Support NeoGAF

[ilfait]

I think the Gaf thread about San Andreas' announcement with people complaining that they "can't relate to a black protagonist" still exist. Should I try to find it? And this is without bring up less moderate places. Good thing gamefaqs archive was scrubbed down.

If you could find that I'd be interested to see. I looked for a bit and couldn't see anything like that, but I may have just missed it.

 

[JordanN]

To play devil's-advocate for a second:
Hypothetically, it could be possible that a dumb-species and a smart-species of humans could be bred with extremely selective-breeding over the course of many many many many generations (eugenics, basically), but it hasn't happened naturally.

The actual theories behind intelligence point to geographic isolation.

When humans spread out all across the earth, Africans stayed in their continent for thousands of years, separated from all the other humans in different places. I don't say this to be condescending or a dick. It's true.
Africans lived in Africa for THOUSANDS OF YEARS isolated away from everyone else. Is this not true?

Now, this is the part where evolution/intelligence deniers need to explain this to me. How is it possible that for thousands of years, Africans were able to have the same genetic/environment pressures that existed all across the world where other humans existed? Again, this is not being a dick. This is talking about the world history.

We know for certain there are differences in non-African populations that came as a result in living in new environments. For example, all non-African people have Neanderthal DNA. The Neanderthals were a highly related, but slightly different human species who lived everywhere EXCEPT in Africa. The Native Africans never made contact or breed with these people because again, Africans remained isolated from the rest of the world for thousands of years.

And even if it was happening naturally, humans haven't been out of Africa long enough for evolution to have provided any meaningful differences, unless there's some weird lab out there somewhere which has been breeding people for thousands of years.

This is 100% and completely in-factual and wrong. How are you the judge of how long evolution works? There is no set timeline for how long evolution and natural selection works.

Lets look at dogs. You do know dogs didn't always exist? That they originally came from wolves? Are you going to say it took millions of years for dogs to become different from wolves?

Now, I'll admit that example is not a direct comparison to how humans changed. But you are wrong to assume that evolution always takes millions of years to make a difference in a population.

A more effective way to create a species of dumb-humans would be to malnourish them for many thousands of years, but that hasn't happened naturally either.

In the timeline of human intelligence, "dumb humans" were not created. Quite the opposite. Africans were the first humans to walk the earth. They were our original common ancestors.
It doesn't mean they are "stupid". They evolved perfectly fine for their environment in Africa.

Why other humans are considered "higher IQ" is because they evolved in places that did require more intelligence in their environment to survive. Do you deny that Europe and Africa are different environments?
Do you know that Europe has winters when most of Africa does not? According to this theory on intelligence, what happened in Europe was there was an ice age. In order to survive this, humans who could plan for the winter,
were the ones who would end up thriving. All humans who couldn't, would have died off. Hence the need for intelligence. If you couldn't plan for the winter in Europe, you would have died.

The most obvious reason (and the true reason) certain races perform better in schools is rooted in flawed measuring standards, biased queries, and environmental hindrances.

You're not paying attention to the studies I posted. Scientists have already been through this many many many many times.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jord...white-privilege.1464114/page-7#post-253360667
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jord...white-privilege.1464114/page-8#post-253361004

The idea money makes people smarter is a complete fallacy. Money doesn't change genetics. Money can't make you taller. You can try and fake it (i.e buy a giant pair of stilts). But money wont turn you into the next Robert Wadlow.
You have to be born with the same genetics he had to be freakishly tall naturally.

There's also confirmation-bias involved, because we rarely ever hear about geniuses unless they've managed to also become successful in some other way (usually financially) and have made it to the spotlight.

This too is a fallacy. So people are only smart because they're in the news? If I interview a kid at my local playground and post it on youtube, is the kid now a genius?
No, people will always be smart with or without the media's attention. There was no youtube thousands of years ago, yet would you say Aristotle is an idiot as a result?
No. Smart people and fame are completely independent from each other.

I wonder if the most successful countries, educationally, are successful because they have the most resources, a massive history of placing importance on education, a government which rewards education, and a belief that work-ethic leads to positive results.

I pointed out before, even impoverished countries like Monoglia still have IQ's that are in line or higher than white people. You guys are failing to explain why this keeps happening if there are no genes involved.

