they wanted to do was go hunting, bring home the game, eat, f*ck, and sleep, breed babies. Just simple animal nature. Whereas the other races transcended their animal nature. It is civilisation that distinguishes humans from animals. And Africans lacked that. Which is why we see today how most blacks in Africa live, like pseudo-animals. Primitive. Except in South Africa and a few other places where white civilisation touched it, or where the blacks had contact with non-blacks through travel outside the continent. The post-apartheid situation in South Africa is a very good example. Women are being raped (and not just white women), people being robbed, farms being destroyed. Utterly animalistic way of thinking. IF ALL whites leave South Africa, the country that is the most "civilised" in Africa will go down to the level of the other PRIMITIVE countries. And not because of the lack of money. But because of the lack of organising minds.

The greatest thinkers and political and philosophical pioneers were either Greek or Italian (or Europeans at any rate). A few Asians too. But no blacks. I am talking about the REAL thinkers of the ancient times - Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Machiavelli, etc. I'm not talking about today's overblown image of what art and philosophy and literature mean, and what the concept of "great mind" refers to.

Also note that when talking about the state of agriculture 5,000 years ago, we must take into account the climate shifts.

Rainforest nutrients are contained primarily in the upper canopy. If you clear the trees, which would be the first major (and I mean major) obstacle to agriculture, the ground soil would only be fertile for three season at most. Also, there are no domesticable animals in sub-Saharan Africa, except possibly the zebra and hyena, but these would not be suitable as food stock. Furthermore, there exist no plants that could be grown as crops in sub-Saharan Africa. All of the food plants are trees, and trees take years to grow. Agriculture is dependent on seasonal crops.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/w1144e/w1144e02.gif
Improved, yield-enhancing technologies (improved seed, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) are scarcely used. During 1993, the rate of fertilizer consumption in sub-Saharan Africa was 11 kg/hectare compared to 129 kg/hectare in Asia and 67 kg/hectare in Latin America (Fig.2).

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/w1144e/w1144e03.gif
Use of Irrigation. In spite of the highly variable and in many cases insufficient rainfall, and the high incidence of droughts, food production in sub-Saharan Africa is almost entirely rainfed. In 1993, irrigated land as a percentage of total cultivated area was estimated at 5 percent for sub-Saharan Africa, 37 percent for Asia and 14 percent for Latin America (Fig.3).

Irrigation potential in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at around 33 million hectares, of which only about 16 percent is currently being utilized.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/w1144e/w1144e04.gif
Crop Yields. For the period 1993-95, cereal yield (including rice in milled equivalent) in sub-Saharan Africa was 41 percent of Asian yield and 44 percent of Latin American yield. On the other hand, trials by researchers on farmers’ fields in many sub-Saharan countries have revealed the existence of a very large gap between farmers’ yields and the achievable potential.

Increasing productivity. Food production in sub-Saharan Africa generally follows a rainfall-determined seasonal pattern, with all production activities confined to no more than 6 to 8 months, the remaining months of the year being the so-called "off-season". By assuring year-round availability of water, production can be intensified through double or multiple cropping, thus raising resource productivity and total production. Research studies have found that, other things being equal, yields on irrigated land in sub-Saharan Africa average 3.5 times those from rainfed land. This has tremendous implications. Currently, irrigation potential in the sub-region is estimated at 33 million hectares, of which only 16 percent or 5.3 million hectares are being utilized, leaving 27.7 million hectares unutilized. While the realization of the full potential would be constrained by economic and technical factors, a tapping of even 10 percent of the potential could lead to full substitution of cereal imports.

Moreover, by applying supplementary irrigation to rainfed crops, the water stress caused by short, dry spells during the growing season can be minimized, thus substantially raising rainfed production as well.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/w1144e/w1144e54.htm
---

Canal origins
The present system of canals was developed by three groups: the ancient Hohokam Indians, the pioneers, and the federal government.

The Hohokam
Archaeologists believe the Hohokam Indians were peaceful farmers who inhabited the Salt River Valley for about a thousand years, from A.D. 300 to 1450. They are most noted for constructing irrigation ditches with stone hoes.

The Hohokam canal system traversed nearly 500 miles and may have served as many as 50,000 people at a time. The Indians lived here for more than 1,000 years, but left the Valley by about A.D. 1450. Nobody knows exactly why they left.

The Hohokam set the groundwork for today's major canal system, which follows many of the same paths.

The precise locations of all the Hohokam canals are unknown. During the past 100 years, ruined Hohokam villages were plowed under or paved over on both sides of the Salt River from Mesa to Tolleson. By 1920, archaeologists had identified 150 miles of ancient canals, most of which have been destroyed by land development.

