Race

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag 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.

You just proved that you do not read my articles Dan. One of the studies(the last one) was regarding IQ and treat about knowledge. But of course again you do not have an opinion of yourself but just recycled louseyourname argument which I will answer to him.

In order to measure IQ one must be able to process informations, and this was one of the idea regarding the study in question. There is a correlation between IQ and education, education is about knowledge, if you ever have passed an IQ test you would know that. There is a part that concerns language and meanings which is linked with your knowledge of language, there is the spacial part with things like chess tables where you have to conceptualise in your head... those concepts of chess and conceptualisation are learned in school by part, and in our society, intelligence is the processing of this knowledge, if you do not possess the knowledge you can possibly not prossess it.

Another point, yes! in fact those with Down syndrom can acquire basic writting and reading skills, if they are given the right ressources, here in a Westernised country they will be able to have those ressources, but not in a poor country, in a poor country where you suppose that the average IQ of people is of 60, you will consider that nearly the entire population has down syndrom... if you had in fact 88% of success for literacy rate, you equal and even beat the literacy rate of those suffering of Down syndrom here in Canada. compare the ressources those trisomics have here in Canada, with those in Africa. It defy logic.

I believe that CIA information to be true, it is Lynn numbers which I reject.

BTW Dan, did you know that there were African civilisations in South Africa, West Africa, Center Africa, East Africa? Ghana Kingdom in West Africa is an example... with a taxation system, a democracy etc... were they as well white?

Here South Africa




West Africa

Are those not the characteristic of black women hairs?




Does the face not have the characteristic of a black male?




This one from Nigeria.



Dan, stop being emotional, every evidences and any researchs which are not financed by the same racist organization show you wrong.

[Fadix]

http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/dfrankl/CURR/kin375/myth_of_race.html

How sport preserves the ‘myth of race’
by
Kevin Quinn



A myth is fundamentally a human invention, which is based on widely held but false notions, such as an imaginary person or a fictitious idea. These notions are repeated frequently, becoming part of the reality of the people who share in them. ‘In some instances it can become part of a culture’s common sense’ (Nelmes, 2000, p.169). According to Phillips (2000) a myth can act as a means by which the ideology of a culture takes form. The American philosopher William Thomas states that situations defined as real become real in their consequences. Many sociologists claim that race is a myth; a sociological construction (Small, 1994). The myth of race has been debated in all genres of literature dealing with race on a biological basis or as a social construction.

The prominent sociologist Harry Edwards (1973) has raised the question, ‘How black does one have to be, to be classified as black?’ Waskul (2001) states that through societies, certain meanings and understandings have been constructed to belong to specific categories of ‘race’. However John Entine (2000) subtly suggests in his controversial novel "Taboo" that certain genetic conditions can be found in specific races as opposed to others. This has led to a series of debates concerning the concept of race. Entine states that ‘elite black athletes have a phenotypic edge over athletes of other races and this edge derives from genotypic differences between the races’ (Entine, 2000, p.4). ‘Stereotypes of black athletic superiority are now firmly established as the most recent version of racial folklore and a corresponding belief in white athletic inferiority pervades popular thinking about racial difference’ (Hoberman, 1997, p.xviii). Townson (1997) argues that sport can either promote these myths or dispel them. Hansen (2000) also suggests that sport is a powerful social force. ‘It confirms, reinforces and sometimes challenges, stereotypes and myths concerning nationhood and race’ (Hansen, 2000 [online]). This essay will explore the relationship between sport and race using a series of sociological perspectives. These theories as well as the concept of hegemony will analyze the question posed by John Hoberman (1997), ‘Does sport preserve the myth of race?’

There are various ways to define the term race. According to Rothman (1993 in Howard & Hollander, 1997) race is a social definition of a social category of people, typically based on visible physical characteristics such as skin color, stature and facial features. David Unander (2001) states that race is a social phenomenon, not a biological one, which is not fixed and definite, as some individuals generally believe. Therefore, race is considered to be a myth because there is no evidence of it, yet it is meaningful and still permeates our society.

Coakley (1997) suggests that rather than following biological rules, such as heritage and blood type; racial categories represent social meanings that individuals attach to a wide range of racial characteristics. Tim Morris (2001) argues that while race may not exist, individuals believe that it does. ‘People also assume that one’s race determines athletic ability and one’s competitive attitude’ (Morris, 2001, [Personal Communication]).

