What do you consider more important.....

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

And if you insist, then why has Africa always been a backwater with all the natural resources they had? Generations do not explain why black Africa has always been less progressed than the rest of the world, even before the big bad Euros came to ruin their supposed civilization.

It could be argued that they never needed to reap all those resources. Only in regions that associated with civilizations foreign to Africa actually gave a damn about reaping their resources, because they'd have that kind of stimulating effect on them.

Africa has been known for a long time as the Forgotten Continent, because Europeans just couldn't access it until they had their caravels and such. Africans knew nothing about European countries, how they functioned, how important reaping their resources is in order to compete with them... Even in the 20th century, there existed societies around the world, living in jungles that we didn't dare to explore, who shared this reality. They aren't necessarily Negros either, look at the Amazon rainforest and the rainforests in Indonesia. Their environmental needs may not be as intellectually stimulating, by our standards, all that's necessary for them is to survive and make do with what they have...

Of course, everything is pure conjecture, but take a moment and read this: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...b=5&o=0&fpart=

What I don't understand is why we would only notice this now and why more studies haven't been made to confirm that this kind of finding is more than a fluke of some sort.

But the idea is interesting... Perhaps the same changes in the shape of the human skull are accessible to all races, and although this is biological, it doesn't mean to say that races will be stuck the way they are for a long time. They can adapt (even to the point where natural selection is concerned) if we change their environment, for better or for worse.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

As for cannibalism, it exists in the West as well. Germany a few years ago. Hannibal Lecter for entertainment. So does slavery. Think child porn and prostitution. Where there is man, there is dirt.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Yeah, pretty much.

[Siggie]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Tunot, I'm out of patience. I can see that I'm just wasting my time. You're simply going to keep misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Intelligence is a capacity, we've already said that and with that definition, I don't think it's that vague. It's broad by definition.

I never said race is causing a difference in intelligence, which seems to be what you keep trying to imply that I'm saying. I merely said that there's a correlation. When we can assign people a race, we can infer cause, until them, no one has said such a thing.
Perhaps if you take some statistics or research methodology courses you'd have a better understanding of these things. I also said several times that we cannot measure or control for all of the various things that make up environment and yet you keep asking me about those specifics.

I believe I've defended the research well enough. You've made up your mind, as the wise Mouse has said, and you're resisting everything I say (and without basis). This could go on forever. No matter what I say you're going to repeat the same questions and assert the same falsities. I've had enough of this game.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Be out of patience as much as you like, but vagueness and contradiction are clearly your middle names.

What exactly do you mean by "capacity"? And how do you measure that? Please, tell me, you with your extraordinary brain and all your research and statistical background.

You very clearly said, and continue to say, that race plays a role in levels of intelligence. When you say that there is a correlation between race and intelligence, and that like breeds of dogs that show different kinds of abilities (also in the intelligence factor), you are basically saying that depending to which race or breed you belong you are guaranteed to have a certain level of intelligence compared to another race or breed. I'm saying the exact opposite: that as long as the environmental factor is not considered seriously by your kind of scientists, no matter how hard it is to pursue, I shall not take any of your defences and so-called definitions of intelligence seriously. And Mouse can go bury his head in the ground as far as I'm concerned, because he has really topped it all with a nice sheet of racism and discrimination beyond which he does not have the ability or the will to look. That you are defending him says more about the way you look at humanity than about my supposed low IQ and uneducated background. At least I have that much brain, if not IQ, to see beyond silly statistics created by biased people, as you have shown yourself to be, and ungrounded research methodology (fancy words, but is it really worth anything, one may wonder after hearing you speak the way you do?).

[Sip]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

So here's the weird dilemma: IF race does play a role in intelligence, then y'all being Armenian would imply you are on the same level of intelligence and hence, are either all right or all wrong. IF race does not play a role in intelligence, then the only conclusion is that Tunot is the smart one here.