Even so, steps have been taken to preserve some Hohokam history. The protected ruins at Pueblo Grande Museum are an example. Located near 44th and Washington streets, Pueblo Grande uses history to show how today's water system developed.

The pioneers
The adobe ruins of the Hohokam baked in the Arizona sun for some 400 years. Then in the 1860s, a central Arizona gold rush brought an influx of non-Indians, including an ex-Confederate cavalryman named Jack Swilling.

Perhaps Swilling noticed the ruined Hohokam canals and thought they could work again. In any event, in December 1867, he formed the Swilling Irrigation and Canal Company at the gold camp at Wickenburg. With 16 others, he intended to take water from the Salt River via a canal so he could grow crops to sell to miners at Wickenburg and the U.S. Cavalry stationed at Ft. McDowell. That waterway became known as Swilling Ditch.

By March 1868, Swilling and his partners had harvested their first crops on land near the present-day Arizona State Hospital. During that same month, a government survey party came to the Valley and noted that a small community calling itself 'Phoenix' had appeared on the scene.

In a short while, the whole area went "canal crazy." Dozens of ditches were started, and some enterprising individuals even tried to make water in canals flow uphill.

The more successful canal projects were the work of private companies and associations, which assessed members a fee for construction and maintenance.

http://www.srpnet.com/water/canals/history.asp

---

And? What's your point, Dan? Finding a couple of tomb's doesn't give you anyway to measure the intelligence of groups of dead people.
What then explains the subjugation of blacks throughout (ancient and more modern) history, and the fact that they didn't have a civilisation or empire? Every other continent / race did.

It only supports the fact that Africans did not develop civilization. No one is disputing this. Your evidence does nothing to say why they didn't develop civilization.
Maybe, but the fact that they didn't aspire to develop one might mean that they were either 1) Lazy 2) Unable to.

Your attributing it to an innate lack of intelligence is entirely speculation. There is no way of determining whether or not, ten thousand years ago. sub-Saharan Africans were on average less intelligent than Europeans.
Assuming (and there is no proof that cold weather is preferable to hot weather in terms of developing civilisation...) that the hurdles of weather/climate facing each race were about the same, what explains the fact that Europeans developed civilisations and empires, whereas blacks didn't? Moreover, what explains the fact that the Hohokam developed irrigation system despite the fact that they didn't have very good agricultural possibilities (which you're claiming to be a prerequisite for the development of civilisation)?

You are arguing in a way that gives the impression that Africans were basically screwed over by their geographical location and climate. They have never been an adventurous race. They have never ventured to go out looking for better places, to conquer better lands, to think about building ships and sail out in various directions with the hope of finding a better place to live in or occupy. It is human nature to think about things that animals don't think about - namely culture and civilisation. As I said, that's what makes us HUMANS rather than BEASTS. All other races have thought about it. But blacks haven't. What does that tell you? Still nothing? Still that blacks are equal to whites/asians/natives in intelligence and aspirations?

There is a huge stock of bacterial and viral genetic variability in Africa.
Perhaps it's the survival of the fittest then. :D And evidently, blacks are not very fit to survive. Perhaps that is why they breed so much. Perhaps it's animal instinct. And remember, I am not saying this in a sarcastic/offensive tone. I mean it. Blacks outside of Africa have been civilised and given the shape of human beings. Blacks in Africa do not. Others are not to be blamed for their poverty. They have not taken any step towards enhancing trade or agriculture, in history. And when other civilisations came along, all they could do was be colonised. Non-blacks are not to be blamed for Africa's poverty. In fact, Egypt, Morocco, Libya fare QUITE well for countries in Africa. The majority of North Africans are not black. And of course, you're going to claim that it's bordered by the Mediterranean sea, but east and west africa are bordered by water too, and certainly could make MUCH use of it.

Darorinag

03-17-2004, 04:21 PM

There was a larger, healthier African population living in Africa before the arrival of Europeans than there is today.
That's because the "healthier" Africans are now in USA, Canada, Europe. In other words, saved from the animalistic primitive life. And I suppose they shouldn't be grateful for it. Not even for their slavery... Heh... Considering that they were saved from hunger and death... eh? Talk about the ultimate demonisation of whites... Perhaps it was all for bad reasons that they were taken out of Africa, but the positive sides (for them) far outweigh the suffering they had to go through. They would probably be rotting in some hut in Africa instead of living in clean houses THEY OWN, attending university, basically being able to read and write......