A common myth surrounding the concept of race is, ‘Black individuals are faster at sprinting than White individuals’. This assumption about ‘black athletic superiority belongs to a more comprehensive racial folklore that has long imagined black people to be a harder, physically stronger, and biologically more robust human subspecies than any other race’ (Hoberman, 1997, p.xxxv). Gilroy (2001) declares that sports and sports cultures are implicated in reproducing the misguided notion that racial types exist and provide a meaning basis on which to classify humankind.

The history of the black individual in the white owned institution of sport demonstrates how sport has contributed to the social construction of race. ‘The concept of ‘’race’’ was developed in the 1700s when white Europeans began to look for a system to explain why everyone didn’t look and act as they did’ (Coakley, 1994, p.253). According to Wiggins (1977) prior to the end of slavery in America in 1863, black sport participation was limited. Slaves played games amongst themselves and were selected to participate in boxing matches against fellow slaves for the pleasure of the white audience. However participation was not rewarded. Cashmore (2000) states that boxing was the first sport in which blacks were able to cross the colour line and compete with whites. Prevailing racist attitudes increased after the abolition of slavery, which made it difficult for African Americans to participate in the white owned professional sporting leagues. In 1888 there was a gentleman’s agreement which prevented major league baseball club owners from signing black players ‘The Jim Crow Laws, were the catalyst behind the racial hatred and prevention of African Americans playing baseball in the major leagues’ (Yesterday’s Negro Baseball Company, 2001, [online]). In 1920 this hatred inspired Andrew Rubb to form the ‘Negro Baseball League’. According to Ashe (1988) athletes began to organize and compete in a variety of other ‘Negro leagues’ ranging from boxing to track.

During the 1936 ‘Nazi’ Olympic games, black sprinter Jesse Owen ‘emerged as an agent of major societal change by proving Adolf Hitler’s notion of white superiority wrong’ (Anderson, 2000, [online]), by winning four gold medals and setting three world records. Owens’ performance was ‘a major turning point in undoing a societal myth that the white race was physically superior to the black race’ (Anderson, 2000, [online]).

Owen was ‘a conspicuously successful black man in a society where success was virtually monopolized by whites’ (Cashmore, 2000, p.115). He was also a symbol for Black Americans who were short of heroes or role models on whom to style their own lives. The defeat of Nazi Germany brought about a repudiation of the ideological basis of racist views.

Sport became a highly visible way to demonstrate to the world that Americans took their government’s pronouncements on freedom and equality to heart, and universities were in the forefront of putting Negro athletes on the field to compete on equal terms with the white athletes. (Entine, 2000, p. 281)

The period 1946-1950 witnessed a momentous breakthrough for black athletes in sport, as white team owners realized that black athletes presented an economic opportunity. In 1946, the Gentleman’s agreement was overturned and in 1948 the PGA lost a lawsuit, which ended the oppression of black individuals. Race logic therefore held the view that black athletes were physically inferior to white athletes. Conversely, present within society today there exists a popular belief that African American athletes are physically superior to white athletes and that ‘their superior body build is genetically determined, giving them an advantage in specific sports’ (Sailes, 1993, p.90) (Coakley, 1990; Leonard, 1988; Sokolove, 1998).

According to Coakley (1998) the critical theory serves to bridge the gap between sport problems and its success store. Critical theorists would state that ‘sport absorbs itself in the dialogue of race as a visible cue, which can initiate power differentiations and oppression’ (Sailes, 2001, [Personal Communication]. However they would also argue that sport also serves as a vehicle for upward mobility for the racially disenfranchised. Within the sociology of sport, critical theorists would suggest that stereotypes concerning black individuals are preserved through the coverage of sport within the media. The media put the spotlight on the performance and behavior of many elite athletes. ‘The image portrayed by athletes may be represented as a stereotype for their race, with the general public thinking that the attributes of a famous black athlete are typical for all black people’ (Kinkema & Harris, 1998, p.111). Hall (1997) also agrees that the representations of black sports people through media and institutions reinforce racist stereotypes. ‘Persistent racial stereotyping has thus made racial athletic aptitude a controversial and even disreputable topic that some would ban from the scientific agenda’ (Hoberman, 1997, p.xxxv).