Either way, seems like Tunot can't lose Or it could be that barska-hyes are inferior but we all know that can't be.

[Siggie]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Be out of patience as much as you like, but vagueness and contradiction are clearly your middle names.

What exactly do you mean by "capacity"? And how do you measure that? Please, tell me, you with your extraordinary brain and all your research and statistical background.

You very clearly said, and continue to say, that race plays a role in levels of intelligence. When you say that there is a correlation between race and intelligence, and that like breeds of dogs that show different kinds of abilities (also in the intelligence factor), you are basically saying that depending to which race or breed you belong you are guaranteed to have a certain level of intelligence compared to another race or breed. I'm saying the exact opposite: that as long as the environmental factor is not considered seriously by your kind of scientists, no matter how hard it is to pursue, I shall not take any of your defences and so-called definitions of intelligence seriously. And Mouse can go bury his head in the ground as far as I'm concerned, because he has really topped it all with a nice sheet of racism and discrimination beyond which he does not have the ability or the will to look. That you are defending him says more about the way you look at humanity than about my supposed low IQ and uneducated background. At least I have that much brain, if not IQ, to see beyond silly statistics created by biased people, as you have shown yourself to be, and ungrounded research methodology (fancy words, but is it really worth anything, one may wonder after hearing you speak the way you do?).

You're wrong on so many levels. Go back and reread what I said.

I was even cautious enough to say it's associated with "variability in intelligence" and I most certainly did NOT say it guarantees anything. In fact I said that while there are different averages, it doesn't tell us what any individual's score would be.

I also never said you have a low IQ or that you're uneducated. You are the one that told me not to speak about things i'm not qualified to discuss and to use my brain.
Any information I disclosed about my education or intelligence was in response to that.
What I did say is that you lack background in research methodology and statistics (by the way those aren't fancy words) and that's true.
I didn't say that to insult you I am merely stating the truth. You aren't understanding much of what I'm saying and you're misinterpreting it because of your inexperience with those topics. That's all I have said. I can't teach you those things here in order to get you to understand what the limitations of correlational research are.

All you're doing is throwing out accusations. Everything I've said you've responded to by saying I'm biased, the tests are biases, the research is biased. Everything is biased because it doesn't agree with your view? Who does that make sound biased?

You just attack misrepresentations of my statements that you've constructed and continue attacking me personally.
Since you've also said in no unclear terms that you're not going to take anything I say seriously, I am not going to discuss this any further with you. Thank you for wasting my time.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Thank you for wasting my time.

You're welcome. Just to make it easier for you, see below... And this is only on race.

Mouse - I believe I read somewhere that there's been no ethnic differences found... do you have a citation that says otherwise?

Ethnic. Interesting. But read the rest.

---------------
Further, Anonymouse is quite correct that there are indeed racial differences. I initially questioned that myself as you can see earlier in the thread because I thought I had read somewhere that this gap had closed in more recent times, but I checked and while the difference isn't as high as it used to be (15 points), there is still a difference.

I don't know why it's so difficult to think there are group differences. People have no problems recognizing that different breeds of dogs have varying intelligence and temprement.

Yes, I am. What's the problem? Are we not animals?

Did you not read what I said at all? How can it be biased to blacks who have been in the US for generations and were educated in the US?

The only thing I can offer is that when I was administering IQ tests (the WAIS), I tested some Japanese students who had only been in the US between 1-4 years who outscored some whose families had been here for generations and thus knew the culture and the language.

Does biology not make different races look different? It's not that different. I'm not comparing a dog's intelligence to a humans. It's relative to their own species.

I never said race is causing a difference in intelligence, which seems to be what you keep trying to imply that I'm saying. I merely said that there's a correlation. When we can assign people a race, we can infer cause, until them, no one has said such a thing.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Or it could be that barska-hyes are inferior but we all know that can't be.

You're wise as usual, Sip.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I should withdraw from this thread before it gets out of hand :P