Along with healthcare, Europeans brought civil unrest and large-scale technological warfare that has made Africa one of the most dangerous places in the world to live, if not the most dangerous.
Yes yes, blame the whites... as always... what a peaceful place Africa was, and naturally, the evil Europeans came and ruined it all.... and of course, not only did they do that, they also taught them how to use fertilizers, irrigate the land, etc. And now they have to provide them millions of dollars in monetary aid, simply because AIDS-stricken blacks refuse to stop having sex and breeding more babies. How smart of them indeed!!! Blame the whites. They should've brought some TV's into the continent to educate them. After all, they can't think for themselves...

You could say the same thing about the south Pacific Islands
Yes, they are black too.

or about many rural parts of South America.
South America is not completely white. It's a mixture of white, black, white&black, Asian, and European (especially spanish). Have you ever seen how black a native Brasilian is? Perhaps you should.

Let us not forget either, that disease does not kill off nearly as many Africans as malnutrition and large-scale warfare, two things that were not a problem until Europeans came onto the scene.
Yes, but malnutrition is an even better pointer to how primitive and underdeveloped (or rather, UNDEVELOPED) they are, compared to fighting disease, curing which is not always a guaranteed thing...

Yes yes, blame the Europeans... Naturally, THEY were the ones who caused all this havoc in Africa.... Of course...

Politics in Africa.. what an oxymoron.... give them guns and they will slaughter one another. guns were given for the purpose of self-protection. But it even turned against them. Just look at the number of white farmers in post-apartheid South Africa who have been shot dead by the guns the white people developed and gave the blacks....

It is believe in some African cultures that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. A lot of Americans in the bible belt refuse medical treatment and prefer to pray to cure their cancer. These are equally stupid ways of dealing with illness. Illogicality is not confined to any one race.
You are talking about exceptions in America. I am talking about widespread idiocy in Africa. The two are obviously incomparable.

Again, Dan, you are talking here about what has happened well after the advent of civilization.
Obviously not. It is very relevant. Because I am talking about things that were developed by THINKING about things other than sleeping, f*cking, eating. The very act of thinking about it is the beginning of civilisation.

I say it was because the environment they lived in did not favor agriculture, and as a result, physical strength was the prevalent trait selected for, whereas in the parts of the world where agriculture did develop, intelligence was the prevalent trait selected for.
Physical strength? Au contraire, my friend. Blacks in Africa are not strong. Blacks in America, Europe, etc. are. That's due to the nutrition. Again, in humans, superiority is not about physical strength. In animals, it is. I could be the tiniest person in the whole world, but I can still beat the tallest and physically strongest person on earth through intelligence, even if it came to a physical confrontation.

It is evidence that they were more technologically advanced and were mightier. That does not mean superior, unless in your book, might makes right.
Might doesn't necessarily make it right, but how you ARE stronger technologically (not physically, mind you - and you're referring to that) than the other person tells it all. See what I said above.

If it were about CLIMATE (in the case of Egypt, for example), why don't today's Egyptians have a huge empire or civilisation like the pharaohs? They are not the same people. Today's Egyptians are not the same Egyptians that built the pyramids. And THAT is where race comes in. THAT is where intelligence and superiority comes in.

I've seen your picture Dan, and I'm willing to bet any African out there could take you in a fight. Hell, I could probably take you, and I'm a twiggy little powder-puff.
Don't bet on it. I've fought against 5-6 large-build cops. They could barely get me down. Chances are, I can probably beat you in a dual...

Relax, Dan. It is irrelevant to a discussion of why civilization only arose in certain places in ancient times. I never said it's completely irrelevant.
We're not talking about geography here, specifically. We're talking about why in ALL of Africa, there wasn't a single example of or even MARKERS of civilisation. What explains it? Climate? Surely the Incas had to face some of the same challenges. The land? Ditto. What else, then? If it's not about land or climate, what can explain it?

Darorinag

03-17-2004, 04:29 PM

Dan, fighting racism is the subject of the thread, but “racism” here is the original definition, which means the classification of races.
You said:

"First evidences to the court of this board :) against the other party consisting of two racists."

You constantly agreed with anileve's interruptions about me being a white supremacist and a hater. That clearly doesn't refer to the racial differences definition of racism. It clearly refers to the racism as in "anti-certain-races" racism. And the title "fighting racism" sure gives that impression. So it's fair game.