According to Gramsci (1971), if the ruling class managed to maintain its control by gaining the approval and consent of members of society, then it had achieved what is known as hegemony. Phillips (2000) suggests that through the concept of hegemony, people’s attitudes regarding race become so dominant that they forget they are rooted in choice and the exercise of power. The concept of hegemony proposes a dialectical ‘relationship between individuals and society, accounting for ways in which individuals are both determined and determining’ (Hargreaves, 1996, p.22). The images and messages in the media coverage of sports dictate the conventional ideology and notions belonging to certain races. Individuals are ‘reinforced to believe that the genetic makeup of Africans and African Americans predispose them to greater manual dexterity and athletic potential’ (Mosley, 2000, [online]). Such caricatured versions of black identify are constantly being generated by the athleticizing of the black image that has become a staple of global advertising’ (Hoberman, 2000, [online]). This is the reason why media coverage of sports is heavily sponsored by people and corporations with power and influence in society (Coakley, 1998). Black athletes, such as Mike Tyson and Michael Jordan, had sport promoters rubbing their hands and advertisers reaching for their cheque books when they returned back to their supreme sports (Cashmore, 2000). ‘It was a unique return to action of two black males who defined their sports and inspired the dreams of millions’ (Cashmore, 2000, p.111). Athletes like these ‘represent a highly successful marketing phenomenon and calls attention to the construction of the media spectacle by corporations, public relations, and the technique of advertising’ (Kellner, 1996, p.461). The upward mobility and wealth ‘achieved by the most successful black athletes dominant media coverage and promotes an illusory sense of social advancement for blacks as groups’ (Hoberman, [online]). According to Entine (1997) the social advancement which many black athletes achieve, is due to their natural talents. He also argues that the stereotypes portrayed with this belief are distillations of commonly recognised truths. However Oglesby (in Entine, 1997) argues that this form of covert racism disseminated thorough individuals such as Entine, devalue the importance of training as well as the ambition to succeed amongst many other individuals. Edwards (1992 in Burfoot) suggests that ‘the argument that blacks are physically superior to whites is a racist ideology camouflaged to appeal to the ignorant, the unthinking and the unaware’ (Burfoot, 1992, p.90). Sailes (1991) believes that support for the physical superiority myth indirectly contributes to the belief that the African American athlete is mentally and intellectually inferior to the white athlete. Therefore according to Hargreaves (1986), the characteristics, which the media associate with black athletes, portrays blatant racist stereotypes. ‘These racist attitudes and practices have become entrenched in the fabric of society through sport’ (1998, Kinkema & Harris, p.107) therefore preserving certain myths concerning race. (1982, Clark & Clarke). However the media also challenges negative stereotypes by exposing them to positive images of Blacks and minorities. According to Steele (1990) one race-oriented component of white superiority and black inferiority is intelligence. ‘Conceptions about this dumb jock stereotype are therefore related to racial stereotyping. This racist attitude leads to the discrimination of African Americans away from the central positions in college and professional sport’ (Saile, 1993, p.90). Carrington (1983) suggests that, while schoolteachers tend to support and encourage sport participation among black youths, they are less enthusiastic about their academic potential. Lowell (1991) claimed that hierarchical arrangements and resources distribution in sports organisations remain within white supremacy, therefore determining overall sporting opportunities. Kinkema and Harris (1998) argue that black individuals excel in certain sports, such as athletic and basketball because ‘their talent can be nurtured in schools. However they do not prosper in other sports such as tennis, golf, swimming and gymnastics because they do not have ready access to club settings. Aspects such as these, contribute to the success of black athletes in certain sports therefore maintaining the stereotypes associated with black individuals. Edwards (1973) suggests that white competitors who believe blacks to be superior, start off at a psychological disadvantage. ‘The white race thus becomes the chief victim of its own myth’ (Edwards, 1973, p.197). Coakley (1994) argues that young black individuals grow up believing that the black body is special and superior when it comes to physical abilities in certain sports; it becomes part of their biological and cultural destiny. This inspiration may encourage young black individuals to look ahead and see ‘two possible futures; unemployment on one hand and the possibility of big money and respect from slam-dunks or Olympic sprint victories on the other’ (Coakley, 1994, p.255). Often this success is attributed to the environmental disadvantage, not biological edge. ‘For blacks, the reasoning goes, athletics is practically the only way out of the ghetto, so they have extraordinary motivation to succeed’ (Young, 2000, [online]).

