Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Race

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • (continue article)

    9.3. The g factor

    In asking people to learn the meanings of words did we select a task with little relationship to g, the general factor found in a factor analysis of IQ subtests? We do not think so. Conceptually, the task we employed was one in which the meaning of a novel term had to be acquired by experiencing that term in a linguistic context (e.g., how the new term was used in a sentence, or how its meaning was explained by association with another term), the manner in which all language is learned. Knowledge for those newly learned meanings required the acquisition of associations, associations inferred from context. We found that the ability to acquire the meanings of novel terms and to later remember those recently acquired meanings is related to general vocabulary knowledge, a knowledge tested on standard IQ tests and known to be highly g-loaded.

    Empirically, our results are quite consistent with other studies that have found that the amount of new knowledge gained during a brief training period is predictive of g loadings on a standard aptitude test. Jensen (1998, pp. 275–277), for example, cites a study by Christal (1991) in which performance on a brief course of instruction of uniform content and duration was predictive of subtest scores on a standard aptitude test with correlations across subtests ranging from .39 to .65, with an average validity coefficient of .53. As noted above, in the present series of experiments, performance on a brief course of instruction was similarly predictive of scores on tests of general vocabulary knowledge with raw correlations averaging about .50 and correlations corrected for unreliability averaging about .65. Thus, the magnitude of the present results is in accord with the magnitude of the results cited by Jensen. Interestingly, Jensen (1998, p. 275) goes on to conclude from such data that "the amount learned during a course of instruction of uniform duration is related mostly to g."

    In the present study, we employed only one measure of intelligence, general vocabulary knowledge. Thus, we could not compute g over a variety of tasks. However, given the fact that tests of vocabulary knowledge are highly loaded on g and that how much one learns during a brief course of uniform instruction is highly related to g, we feel justified in assuming that the acquisition of the meanings of novel terms, a task we found to be equally well accomplished by Blacks and Whites, is highly related to g. Is the acquisition of new information under experimentally assured conditions of equal opportunity for exposure highly related to the standard computation of g derived from a battery of IQ subtests? Is such acquisition of new information more related to fluid intelligence (Gf) or to crystallized intelligence (Gc) (Cattell and Horn)? These remain interesting questions for future study.

    9.4. Does training last?

    As time passes, are Blacks and the Whites still equally knowledgeable in what they have newly learned under conditions of equal exposure to information? That, too, remains a question for future study. We feel it unlikely, however, that one racial group would lose newly gained information at a more rapid rate than another racial group. We base our conjecture on the fact, well established over 30 years ago, that even when the amount of information initially learned by two groups differs, retention slopes for the groups do not differ. This equality in retention is true even for groups varying greatly in IQ such as normal and retarded children (Belmont; Belmont; Ellis; xxxan and xxxan).

    A broader question is whether training or intervention produces lasting effects on IQ. The available data are based on studies involving children. In general, the effect on IQ of providing children with information they would not usually have gotten is summarized by Ramey and Ramey (1998). Programs of early intervention can cause changes in average IQ ranging, over studies, from 3 to 15 points. As Ramey and Ramey note, how much the IQ score is changed by providing information depends on timing, intensity, direction, and continuity. Intervening early in life and continuing intervention results in higher IQ scores. Adoption, for example, results in IQ gains of 9 to 12 IQ points (Jensen, 1998, pp. 339–340). Intensive and direct intervention is more effective than casual and indirect teaching.

    The effects of intervention on IQ, just noted, are more easily understood if we assume that the IQ score is a measure of what the child knows that, in turn, depends on how well the child processes information and on what information the child has been given to process. Providing the thinking child with information to process will result in knowledge. Providing information as soon as possible, as often as possible, as long as possible, and as clearly as possible will lead to more knowledge. More knowledge is reflected in a higher IQ score. Delay, disruption, and disorder in providing information to the thinking child will result in ignorance. Such ignorance, as reflected in a low IQ score, or an IQ score that declines with age, may be due to lack of information and may have nothing to do with information-processing ability.