South Africa by comparison, is more rich and developed nation than Mongolia. They have affirmative action programs in schools. And yet their IQ of average Black South Africans is 71 points.

Nah, it's probably just because of a tiny chemical difference which changes the color of skin; that would be the most logical reason.

If you're saying the only difference between races is skin color, then no, you are wrong.

We can identify common origin by looking at people's skulls. Europeans do not have have skulls shaped like Africans and vice versa. Same goes with Asian skulls.

 

[JordanN]

I just got back from holiday in china. Jordan guess how long they go to school for each day even at primary school. If you claim genetics for the reason ,their example more likely actually proves trying harder or longer hours yeilds better results lol

You're only proving my point.
Are they paying kids to go to school? Does the state (China) award kids for receiving good grades?

You're proving that they don't care about wealth. Money isn't what makes millions of kids stay in school and study.

Now people keep bringing up Jim Crow and saying "black people couldn't go to white schools! Without white schools their intelligence dropped!".
So are you saying only white schools make black people work harder? When Jim Crow ended, that's when black people started to work harder because they needed white schools to do it?

I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm asking a legitimate question. What did Jim Crow do that made black people not work hard in school? How does going to a rich white school make black children work harder if you're saying CULTURE does?

 

[AfricanKing]

If you're saying the only difference between races is skin color, then no, you are wrong.

We can identify common origin by looking at people's skulls. Europeans do not have have skulls shaped like Africans and vice versa. Same goes with Asian skulls.

Negroid ....

This comes right out of the scientific racism wiki page .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Jesus Christ what is wrong with people

 

[JordanN]

Negroid ....

This comes right out of the scientific racism wiki page .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Jesus Christ what is wrong with people

It's a forensic classification.

Just because you linked to an article on racism, doesn't mean the term isn't used elsewhere.

Also, look at my image and tell me what's so offensive about it? That is what skulls of different races look like. There's no photoshop.

 

[AfricanKing]

It's a forensic classification.

Just because you linked to an article on racism, doesn't mean the term isn't used elsewhere.

No it's an old term that was stopped being used because of its historical context in which is was conceived.

Negroid


ADJECTIVE
dated, offensive

• Relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa.
  

Usage
The term Negroid belongs to a set of terms introduced by 19th-century anthropologists attempting to categorize human races. Such terms are associated with outdated notions of racial types, and so are now potentially offensive and best avoided. See Mongoloid

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/negroid

Just because it was a casual word used in someone's work decades ago does not mean it's okay to use now, and if pictures are using it now they have a narrative and an agenda to push .

 

[JordanN]

Just because it was a casual word used in someone's work decades ago does not mean it's okay to use now, and if pictures are using it now they have a narrative and an agenda to push .

It's still used today in forensic anthropology. Just because some people use it negatively, doesn't mean scientists adhere to the same thing.

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=totem

And what is the agenda? Again, those are skulls of 3 different people. Are you saying it's racist to take a picture of a human skull?

 

[AfricanKing]

It's still used today in forensic anthropology. Just because some people use it negatively, doesn't mean scientists adhere to the same thing.

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=totem

And what is the agenda? Again, those are skulls of 3 different people. Are you saying pictures of skulls are racist?

Context matters the link you posted is only referencing someone else's work who used the term decades ago. And it's bullshit walk science, you can't blanket term billions of people , based on how their skulls look like , not every black or Asian person has that shape of skulls, the imagery you posted looks very similar to the type that was being used to show that black people look like apes.

 

[Gander]

It's still used today in forensic anthropology. Just because some people use it negatively, doesn't mean scientists adhere to the same thing.

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=totem

And what is the agenda? Again, those are skulls of 3 different people. Are you saying it's racist to take a picture of a human skull?

You're not worth arguing with educate yourself.

 

[SatansReverence]

you can't blanket term billions of people , based on how their skulls look like , not every black or Asian person has that shape of skulls.

Fucking hell... And people wonder where the feelings over facts joke comes from...

 

[AfricanKing]

Fucking hell... And people wonder where the feelings over facts joke comes from...

It's a fact, are you telling me every black person on this planet fits into that posters term for "Negroid" , it's pseudoscience that was left behind.

 

[JordanN]

Context matters the link you posted is only referencing someone else's work who used the term decades ago.

So it's wrong for a 2011 article to reference a 2000 scientist who use those terms to classify skull?