When a group of people feel destined to greatness in an activity, when their feelings are grounded in an ideology emphasising the ‘naturalness’ of their achievements, and when their social worlds are structured so those feelings make sense of their lives, it shouldn’t be surprising when they achieve notable things. (Coakley, 1994, p.247)

Mark Richardson, a black 400m runner with the British Olympic team, duly agrees. He suggests that there are a huge number of reasons why black people make great athletes, and most of those are socio-economic. ‘You don't need to have much money to take part in track and field, you just need some clothes and a pair of shoes, and you’re off’ (Athletics Weekly, 1999, p. 30).

[Fadix]

(article continue)

Fundamentally, black performers are as tense and concerned as anyone else. ‘Sport for many blacks is not a casual recreation, as it may appear for white youths, but a career path, and every failure represents a possible sinking into obscurity’ (Cashmore, 2000, p.198). Morris (2001) states that due to the economic opportunities and images, which are portrayed through the media, black athletes naturally buy into certain stereotypes. Morris also argues that if black athletes were naturally faster than white individuals, ‘Konstantious Kenteris would not have only won the Gold medal in the 200 metres at the Sidney 2000 Olympics and the 2001 World Championship, he would not have even been near the qualifying heats’ (Morris, 2000, [Person Communication]). This example raises issues around notions of race. Critical theorists are realistic about the underside of sport and its relevant underpinnings, however they also recognise the significance of the functionalist theory whereby sport serves to bind us together. ‘Sport can therefore challenge as well as promote social stereotypes’ (Hansen, 2000, [online]).

Sport demonstrates that interracial athletic competition has both positive and negative effects. The sports world does present a model of racial integration that makes more comprehensive social reforms easier for many people to imagine. ‘It has provided many black people with opportunities for social and economic advancement. [However] ...it has also provided a platform for black athletes to demand racial reforms in the larger societies to which they belong’ (Hoberman, [online]). The ‘conclusion that Africans are naturally better athletes is an unwarranted inductive generalization that reinforces the view that the way things are is the way they are supposed to be’ (Mosley, 2000, [Online]). Charles Petit (1998), a chronicle science writer, argues that the concept of race has no validity in the human species, ‘no clear racial boundaries show where one ‘racial’ group stops and another begins’ (Petit, 1998, [online). Unander (2001), the author of Shattering the Myth of Race (2000), states that ‘since there are no races, all the stereotypes are based on a falsehood that a difference is there which isn’t’ (Unander, 2001, [Online]). Therefore, it is possible that a social agent, such as sport, can be both a change agent and a source of resistance. As a result, sport can rightly serve as a means of ‘upward mobility and improved social standing for members of marginalized racial and ethic groups. Conversely, ‘at the same time their very participation can be seen as confirming certain racial stereotypes’ (Staurowsky, 2001, [Online]). However, ‘one thing is for sure, when it comes to explaining relative success of blacks and whites at sport the answer is far from black and white’ (O’Connor, 2000, [Online]).

[Anonymouse]

Yet more articles being posted by Fadix, which don't really prove that we are equal or races don't exist, but blames everything on "myth" and "stereotypes" and dismisses evidence, as usual. This was the same Fadix that whined about me "diverting the topic", as he alleged by posting articles and such. Nevermind how the article doesn't address why blacks have fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles different from Asians or whites, differing vascular density around muscles, different chemical reactions and energy conversion cell densities, and how they dominate athletics due to this. The fact that Africans dominate sprinting is not becuase of "socio-economic" factors, that is simply unsubstantiated Marxian-lite misinformation.