Fadix, how can you say there are no races when there are obvious PHENOTYPICAL differences between blacks, whites, and asians? I'm talking about major ones. Like skin colour and skull shape. That should be enough to say that there are races. You are fighting with political correctness and the newly found fantasy of "equality" against science. I suppose that is hypocritical for someone who claims to have studied physical anthropology for quite some time.

Fadix

03-17-2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Darorinag You said:

"First evidences to the court of this board :) against the other party consisting of two racists."

You constantly agreed with anileve's interruptions about me being a white supremacist and a hater. That clearly doesn't refer to the racial differences definition of racism. It clearly refers to the racism as in "anti-certain-races" racism. And the title "fighting racism" sure gives that impression. So it's fair game.

Fadix, how can you say there are no races when there are obvious PHENOTYPICAL differences between blacks, whites, and asians? I'm talking about major ones. Like skin colour and skull shape. That should be enough to say that there are races. You are fighting with political correctness and the newly found fantasy of "equality" against science. I suppose that is hypocritical for someone who claims to have studied physical anthropology for quite some time.

Dan, I have explained you that the term racist I used was the original definition, not the modern term. When I use the word racist I use it in its orginal form. You do have a race cathegorisation belief. You can or can not hate blacks, it does not make any differences.

Dan, as for me saying that races does not exist. When we allude to races to discribe the blacks, whites etc... it is only a common term, it has nothing to do with a real indexing. If you do not believe me just choose whatever biologist you want in your university and ask him if blacks and whites are of different races and you'll see what I mean.

Darorinag

03-17-2004, 05:21 PM

If you do not believe me just choose whatever biologist you want in your university and ask him if blacks and whites are of different races and you'll see what I mean.
That is irrelevant. We both know that 99% of the world (and university is no exception) is politically correct. It means nothing. Majority doesn't mean "right."

Fadix

03-17-2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Darorinag That is irrelevant. We both know that 99% of the world (and university is no exception) is politically correct. It means nothing. Majority doesn't mean "right."

No Dan, the problem is that usually in the animal Kingdom, we differciante races because of physiologic differences that are just more than color and insignificant differences like that, this is one of the reason that Rushton manipulated his studies with the cranial capacity, to "forge" a new physiological difference to justify the existance of races.

Darorinag

03-17-2004, 05:53 PM

No Dan, the problem is that usually in the animal Kingdom, we differciante races because of physiologic differences that are just more than color and insignificant differences like that, this is one of the reason that Rushton manipulated his studies with the cranial capacity, to "forge" a new physiological difference to justify the existance of races.
You mean we have various dog breeds not because of the way they look, but because of the "physiological" differences between them? There are more differences in the physiological construction of people of different races than there is between different dog breeds.

There are different dog breeds because they don't look the same way, they don't act the same way, and they certainly don't have the same intelligence level.

Fadix

03-18-2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Darorinag You mean we have various dog breeds not because of the way they look, but because of the "physiological" differences between them? There are more differences in the physiological construction of people of different races than there is between different dog breeds.

There are different dog breeds because they don't look the same way, they don't act the same way, and they certainly don't have the same intelligence level.

This is highly innacurate.

Darorinag

03-18-2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Fadix This is highly innacurate.
Is it? How so?

loseyourname

03-18-2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Darorinag [B]Yes, but I am talking about looking at current trends of race vs. intelligence and relating that to those who existed 2000 years ago (not necessarily 10,000 years...).

I have already explained how the current trends could have arisen from environmental circumstances. It is a hypothesis that you cannot disprove.

No.... they all came from Adam and Eve, and then they had black and white and asian babies... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your humor is cute, but I'm serious. I think it's a safe assumption, regardless of what theory you buy into, that all of today's humans are descended from a single ancestral group. What this means is that we all basically started in the same place and ended up where we are today. Now we have the task of attempting to figure out why it is that some people developed advanced civilizations and others did not. It is counterproductive to postulate, as you are doing, that one race was simply inferior to the others. I am trying to figure out why they were inferior.

I really think we're going on different planes here, Dan. You're talking about the ancient Greeks, and Africans 2,000 years ago, but these groups existed well after the fact. Greeks did not invent civilization. Civilization arose in three places independently: India, Sumeria, and Central America. The Greeks were an offshoot of the Sumerians, and much of Greek civilization was borrowed from Egypt. What I am trying to figure out is why it arose in these three places, and not others. Central America I have no answer for, but the answer is rather obvious in Sumeria and India. These people lived on the banks of extremely fertile rivers, in valleys where the development of agriculture was a complete no brainer. Agriculture leads to civilization, and civilization leads to more civilization. Once these people didn't have to worry about bringing home their food every night, they could do more "human" things like think about their world and invent mythologies and build cities, and again, once agriculture is in place, the prominent trait needed to survive becomes intelligence, not physical strength. This took place at least 6,000 years ago, and would have given plenty of time for Africans to be lagging quite far behind by the time 2,000 years ago came around.