And it's bullshit walk science, you can't blanket term billions of people , based on how their skulls look like , not every black or Asian person has that shape of skulls,

Men and Women have different bone structure. There is certainly a such thing as being able to identify groups based off anatomical differences.

Do you think these pictures are "sexist"?

This is the world of forensic science.

the imagery you posted looks very similar to the type that was being used to show that black people look like apes.

But no one is saying this? Do you think I said this? Show me where or in my picture that I made this claim.

 

[SatansReverence]

It's a fact, are you telling me every black person on this planet fits into that posters term for "Negroid" , it's pseudoscience that was left behind.

You're the one arguing that there is no discernible difference and claiming otherwise is just REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEACIST!!!!

So it's wrong for a 2011 article to reference a 2000 scientist who use those terms to classify skull?


Men and Women have different bone structure. There is certainly a such thing as being able to identify groups based off anatomical differences.

Do you think these pictures are "sexist"?




This is the world of forensic science.





But no one is saying this? Do you think I said this? Show me where or in my picture that I made this claim.

Oh no now you're just a misogynist, there is no difference between a man and a whamen.

 

[AfricanKing]

So it's wrong for a 2011 article to reference a 2000 scientist who use those terms to classify skull?

The term did not come from a scientist in 2000 and if that is as far back as you can find the last usage of the word that says something .

Men and Women have different bone structure. There is certainly a such thing as being able to identify groups based off anatomical differences.

Small men can have that same bone feature as a woman , but that's not the point . It's about classification of races which is what that shiity picture is trying to portray.

But no one is saying this? Do you think I said this? Show me where or in my picture that I made this claim

Don't be disingenuous, you know I never said you where saying it , but your picture is what was used almost a century ago to show exactly that , plus I've seen your post history you seem to personally think black people are inferior to white people , so I won't put it past you to have such intent.

You're the one arguing that there is no discernible difference and claiming otherwise is just REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEACIST!!!

I'm not going to educate a grown up on racist imagery.. read a book

 

[AfricanKing]

And what is the agenda? Again, those are skulls of 3 different people. Are you saying it's racist to take a picture of a human skull?

Post the origin of that particular image

 

[SatansReverence]

I'm not going to educate a grown up on racist imagery.. read a book

Oh it' the "I'm trying to argue against science but haven't got a leg to stand on so I'll just screech racism" debate tactic.

 

[AfricanKing]

Oh it' the "I'm trying to argue against pseudoscience but haven't got a leg to stand on so I'll just screech racism" debate tactic.

Fixed

 

[JordanN]

The term did not come from a scientist in 2000 and if that is as far back as you can find the last usage of the word that says something .

It says what?
And what was wrong with science in the 2000s?

Small men can have that same bone feature as a woman , but that's not the point . It's about classification of races which is what that shiity picture is trying to portray.

It's classifying anatomic differences using REAL skulls of Africans, Europeans and Asians?
How is that shitty? Unless you think whipping out a camera and taking a picture of a skull is somehow racist.

Don't be disingenuous, you know I never said you where saying it , but your picture is what was used almost a century ago to show exactly that

But I don't care what someone thought a century ago. I'm living in the present, and talking about present humans.

, plus I've seen your post history you seem to personally think black people are inferior to white people , so I won't put it past you to have such intent.

No, I don't. Don't make claims about me when you know nothing about me.

Post the origin of that particular image

What is this suppose to prove?

 

[SatansReverence]

Fixed

You fixed nothing. Clear and discernible differences in skull structures by race is not "pseudoscience".

JordanN you borked your quotes

 

[JordanN]

Whoops, sorry about that. I was typing too fast.

 

[AfricanKing]

And what was wrong with science in the 2000s?

Every time they use the term they are quoting its usage from decades ago

It's classifying anatomic differences using REAL skulls of Africans, Europeans and Asians?
How is that shitty? Unless you think whipping out a camera and taking a picture of a skull is somehow racist.

Why don't you defend the video posted below , you seem to have skipped that one aye

You're not worth arguing with educate yourself.

But I don't care what someone thought a century ago. I'm living in the present, and talking about present humans.

What is this suppose to prove?

Post the source of the image then we can decide , you have posted sources for your other skewed findings this should be no different

 

[AfricanKing]

No, I don't. Don't make claims about me when you know nothing about me.