Now let's get back to the issue at hand. Why is it that only "white" countries have to accept "diversity" as a strength, and accept mass immigration from the third world? Why is it that if we are "equal" and there are no differences, that we are able to highlight so many differences that can only be blamed on "unfairness" or "bias" or "stereotype"? Why is it that both similarities between races are pinpointed, but right beside it differences are pinpointed - both biological and cultural? Why is it that if we are equal, that Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids, produced differing cultures and levels of achievement? If the argument for African lagging is due to environmental factors, why is it that across the globe on the other side paralleling Africa, in virtually the same environment, the Mongoloid natives produced vibrant civilizations?

[Fadix]

http://www.science.smith.edu/exer_sci/ESS200/Raceh/Raceh.htm

[Anonymouse]

Hahah this is a hilarious example of the paragon of pointlessness. I am to guess Fadix didn't even read it. The time between his last post and searching on google for that article was not enough to read through the length and breadth of it. My ugess is you saw the title and read the first few sentences and it seemed appealing, "Anything to combat these racists to prove wrong the notion of race". And so we are here. With that said, I only read the environmental argument of the article and it doesn't say anything new, simply repeats the tautology which Marks, who disagrees with the book Taboo stated. Essentially it is a one-sided conversation in which they state the argument of environmentalism and agree with themselves, failing to mention anything about biology at all.

With that said, I have some questions that are still unanswered.

[Darorinag]

You just proved that you do not read my articles Dan. One of the studies(the last one) was regarding IQ and treat about knowledge. But of course again you do not have an opinion of yourself but just recycled louseyourname argument which I will answer to him.

The fact that you posted it doesn't mean it's right, and that I have to take it as "factual."

In order to measure IQ one must be able to process informations, and this was one of the idea regarding the study in question.

The persons being tested are not the ones measuring their IQ. Their IQ is being measured, but they needn't know about the techniques that are used to measure their IQ. Hence it is pointless. They do test the IQ of people with down syndrome. That they do not perform well doesn't imply that it's because of lack of education. Ditto for Africans.

There is a correlation between IQ and education, education is about knowledge, if you ever have passed an IQ test you would know that.

I've taken an IQ test more than once, and it doesn't require education. The most you would need is being able to read and write.

There is a part that concerns language and meanings which is linked with your knowledge of language

that has nothing to do with knowledge. Are you saying that the rest of the world (including Persians, Russians, Chinese) know all those words whereas Africans don't? Please.... You must make exceptions of everything you can't fit into the superior category, mustn't you?

there is the spacial part with things like chess tables where you have to conceptualise in your head... those concepts of chess and conceptualisation are learned in school by part, and in our society, intelligence is the processing of this knowledge, if you do not possess the knowledge you can possibly not prossess it.

That is not done by education. Please.. you can either conceptualise it or not. no one will teach you that. it's something that you yourself observe in your everyday dealings, and not necessarily in school. Why don't they possess this ability to conceptualise? Because they are different from us, which also explains the IQ gap.

Another point, yes! in fact those with Down syndrom can acquire basic writting and reading skills, if they are given the right ressources, here in a Westernised country they will be able to have those ressources, but not in a poor country, in a poor country where you suppose that the average IQ of people is of 60, you will consider that nearly the entire population has down syndrom...

we were not talking about down syndrome in Africa. You simply compared the two. I am not arguing about the situation with down syndrome in africa. but you're pretty good at diverting the topic in every direction except the one that is ABOUT the TOPIC at hand. Nevertheless, answering your claims, a very small minority of people with down syndrome actually have enough resources to acquire those skills. in fact, even in western countries, the average IQ for a down syndrome's person is around 40. so no, the entire population wouldn't be considered as having down syndrome.

if you had in fact 88% of success for literacy rate, you equal and even beat the literacy rate of those suffering of Down syndrom here in Canada. compare the ressources those trisomics have here in Canada, with those in Africa. It defy logic.

Again, I am not talking about trisomics here or anywhere else. But to further prove how you contradict yourself, if we consider education and IQ as correlated, that would mean that trisomics who don't have the resources in Africa would score say 30 (or 40 - much lower than 60 anyway, right?) on average. So by comparison to the regular IQ of 59, the gap is still pretty big. Which means that your comparison with trisomics doesn't have any bases.

I believe that CIA information to be true, it is Lynn numbers which I reject.

Wait a minute, weren't you claiming that Lynn said that the Irish had an IQ of 78? If you thought he was wrong AT THE TIME, why did you bring that example? Or did you mention it with the hopes that it would pass by me and that I wouldn't point out Lynn's findings and the changes he made to his list? Perhaps you want double standards?