    9.5. Culture-fair testing

    Operationally, the authors of standard intelligence tests assume that a person who knows more than another person about particular information (such knowledge being predictive of achievement in that culture) is the more intelligent person. As Sternberg (2000) points out, the processes of intelligence may be the same from culture to culture. But a person is called more or less intelligent based on socially approved standards of what is important to know. Sternberg goes on to note that confusing intelligence with what society says is intelligent may cause us to give up on people who have basic abilities that go unrecognized. We agree with Sternberg's observations. The chief practical implication of the present study is that it may be possible to develop culture-fair tests of intelligence that will allow basic intellectual abilities to be recognized. Specifically, the inequality of educational achievement among races in our country has highlighted a need for culture-fair tests of intelligence. Blacks do not do as well as Whites on IQ tests and other tests of knowledge such as the SAT, the GRE, and the ACT. Basing admission to higher education on such test scores means that only a small percentage of Blacks are eligible for admission to colleges and universities. Jensen (2000) believes, on the basis of much evidence, that it may not be possible to come up with tasks that show no differences in test performance between Blacks and Whites and yet still predict academic performance.

    We do not agree. We believe that the failure to develop tests of intelligence that can be fairly applied across racial groups stems from a theoretical bias to equate the IQ score with intelligence rather than with knowledge. If we define intelligence as information processing and the IQ score as knowledge, the possibility of culture-fair tests of intelligence based on estimates of information processing arises. We are not alone in such a conjecture. Williams (2000, p. 17) notes that "xxxan's ideas" (xxxan 2000) of measuring thinking or information processing rather than accumulated knowledge are "relevant to the debate on intelligence testing and affirmative action because ... a true measure of processing efficiency (if it could be devised) would be fair to members of all racial and ethnic groups." In the present study we have employed brief and easily administered tasks to show that Black and White adults do not differ in knowledge of newly learned information when given equal opportunity for exposure to the information to be acquired. In the future, culture-fair tests of information processing would have an important social application. They might provide a culturally unbiased way to select candidates for employment or advanced education, thus fulfilling the spirit of affirmative action and equal opportunity programs.

    In summary, the present series of studies was based on the assumption that performance on standard IQ tests is influenced by both intellectual ability and by the information to which people have been exposed. Blacks and Whites differ in IQ. Knowledge of the meanings of words is a standard test on which IQ scores are based. Blacks and Whites differ in general vocabulary knowledge. In the present studies, Blacks and Whites were given equal opportunity for exposure to information that conveyed to them the meanings of new words. No differences in knowledge were obtained between Blacks and Whites given equal opportunity to learn new information. The results of the present experiments support the assumption that exposure to information, rather than intellectual ability, may account for racial differences in IQ.
    Last edited by Fadix; 03-19-2004, 06:18 AM.

    Comment


    • References

      Belmont, J.M., 1966. Long-term memory in mental retardation. In: Ellis, N.R., Editor, , 1966. International review of research in mental retardation vol. 1, Academic Press, New York.

      Belmont, J.M. and Butterfield, E.C., 1969. The relations of short-term memory to development and intelligence. In: Lipsitt, L.P. and Reese, H., Editors, 1969. Advances in child development and behavior vol. 4, Academic Press, New York.

      Cahan, S. and Cohen, N., 1989. Age versus schooling effects on intelligence development. Child Development 60, pp. 1239–1249. Abstract-PsycINFO | Abstract-MEDLINE

      Cattell, R.B., 1971. Abilities: their structure, growth, and action, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

      Christal, R.E., 1991. Comparative validities of ASVAB and LAMP tests for logic gates learning (AL-TP-1991-0031), Manpower and Personnel Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Brooks, AFB, TX.

      Dunn, L.W. and Dunn, L.M., 1981. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test––Revised: manual for forms L and M, American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, MN.

      Ellis, N.R., 1970. Memory processes in retardates and normals. In: Ellis, N.R., Editor, , 1970. International review of research in mental retardation vol. 4, Academic Press, New York.

      xxxan, J.F., 1966. Short-term retention in normal and retarded children. Psychonomic Science 6, pp. 303–304. Abstract-PsycINFO

      xxxan, J.F., 1968. Short-term memory processes in normal and retarded Children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 6, pp. 279–296. Abstract-MEDLINE | Abstract-PsycINFO

      xxxan, J.F., 1984. The intelligent infant: theoretical implications. Intelligence 8, pp. 1–9. Abstract

      xxxan, J.F., 1991. Early development and higher cognitive functioning. In: Morris Jr., F.H. and Simmons, M.A., Editors, 1991. The term newborn, Ross Laboratories, Columbus, OH.

      xxxan, J.F., 1992. Intelligence: a theoretical viewpoint. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1, pp. 82–86.

      xxxan, J.F., 2000. A theory of intelligence as processing: implications for society. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6, pp. 168–179. Abstract

      xxxan, J.F. and Haken-Vasen, J., 1997. Selective attention to novelty as a measure of information processing across the lifespan. In: Burack, J.A. and Enns, J.T., Editors, 1997. Attention, development and psychopathology, Guilford, New York.