Your post history is more than enough for me to make that claim about you seeing as it's almost impossible so find you saying anything positive about black people , you seem to come out of the wood works to only defend white privilege.

But I don't care what someone thought a century ago. I'm living in the present, and talking about present humans.

You should care because you are sprouting the same nonsense they did mixed with your eugenics theory

 

[JordanN]

Every time they use the term they are quoting its usage from decades ago

Are they? This is an excerpt from the article that uses all 3 terms.

"Dyer (1974:8) discusses early racial classifications such as the earliest classification of Linnaeus, who recognized four human racial subspecies: Homo sapiens europaeus, Homo sapiens asiaticus, Homo sapiens ajer, and Homo sapiens americanus. Dyer (1974:8) also mentions the six classifications proposed by W.C. Boyd in 1950. Based on blood group studies, these classifications include: Early European, European (Caucasoid), African (Negroid), Asiatic (Mongoloid), Amerindian, and Australoid. "

"For the sake of simplicity, I have chosen to use the three primary racial classifications used in modem race identification studies in forensic anthropology: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid (including American Indians) (Sauer 1992:109). "

The last statement is important. Scientists still considered negroid, caucasoid and mongolian to be "modern terms" for human classification in the 2000.

Why don't you defend the video posted below , you seem to have skipped that one aye

"Anyone who believes in race is a Nazi."

Lol, that video was funny. It reminds me of the anti-evolution videos made by creationists.

"Evolution isn't real because there are still monkeys around"

I give that video a 4 out of 10 for appealing too hard to emotions.

Post the source of the image then we can decide , you have posted sources for your other skewed findings this should be no different

Again, what would this prove? Do you think the humans in that picture are CGI?

Your post history is more than enough for me to make that claim about you seeing as it's almost impossible so find you saying anything positive about black people , you seem to come out of the wood works to only defend white privilege.

Anyone who doesn't praise black people are racist? Isn't that... being racist?
And defending white privilege (I don't think it exists) also makes someone racist?

You should care because you are sprouting the same nonsense they did mixed with your eugenics theory

Where is eugenics in my picture?

 

[I_D]

geographic isolation.

This explains the slower growth of knowledge; not genetics.
I also like that you've seemed to forget about places Egypt, which accomplished feats so insanely advanced for their time that people have formed conspiracies about help from aliens.

Africans stayed in their continent for thousands of years, separated from all the other humans in different places. I don't say this to be condescending or a dick. It's true.
Africans lived in Africa for THOUSANDS OF YEARS isolated away from everyone else. Is this not true?

Yeah, that's why they're called "Africans." People who moved are referred to by other names.
And again, all you've done is essentially mention isolation.

How is it possible that for thousands of years, Africans were able to have the same genetic/environment pressures that existed all across the world where other humans existed?

I'll just point this little contradiction to hopefully help you see that your ideas are conflicting:

Do you deny that Europe and Africa are different environments?

We know for certain there are differences in non-African populations that came as a result in living in new environments. For example, all non-African people have Neanderthal DNA. The Neanderthals were a highly related, but slightly different human species who lived everywhere EXCEPT in Africa. The Native Africans never made contact or breed with these people because again, Africans remained isolated from the rest of the world for thousands of years.

Are you suggesting that Neanderthals' DNA contains inherently smarter traits? I'm not sure where you're going here.
If that is what you're suggesting, I'll ask you a question: Why did the Neanderthals die out if their DNA was somehow special? Why are we not Neanderthals with a smidgen of homo-sapien DNA instead of the current situation?
I'd also like your thoughts on the other humanoid races which died out, like the races which lived in Africa, which still show up in today's DNA.

How are you the judge of how long evolution works? There is no set timeline for how long evolution and natural selection works.

I mean.... only the billions of examples we have from the around the world which show clear and obvious progressions from species to species.

Lets look at dogs. You do know dogs didn't always exist? That they originally came from wolves? Are you going to say it took millions of years for dogs to become different from wolves?

Are YOU going to say dogs weren't selectively-bred? By the most-intelligent species on Earth, no less? Let's not forget it took hundreds of generations of highly-specific breeding to achieve what we had today (you know, something that hasn't occurred in humans).