BTW Dan, did you know that there were African civilisations in South Africa, West Africa, Center Africa, East Africa? Ghana Kingdom in West Africa is an example... with a taxation system, a democracy etc... were they as well white?

Carving a few statues hardly qualifies as civilisation. Moroever, IF there were African kingdoms, then that disqualifies loseyourname's argument of the absence of agricultural possibilities. So then what would explain the fact that in no way do these African "civilisations" equal those of the Incas, Mayans, Aztects, Europeans, etc.

A hilarious example of a pointless attempt to even take over Egyptian culture as "african" (hence black, since their IQs are so low that they can't even realise that North Africans are not negroids, and definitely not the ancient Egyptians at any rate).
An Afrocentric website. African supremacy, folks. Hail it. Nothing wrong with it, is there? Yet if I talk about european culture or european contributions, I'm almost always called arrogant, racist, white supremacist. go figure.

Great, and now Afrocentric blacks are claiming that the roots of Greek civilisation were black...

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/ancientafrica.html

[Fadix]

Danny boy is slowly but certainly exposing his thoughts. Good going boy. So the fact that I am posting it does not make it right? And that you don’t have to take it as factual? Danny boy, this is a very irrational way of thinking, are you suggesting that the study has been manipulated? Are you suggesting that those authors of the study have manipulated their results? Danny boy, you told me to present you the fact not so long ago, and that if I bring evidences I could convince you. But now, you are telling me that if I present you studies, you don’t have to take them as factual. Good going Danny boy. So, if I bring evidences that show us that Blacks are not “inferior” to Whites, Danny boy give himself the right to reject those studies and don’t have to take them factual.

You have a very bad notion of what IQ tests are Danny boy. First, when you pass an IQ test, you know the implications of such a test; you know that you have a pre-given time and that you must complete it; how do you explain the implications of such a test to a miner on the middle of Africa? Education does have an impact here; you just have to take a look at the IQ score taken in locations where the level of education is higher. One recent study, where there was a program for blacks, sending blacks to college waved the differences of IQ between the two groups. IQ tests are influenced by education, the brain is like a muscle, more you practice it more it become efficient, and education is one of the way to practice it. So again, there is no way to completely separate knowledge from intelligence. Intelligence is about processing information, information is about knowledge; if you do not have knowledge you can not process it. Those figures in an IQ tests, those visual-spatial tests you need them in math, when you do mathematic or reasoning etc… you practice them, of course there is a potential that you can not beat, this is your total potential, but still for those Africans they have not achieved this potential because they do not live in a society where they can exercise their brains. And one of the evidences here is even brought by your Lynn himself, he realized that the IQ scores were increasing over the years, while there was no physical explanations for it, this is called the “Lynn effect,” while our level of education increases, IQ scores are increasing as well over the new generations, we live in a society where the brain is always exercised, even when you play video games you exercise your brain. Now coming to words, yes! I am saying that those blacks don’t know the meaning of those words, in Africa, they only learn basic reading and writing, they don’t know the meaning of the words in question, and of course in order to answer one must understand the question in the first place.

Now, coming to the word “contradiction.” I see that you are using this word quite often now Danny boy, I still am waiting you to present me the contradiction which you were talking about on the other post… short of being able you again use this word. You shout numbers without knowing what you are doing. Have in mind that the distribution of IQ scores is a bell curve(a mathematical function), if the average population IQ is 60, there is still over 7% which will score under 55, more exactly near 20% will score under that margin. Which means that 20% of the population IQ range from 30 to 54. It is already know that anyone having an IQ of 80 is considered retarded, and has a limited ability to understand questions… technically we do not measure an IQ under 80, because at 80 of IQ you can not pass the standard IQ test, if you do you will score lower than your actual real IQ, because the test suppose you do understand the questions.

Now coming to the Irish, reread what I wrote Danny, I am not the one with double standards here, I am not the one presenting studies financed by a supremacist group here, you are. What I said about the Irish was that the Catholics were scoring about 15 points lower, the IQ which I have referred was of 87 and about 100 for the Protestants (100 is the established standard British average IQ), the 78 was what Lynn brought as a Protestant trying his cheap trick on the Catholics despised where he live, he took off this number that was later taken off from his lists and the sites where they were published. But the 87 as IQ was as well measured by other sources. I told you run a search on google about Irish IQ you will see.