      Hart, B. and Risley, T.R., 1995. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children, Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, MD.

      Herrnstein, R.J. and Murray, C., 1994. The bell curve, The Free Press, New York.

      Horn, J., 1989. Models of intelligence. In: Linn, R.L., Editor, , 1989. Intelligence: measurement, theory, and public policy, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

      Jensen, A.R., 1980. Bias in mental testing, The Free Press, New York.

      Jensen, A.R., 1985. The nature of the black–white difference on various psychometric tests: Spearman's hypothesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, pp. 193–219.

      Jensen, A.R., 1993. Spearman's g: links between psychometrics and biology. In: Crinella, F.M. and Yu, J., Editors, 1993. Brain mechanisms: papers in honor of Robert Thompson, New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

      Jensen, A.R., 1998. The g factor, Praeger, Westport, CT.

      Jensen, A.R., 2000. Testing: the dilemma of group differences. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6, pp. 121–127. Abstract

      Montie, J.E. and xxxan, J.F., 1988. Racial differences in IQ: item analysis of the Stanford–Binet at 3 years. Intelligence 12, pp. 315–332. Abstract

      Morris, W., Editor, , 1978. The American heritage dictionary of the English language, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

      Naglieri, J.A. and Jensen, A.R., 1987. Comparison of black–white differences on the WISC-R and the K-ABC: Spearman's hypothesis. Intelligence 11, pp. 21–43. Abstract

      Peoples, C.E., xxxan, J.F. and Drotar, D., 1995. The influence of race on 3-year-old children's performance on the Stanford–Binet: fourth edition. Intelligence 21, pp. 69–82. Abstract

      Ramey, C.T., Campbell, F.A. and Finklestein, N.W., 1984. Course and structure of intellectual development in children at risk for developmental retardation. In: Brooks, P.H., Sperber, R. and McCauley, C., Editors, 1984. Learning and cognition in the mentally retarded, Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

      Ramey, C.T., Lee, M.W. and Burchinal, M.R., 1989. Developmental plasticity and predictability: consequences of ecological change. In: Bornstein, M.H. and Krasnegor, N.R., Editors, 1989. Stability and continuity in mental development; behavioral and biological perspectives, Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

      Ramey, C.T. and Ramey, S.L., 1998. Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist 53, pp. 109–120. Abstract

      Raven, J.C., Court, J.H. and Raven, J., 1975. Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales, Lewis, London.

      Scarr, S., 1996. How people make their own environments: implications for parents and policy makers. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2, pp. 204–228. Abstract

      Sternberg, R.J., 2000. Implicit theories of intelligence as exemplar stories of success: why intelligence test validity is in the eye of the beholder. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6, pp. 159–167. Abstract

      U.S. Census Bureau, 1999. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1999 (119th ed.),, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

      Williams, W.M., 2000. Perspectives on intelligence testing, affirmative action, and educational policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6, pp. 5–19. Abstract
      Last edited by Fadix; 03-19-2004, 06:18 AM.

      Comment


      • Fadix, you know, it's all fine and dandy to post articles and all that, but you never did reply to my demonstration that there is no real correlation between literacy and IQ.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darorinag Fadix, you know, it's all fine and dandy to post articles and all that, but you never did reply to my demonstration that there is no real correlation between literacy and IQ.

          Dan, have you actually read what I wrote? Someone with an IQ of 60 has the same IQ as someone suffering of trisomy, in order to read and write you have to process words, this is part of the standard IQ test. It is unlikely that anyone having an IQ of someone suffering of trisomy in a poor country that has no any structure to accomodate such person will learn to read and write.

          Comment


          • Geee, with all these article postings one wonders why Fadix asks Dan if he read his articles. I ask Fadix the same, "have you read the articles I posted?", for if you have you can clearly see marked racial differences in athletic ability.
            Achkerov kute.

            Comment


            • I just happen to love the way Grubach delivers.