But even still, dogs are the perfect example: Every single species of dog on Earth can be trained to do a variety of tasks. Even "dumb" dogs can be easily trained. There is zero practical difference in terms of intelligence between species of dogs, and that's even when humans have deliberately been trying to train for intelligence.
Ironically, it's actually easier to train a puppy than it is to train a human infant. I mean hell, humans shit themselves for YEARS, but a day-old puppy is smarter than that.
It's almost like intelligence has little to do with physical (not psychical) differences between members of the same species.

Now, I'll admit that example is not a direct comparison to how humans changed. But you are wrong to assume that evolution always takes millions of years to make a difference in a population.

I didn't actually put a number in my post, but it's nice to have words put into my mouth.
You're exactly right, actually. Massively-noticeable changes in evolution have a tendency to occur abruptly, and luck-of-the-draw allows the genetic mutation to be beneficial so the genes can be passed on.

But damn, that still wouldn't explain these supposed intelligence-differences. After all, you've made it very clear that non-Africans spread all over the world, so the chances of the smart-gene being shared across all of those people is essentially nil, especially since the people branching from Africa traveled in literally opposite directions from each other.
But even stranger... if the smart-gene in our DNA originated BEFORE people left Africa, that would mean it's linked to breeding with Neanderthals (or else sub-Saharan Africans would also have it), but then that STILL begs the question of why the Neanderthals all died out.

They evolved perfectly fine for their environment in Africa.

But this just begs even more questions:
If Africans were perfectly-evolved for their environment, why would they bother to leave in the first place?
If Africans were perfectly-evolved for their environment, why would they breed with clearly-inferior species like Neanderthals? Wouldn't that be like us mixing races? *shudder* But then, on the flip-side, if Neanderthal DNA is what contains the smart-gene, why would they breed with us?
And even more strange: If Africans somehow are perfectly-evolved for their environment, yet still don't possess the smart-gene, why does every other culture on Earth also demonstrate the same self-destructive behaviors?

Why other humans are considered "higher IQ" is because they evolved in places that did require more intelligence in their environment to survive.

Fun fact: IQ tests were invented to test for mental-deficiencies. But your lack of understanding of your own terms is beside the point.
Please explain, because I must be too dumb to follow:
I mean, it's obvious that the balmy temperature of Europe and Asia, with their fertile lands and ample supplies of water, are clearly more difficult to live in than Africa. The fear of being trampled by a goat clearly outweighs the threats of lions.
The part I don't get is how these inherently-smarter migrants managed to survive at all. Is the difference in intelligence really THAT vast?

Do you know that Europe has winters when most of Africa does not? According to this theory on intelligence, what happened in Europe was there was an ice age. In order to survive this, humans who could plan for the winter, were the ones who would end up thriving. All humans who couldn't, would have died off. Hence the need for intelligence. If you couldn't plan for the winter in Europe, you would have died.

I was about to point out that people who move to an area where there are giant glaciers sliding toward them might, in some people's eyes, be considered less-intelligent; but you're totally right. It's a good thing those who moved out of Africa discovered fire once they saw snow.

And it's damn lucky for those Africans who stayed in the Southern-half of Africa that this area is exceptionally dry to prevent ice build-up, has an entire ocean (made of the hard-to-freeze salt water) between it and the closest source of glaciers, and a monstrously-huge mountain range protecting them from incoming climate changes.

You're not paying attention to the studies I posted. Scientists have already been through this many many many many times.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jord...white-privilege.1464114/page-7#post-253360667
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jord...white-privilege.1464114/page-8#post-253361004

I didn't see this post before.
I'm not going to read the hundreds of pages of these studies, as I'm sure you haven't either.
But your first link is to a study performed by a man whose controversial work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research which should make you suspicious. He was also the head of an organization which has been described as racist and "white supremacist" in nature, and as a hate group which should also make you suspicious.

One of your other "studies" is from this website. The link in the 'study' leads to a dead url which is hosted on this site (MAJOR NSFW WARNING!)


I want you say, with a straight-face, that these are credible studies.

The idea money makes people smarter is a complete fallacy. Money doesn't change genetics. Money can't make you taller. You can try and fake it (i.e buy a giant pair of stilts). But money wont turn you into the next Robert Wadlow.
You have to be born with the same genetics he had to be freakishly tall naturally.