Now regarding agricultural possibilities, no it does not disqualify what louseyourname said. This means that even after the barriers imposed by the absence of agricultural possibilities, they still were able to function. As for the Europeans, Europeans arrived later Danny, how can you compare the Incas etc… with the Europeans? It odes not make sense at all. Oh and in case you ignored, Egyptians had Black pharaons as well, I guess they found out OK to be ruled by “inferior” blacks.

I am still waiting Danny that you present valid evidences that will show us that there is anything like a “Negroid” race, in the article which I posted the link yesterday with the research I posted, and which I edited and posted later alone, it is specified that the color of the skin was written on a combination of one to six genes, read that article which present the biological arguments regarding why you can not claim what you claim… yet! The only answer I had was a “hahaha” and an accusation that I have not read the article. Typical when can not deal with what is presented attack the character. But you know, it is expected when you blow the balloon that an Ego know it all is, it is expected that he will keep answering and answering by characterizing you, even if he knows he won’t recieve any answers.

[Darorinag]

Danny boy is slowly but certainly exposing his thoughts. Good going boy. So the fact that I am posting it does not make it right? And that you don’t have to take it as factual? Danny boy, this is a very irrational way of thinking, are you suggesting that the study has been manipulated? Are you suggesting that those authors of the study have manipulated their results? Danny boy, you told me to present you the fact not so long ago, and that if I bring evidences I could convince you. But now, you are telling me that if I present you studies, you don’t have to take them as factual. Good going Danny boy. So, if I bring evidences that show us that Blacks are not “inferior” to Whites, Danny boy give himself the right to reject those studies and don’t have to take them factual.

Don't twist my words. I said I don't have to accept everything you post as correct, just like you don't have to accept everything I post as correct. I can post a dozen scientific articles that prove that race does exist, but you would still have the right to reject them, and you could be right OR wrong in rejecting them.

how do you explain the implications of such a test to a miner on the middle of Africa?

Look, there are miners everywhere, there are poor underprivileged or unprivileged people everywhere. In fact, the literacy rate is higher for some African countries compared to non-African countries, and they still have a lower IQ.

Education does have an impact here; you just have to take a look at the IQ score taken in locations where the level of education is higher.

No it doesn't. I can show you at least 30 examples of how it's not correlated. And once it's 30 examples, it's no longer an exception.

One recent study, where there was a program for blacks, sending blacks to college waved the differences of IQ between the two groups.

Like i said, that's irrelevant. A 10 year old kid might have a higher IQ than a 30 year old PhD holder.

IQ tests are influenced by education, the brain is like a muscle, more you practice it more it become efficient, and education is one of the way to practice it.

Sorry, Fadix, but no matter how much you explain physics to someone who can't understand it, it's not gonna do you good, even if you hammer it into his brain 24/7/365.

Intelligence is about processing information, information is about knowledge

Information is knowledge, but the knowledge that is tested is not educational knowledge.

if you do not have knowledge you can not process it.

So by that token, it's impossible for any civilisation or technology to have begun without a miracle, because you have to start somewhere, right? Men aren't born knowing numbers, right? But they did create it, correct? Ditto for science. Men created science, they weren't born knowing it. THAT is intelligence! Intelligence has little to do with education. I hate to break that to you...

And one of the evidences here is even brought by your Lynn himself, he realized that the IQ scores were increasing over the years, while there was no physical explanations for it, this is called the “Lynn effect,” while our level of education increases, IQ scores are increasing as well over the new generations, we live in a society where the brain is always exercised, even when you play video games you exercise your brain.

You know, this is hilarious. You reject Lynn's findings when it doesn't appeal to you, and then use Lynn to argue with me and insist on your point.. hmm..

I am saying that those blacks don’t know the meaning of those words, in Africa, they only learn basic reading and writing, they don’t know the meaning of the words in question, and of course in order to answer one must understand the question in the first place.

And the chinese know the words?