              ---------------------------------------------
              STUDIES OF JEWISH GENETICS AND THE RACIAL DOUBLE STANDARD:
              IS THERE A HIDDEN AGENDA?
              BY PAUL GRUBACH


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              In an attempt to determine how the Jewish people differ from the non-Jewish world, Israeli scientists have conducted studies which show that Jews as a group differ significantly from non-Jews in a genetic-biological sense. 1 As we shall soon see, this information is apparently going to be used to discriminate against non-Jews.

              What is even more interesting about these research projects is that they highlight the hypocritical double standard that is so deeply ingrained in certain segments of society. It's socially and morally acceptable for Jews to conduct such research projects. Anthropologist Roselle Tekiner suggested that queries into Jewish genetics may be motivated by a desire to "justify" and bolster Zionist nationalism; the idea of a "Jewish race" with a special set of "Jewish genes" could serve to unite world Jewry. 2 There is no highly visible, widespread public condemnation of these inquiries, which there would be if others were to conduct similar studies. Indeed, Jewish Zionists and their Gentile supporters would probably be the most vocal of all protestors if, for example, it were found that German or British scientists were attempting to determine how Nordics differ from Jews and Blacks in a genetic-biological sense, and this information would be used to implement racially discriminatory policies.

              Enter Dr. Jared Diamond, a prominent Jewish scientist and columnist for NATURAL HISTORY. He recently hailed GENES, PEOPLES, AND LANGUAGES, the new book by Professor Luigi Cavalli-Sfoza, a population geneticist, for allegedly dismantling the idea of race.

              In his books, Cavalli-Sforza himself promotes the following beliefs. The classification of humans into races has proved to be a futile exercise, and his research will lead to the elimination of alleged "racism," because he has discredited the popular assumption that there are clearly defined races. 3

              In the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, Diamond salutes Cavalli-Sforza for "demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races." 4 Apparently, Jewish scientist Diamond operates with a hypocritical double standard.

              In an article that appeared in NATURAL HISTORY, Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: "There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew." 5

              The implication here is obvious. The Zionist elite is planning to refuse a person the right to settle in Israel if they do not have "Jewish genes." With this in mind, consider point #4 of the Nazi Party program of May 25, 1920. It reads: "None but members of the nationality may be citizens of the state. None but those of German blood, irrespective of religion, may be members of the nationality." 6 In contemporary terms, only those with "German genes" could be citizens of Nazi Germany. I can't emphasize enough that this is similar to the type of Israeli policy that Diamond describes.

              Diamond opposes classifying human populations into races--except of course populations of Jews and non-Jews. He apparently has given his silent assent to the proposed Israeli-Zionist policy of defining and classifying Jews and non-Jews on the basis of whether or not they possess "Jewish genes."

              But just as importantly, the reader should note how Diamond's double standard in regard to racial classifications serves the interests of organized Jewry; it tends to undermine a sense of racial awareness and racial unity among Blacks, Arabs, Orientals, and especially non-Jewish Europeans, while simultaneously, it fosters Jewish national sentiment and consciousness.

              New DNA-based research suggests a genetic link between Jews and Middle Eastern people. Jews largely retained their genetic identity, one that was formed in the Middle East, according to a recent study published in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 7

              Even after centuries of exile, Diaspora Jews remained closer to each other and more similar to Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, in terms of measured genetic characteristics, than to people in their host countries such as the European nations, the study says. 8

              Based upon this DNA-based research, the study found that despite the many centuries their ancestors had spent in exile in different parts of the world, the Israeli Jews in the sample had the closest genetic links. Next in genetic affinity to Jews were Palestinians and Syrians, followed by other Middle Eastern ethnic groups. Jews of European descent living in Israel have closer genetic affinity to Syrians than to the non-Jews of the countries they came from. 9

              We live in a society in which any manifestation or hint of racism brings forth numerous and high profile condemnations --except of course when the racialist ideas and practices serve the interests of organized Jewry and its Zionist ideology.

              Once again, the reader should note how the new study's findings dovetail so nicely with the ideology of Zionism. One of its standard tenets is that Jews, for 2,000 years were dispersed among the nations of the world, and then decided to return to the land of their ancestors in the Middle East. Jews have a religious attachment to the land of Israel, which finds its roots in Biblical tradition.

              Lo and behold! Here are new genetic findings which may be used to "justify" and "legitimize" these standard tenets of Zionist ideology. Zionist functionaries might now say: "Jews are not alien invaders on Palestinian territory. Genetic studies show that modern day Jews can trace their ancestry back to the land of Israel. Jews have a right to return to the land of their genetic ancestors."