I don't know how you can link to an article which clearly states the man had a birth defect, and cite that as evidence.

But yes, money =/= intelligence.
Being able to pay for a good education certainly helps, though.

This too is a fallacy. So people are only smart because they're in the news?

You continue to show your lack of reading-comprehension skills. Even ignoring how poorly you've proven to understand basic things like heredity and evolution, this one takes the cake.
Why did you conveniently leave out my mentioning of confirmation-bias?

I didn't say 'being in the news makes people smart.' I said the people who make the news are the only ones we ever really hear about. The next Einstein could be your next-door neighbor for all we know, but if he gets sick on his interview day and never gets a job, we'd never know about it.

No, people will always be smart with or without the media's attention. There was no youtube thousands of years ago, yet would you say Aristotle is an idiot as a result?
No. Smart people and fame are completely independent from each other.

I'm not a huge fan of typing-out emojis, but *sigh*
Aristotle proves my point. He was one of the most-publicized and well-reported scholars of his day. He made the news all the time. He was so famous he had nicknames around the world, for crying out loud.

(I also like that you linked to his Wiki page, like I wouldn't know who he is)

I pointed out before, even impoverished countries like Monoglia still have IQ's that are in line or higher than white people. You guys are failing to explain why this keeps happening if there are no genes involved.

I'm sure the fact that education in Mongolia is completely free, and many schools even provide free-housing for the students, thus eliminating the struggles of the lower-class (economically) has nothing to do with it.
Let's not forget that more than half the country was illiterate before the country created compulsory education laws (which mirrors every other region in the world, especially Europe).

South Africa by comparison, is more rich and developed nation than Mongolia. They have affirmative action programs in schools. And yet their IQ of average Black South Africans is 71 points.

South African education is taught in 11 different languages. Mongolian education is taught in one. Perhaps there are some language barriers?
Modern South African education began as a desperate attempt to improve the country, with classes being taught by people who weren't educated themselves, which is still the state it's in today. Mongolian education was started by copying the USSR and China, two of the most-educated nations on the planet.

If you're saying the only difference between races is skin color, then no, you are wrong.
We can identify common origin by looking at people's skulls. Europeans do not have have skulls shaped like Africans and vice versa. Same goes with Asian skulls.

You're still just arguing about physical differences, all of which appeared after migrants left Africa.

I like your logic though. I can now safely tell my girlfriend that she's inherently dumber than I am because I have a male's head, and she has the inferior female head.





And whew...
Can you try to like... compress some things next time? Formatting this took forever!

 

[waxer]

You're only proving my point.
Are they paying kids to go to school? Does the state (China) award kids for receiving good grades?

You're proving that they don't care about wealth. Money isn't what makes millions of kids stay in school and study.

Now people keep bringing up Jim Crow and saying "black people couldn't go to white schools! Without white schools their intelligence dropped!".
So are you saying only white schools make black people work harder? When Jim Crow ended, that's when black people started to work harder because they needed white schools to do it?

I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm asking a legitimate question. What did Jim Crow do that made black people not work hard in school? How does going to a rich white school make black children work harder if you're saying CULTURE does?

Whether all the other stuff like studies on iq are right or not I have never looked up. But if your argument is biologicly a race has lower iq. Then changing that argument to well actually they just don't go to school even if it is biology that makes then not interested in school your taking back your previous assertions about iq and environment wealth etc being the factor. Despite your claim to the contrary

You're proving that they don't care about wealth. Money isn't what makes millions of kids stay in school and study.

No the government and society pressure and wealth play a huge roll. And of course like anywhere good grades are rewarded with good jobs.
While not chinese myself I'm married to Chinese and have half Chinese kids. I just don't know how you jump to such crazy conclusions.
The thing is a black kid in china would also be doing 12 hour days. You get there they close the gate you can't get out. Which is why crazy people also can't get in.
Your initial examples of intelligence curves have to assume equal opportunity for all parties or else it shows nothing. If black people were allowed 1 hour of school or could only afford that and all whites got 12 how would that all all show that one race is biologicly less intelligent.

Now you have changed it to some sort of biology makes them lazy or unmotivated?

As for teachers after Jim Crow I'm pretty sure teachers that are the best get the best jobs in the best neighborhoods. I'm not sure what your arguing.