Now coming to the Irish, reread what I wrote Danny, I am not the one with double standards here, I am not the one presenting studies financed by a supremacist group here, you are. What I said about the Irish was that the Catholics were scoring about 15 points lower, the IQ which I have referred was of 87 and about 100 for the Protestants (100 is the established standard British average IQ), the 78 was what Lynn brought as a Protestant trying his cheap trick on the Catholics despised where he live, he took off this number that was later taken off from his lists and the sites where they were published. But the 87 as IQ was as well measured by other sources. I told you run a search on google about Irish IQ you will see.

Look, fact is, you're using Lynn whenever you want, and rejecting him whenever you don't want to because it disqualifies your theories. You can't do that. Either he is a decent scientist with scientific findings, or he's not. Take your pick.

the 78 was what Lynn brought as a Protestant trying his cheap trick on the Catholics

The very fact that he did that proves that he is not fit to be a "scientist" or anything of the sort.

Now regarding agricultural possibilities, no it does not disqualify what louseyourname said. This means that even after the barriers imposed by the absence of agricultural possibilities, they still were able to function.

Hahaha... I knew that was coming.. see, blacks are now superior.. hahaha... how afrocentric of you!!! well, he said agriculture was a precursor to civilisations. And since there were no agricultural possibitlies in Africa, there were no civilisations. Well, since there are some kingdoms (i wouldn't call them civilisations) - Armenians had kingdoms but they weren't civilisations per se - that means that there were agricultural possibilities, and there are. Just take a look at the figures (pics) I posted in one of the pages in this thread. despite the differences in irrigation and fertiliser use betwee Asia, Latin America and Africa, Africa by comparison yields bigger amounts of cereal, etc.

Oh and in case you ignored, Egyptians had Black pharaons as well

That still doesn't mean that the Egyptian civilisation was founded by blacks. If USA had a black president somewhere along the line, it doesn't mean that the black president was great, or that he was the founder of USA.

It's simple, Fadix, you haven't presented any proof as to how education and IQ are correlated. But I demonstrated how they are not.

Happy researching! And do let me know when you find the answer to that. The difference between us is, I look for the evidence myself, it's pretty easy if you look at the results and compare them, you will find a pattern. Anyone with some knowledge of math and statistics can do it. SO why don't you do it too? Prove, like I did, that IQ and education are correlated. Show me examples (not exceptions!). Show me 30-40 examples of how as literacy rate increases, IQ increases. And remember that a country can't have a higher education level on average compared to another country if its literacy level is lower than the other country.

Until you do that, I will not reply. You can post 30 more articles here for all I care, that still doesn't show anything.

[Anonymouse]

Contrary to Fadix posting a treatise in which not even he knows what he is talking about, we have already highlighted endlessly how race is more than skin deep, based on genetic studies and physical anthropology, not to mention cultural factors, since culture is a reflection of race. With that said, the evidence is overwhelming that differences pervade as the rule, no matter if you argue this from an evolutionary or non-evolutionary pattern. Differences have been presented. Dismissal and marginalization of differences is also endless, with the blame being always on "it is difficult to categorize race" and/or "racist".

A child inherits 1 of 2 possible chromosomes from each parent's set of 23. 2 raised to the 23 power possible combinations. Some people get lucky and inherit far more intelligent genes than bad ones. Another child in the family can get unlucky. These properties have been known to breeders for thousands of years, not how it works genetically but how to breed for the best emergent properties. Now we know how it is done. Eugenics in other words has existed way before the Nazi party or 19th century science.

The research on racial differences is also readily available from studying races around the world. The pattern is irrefutable and cannot be due to the environment. Average racial intelligences range from East Asians at about 106 to sub Saharan Blacks and Australian Aborigines at about 70. The only way to dismiss this is an attack on intelligence tests being "biased" and other trivial tactics. In other words, there is a hereditary basis for these discrepancies.

In the words of Arthur Jensen himself:

"It is now generally accepted that individual differences in IQ and information-processing capacity are strongly influences by hereditary factors, with genetic variance constituting about 70% of the total population variance in IQ. There is also evidence that the genes for superior intelligence tend to be dominant, which is what would be theoretically expected if intelligence is a fitness character in the Darwinian sense, and if it had been subject to natural selection through the course of human evolution."