Nonetheless, as we are all (presumably) descended from a single group of people, no one race had an inherent head start. Now relax here, Dan. My hypothesis does not threaten your precious world view that Africans are an intellectually inferior people, or even that they have been for some time. My hypothesis only attempts to explain why that is. Your hypothesis isn't even a hypothesis. You are just saying that they are. Well, why? There has to be a reason. You are coming up with nothing.

So you're saying that women naturally chose black (by instinct)? Somehow I doubt it. Because if it were true then, it would be true now. And if culture plays a role now, it would've played a role then.

Why would it be true now? Being black gives no survival advantage as soon as you have cities and housing and sunscreen. Obviously, this was the direction that selection went in in the past, or we would not have any dark-skinned people.

The greatest thinkers and political and philosophical pioneers were either Greek or Italian (or Europeans at any rate). A few Asians too. But no blacks. I am talking about the REAL thinkers of the ancient times - Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Machiavelli, etc. I'm not talking about today's overblown image of what art and philosophy and literature mean, and what the concept of "great mind" refers to.

This doesn't matter, Dan. All of these great thinkers lived thousands of years after civilization first came into existence. Believe me, I am not trying to deflate their importance, nor will I make any attempt to level the playing field through some stupid claim of "multiculturalism." These men were simply greater thinkers than the thinkers of other cultures. I am with you on this, so chill out.

Improved, yield-enhancing technologies (improved seed, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) are scarcely used. During 1993, the rate of fertilizer consumption in sub-Saharan Africa was 11 kg/hectare compared to 129 kg/hectare in Asia and 67 kg/hectare in Latin America (Fig.2).

I'm not going to quote your entire agricultural rant, but I will reiterate what I was saying. Sub-Saharan Africa is a rainforest. In a rainforest, the bulk of the nutrients exists in the canopy. Because of this, you can only farm the soil for three seasons after you have cleared all the trees. The reason they are able to continue farming after this, and with little fertilization, is because they are continually clearing new land. That is why we have such a startling rate of depletion of rainforests. And of course they will need little irrigation, as there is plenty of rain year-round, as is rather obviously implied by the term "rainforest."

Now this is all rather beside the point. You cannot farm rainforest unless you first clear all of the trees, and you bring in domesticable species from others continents. The only native African species that was ever domesticated is the camel. Ancient Africans, and ancient Sumerians for that matter, could not have cleared the rainforest. It is necessary to use controlled burns and heavy equipment that did not exist back then.

What then explains the subjugation of blacks throughout (ancient and more modern) history, and the fact that they didn't have a civilisation or empire? Every other continent / race did.

People like you, that think because they aren't as smart or as civilized as you, they deserve to be subjugated. How do you explain the subjugation of Armenians over the past several centuries?

Maybe, but the fact that they didn't aspire to develop one might mean that they were either 1) Lazy 2) Unable to.

My point exactly, Dan. They didn't have any means by which to clear rainforest, so they couldn't develop agriculture. They were "unable to."

Assuming (and there is no proof that cold weather is preferable to hot weather in terms of developing civilisation...) that the hurdles of weather/climate facing each race were about the same, what explains the fact that Europeans developed civilisations and empires, whereas blacks didn't?

Climate isn't the point. In fact, a tropical, equatorial climate is ideal, as there isn't a whole lot of variance and you have a lot of rain year round. The point is that you can't farm in a rainforest. You have to clear it first, and no one in the ancient world, black or otherwise, could have done this.

Moreover, what explains the fact that the Hohokam developed irrigation system despite the fact that they didn't have very good agricultural possibilities (which you're claiming to be a prerequisite for the development of civilisation)?

Hohokams didn't live in a rainforest. Africans, as you have pointed out, don't even need much irrigation once they have cleared the land, because rainfall alone is sufficient. This is all rather beside the point.

You are arguing in a way that gives the impression that Africans were basically screwed over by their geographical location and climate. They have never been an adventurous race.

I am arguing in a way that takes only circumstance into account. Unlike you, who is arguing based on what ancient Africans were thinking. There is a difference. My claims can be verified. Yours can't, as there is no way to know what an ancient African was thinking. My hypothesis is at least in principle verifiable, whereas yours isn't. It is only speculation and can never be any more.