              One of the premises upon which Israel was built is that the Jews are a people--one people. 10 Jews throughout the world are more united with each other than they are with their non-Jewish countryman they may live with. 11 Lo and behold again! Notice how the findings of this new study could be used to bolster these beliefs. Supposedly, Jews from various parts of the world have a closer genetic affinity to each other than to the non-Jews of the countries they came from.

              Of course, just because these studies of Jewish genetics may be politically motivated and their findings may dovetail with Zionist ideology, this in no way invalidates the findings. That is to say, maybe Jewry did originate in the MIddle East and maybe contemporary Jews do in fact share a greater genetic affinity with each other than to the Gentiles they reside next to. Nor am I condemning such genetic studies. Quite the contrary. Scientists should perform more of these racial studies--without the hypocritical double standard that surrounds them.

              But if this be the case, let no one complain when these same findings can be used to bolster a white nationalist agenda. Indeed, one of the implications of these Jewish genetic studies is that Jewish people are somewhat different in a genetic sense from the Europeans they reside next to. In other words, not only is organized Jewry an alien cultural entity within Western civilization, they are also somewhat alien in a biological sense.

              Let the Western intelligentsia rid themselves of this hypocritical racial double standard and seriously consider the idea that genetic differences between Jews and non-Jews have significant sociopolitical consequences.




              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              FOOTNOTES

              1. NATURE, March 21, 1985, p.208.
              2. Roselle Tekiner, Samir Abed-Rabbo, Norton Mezvinsky, eds., ANTI-ZIONISM: ANALYTICAL REFLECTIONS (Amana Books, 1988), pp.63-89.
              3. L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, P.Menozzi, A. Piazza, THE HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY OF HUMAN GENES (Princeton University Press, 1994).
              4. See NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, April 13, 2000, p.61.
              5. NATURAL HISTORY, November 1993, p.12.
              6. See Robert Vexler's GERMANY: A CHRONOLOGY AND FACT BOOK: 1415-1972.
              7. THE PLAIN DEALER (Cleveland), May 10, 2000, p.6-A.
              8. Ibid.
              9. Ibid.
              10. See Rabbi Elmer Berger's discussion in Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo, Mezvinsky, pp.11-14.
              11. See Anthropologist Tekiner's discussion of this in Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo, Mezvinsky, p.77.
              Last edited by Anonymouse; 03-19-2004, 09:02 AM.
              Achkerov kute.

              Comment


              • It is unlikely that anyone having an IQ of someone suffering of trisomy in a poor country that has no any structure to accomodate such person will learn to read and write.
                So that implies that either Richard Lynn's IQ calculations are incorrect, or that the CIA world factbook is wrong. Take your pick.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fadix Dan, have you actually read what I wrote? Someone with an IQ of 60 has the same IQ as someone suffering of trisomy, in order to read and write you have to process words, this is part of the standard IQ test. It is unlikely that anyone having an IQ of someone suffering of trisomy in a poor country that has no any structure to accomodate such person will learn to read and write.
                  Actually, assuming that the individuals with down syndrome have an average IQ of 60, that would mean that they can attain 4th to 6th grade reading skills, which disqualifies your rejection of my argument on those grounds. If you can read and write, you're good to go for an IQ test. A kid in grade 1 might score higher on the IQ test than a 1st year university student. knowledge (education) is not a prerequisite, and it doesn't effect your result.

                  Comment


                  • Despite the emotional egalitarian diversion of this thread, I intended to be not so much about article posting, and focusing in too much on the biology or genetics of race, since it is an obvious and a priori truth, that no one is equal and differences pervade as the rule rather than the exception.

                    I was mostly aiming for this thread to be a discussion of race, the political ramifications of admitting to differences, and the culture that each race produced, and why, now, the "Western world" or the "white" countries are involved in this idea of "diversity" and mass immigration, which no one else is crazy for, certainly not Korea or Japan. I still haven't received an answer for this.
                    Achkerov kute.

                    Comment


                    • Indeed, Anon. I would like to hear the answer to that too. I think the most widely used answer to this question (from what I hear around me) is that Japan, Korea, etc. are not as economically potent as USA or Europe. Now that's just a claim that has no bases. Japan has a highly developed and mighty technology, industry, and economy. It still doesn't have immigration, even if it were proportional to the size of the country.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X