That shitty neighborhoods with high violence get the best qualified or just as qualified people that can concentrate on their jobs in an equal mannor the the high grading schools? I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out the answer to that one.

And all this doesn't matter anyway in practice. As the curves in your data overlap and have outliers meaning each person needs to be assessed for employment, grading for University etc on an individual basis and you can't assume all are not suitable for the position based off their race anyway.

Which answers a question you asked previously about why people don't look at iq etc and being biological for fear of being seen racist. The answer is what difference does it make in practice so why bother why spend all that money on it when you could spend it on improving schools etc.
There is no gain except to maybe feel superior.

As a parent with a half asian child that does pretty good at school and does well on piano. I can tell you that has zero to do with his own ability to self motivate and everything to do with us spending those hours with him keeping him going.

That's cultural and education based not biological. Everything in my body screams this fucking sucks I would do anything other than hear this song again. But I want the best for him. And it's learned behaviour that will pass on and also be useful in other areas of his life.

Do you think Japanese people pick up after themselves because it's taught from a young age or biological? These societies had problems in the past. It takes time but they instill better values young and the next generation improve.

China is doing the same thing with spitting publicly and rubbish and it's slowly working.

 

[JordanN]

Whether all the other stuff like studies on iq are right or not I have never looked up. But if your argument is biologicly a race has lower iq. Then changing that argument to well actually they just don't go to school even if it is biology that makes then not interested in school your taking back your previous assertions about iq and environment wealth etc being the factor. Despite your claim to the contrary

I said environment and wealth are not a factor.
Millions of chinese children are studying hard in school with no financial backing from the state.

No the government and society pressure and wealth play a huge roll. And of course like anywhere good grades are rewarded with good jobs.

But they're not being paid to go to school! You're bringing up the incentives that working hard will lead to promising jobs? Right?
Does this not apply to all races? Do white people not want a job after they're done school?

The thing is a black kid in china would also be doing 12 hour days. You get there they close the gate you can't get out. Which is why crazy people also can't get in.
Your initial examples of intelligence curves have to assume equal opportunity for all parties or else it shows nothing.

That's not how the bell curve works. It's a sample of a group of people and it takes the averages of all of them.
There's no money or education involved. They're tests that only look for how well you can find patterns.
Opportunity doesn't change this, because even 3rd world countries like Monoglia still score high on them.

Now you have changed it to some sort of biology makes them lazy or unmotivated?

I didn't change anything. I asked why do you believe going to a white school makes black children work harder? Since money is not tied to studying, what happened under black schools for children to not work as well?

As for teachers after Jim Crow I'm pretty sure teachers that are the best get the best jobs in the best neighborhoods. I'm not sure what your arguing.

How do teachers stop children from working hard?

That shitty neighborhoods with high violence get the best qualified or just as qualified people that can concentrate on their jobs in an equal mannor the the high grading schools? I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out the answer to that one.

So you're saying blacks couldn't focus in black schools and they needed white schools to overcome this? Why?

And all this doesn't matter anyway in practice. As the curves in your data overlap and have outliers meaning each person needs to be assessed for employment, grading for University etc on an individual basis and you can't assume all are not suitable for the position based off their race anyway.

This is missing the point. It's an average. There will be exceptions but when the average IQ is lower, you end up having less geniuses. That's why it's called the bell curve.

Which answers a question you asked previously about why people don't look at iq etc and being biological for fear of being seen racist. The answer is what difference does it make in practice so why bother why spend all that money on it when you could spend it on improving schools etc.

You don't understand, it's not schools that make children study harder. It will always be down the student to perform their best.

As a parent with a half asian child that does pretty good at school and does well on piano. I can tell you that has zero to do with his own ability to self motivate and everything to do with us spending those hours with him keeping him going.

Ok, but you realize it's not wealth that is preventing children from studying? People already told me in this thread, even in impoverished Asian countries, the students have a disciciplined work ethic.
Why is it in America, which is undoubtedly richer than almost all countries on earth, that schools are still being blamed for children not being able to study hard?

That's cultural and education based not biological. Everything in my body screams this fucking sucks I would do anything other than hear this song again. But I want the best for him. And it's learned behaviour that will pass on and also be useful in other areas of his life.

Do you think Japanese people pick up after themselves because it's taught from a young age or biological? These societies had problems in the past. It takes time but they instill better values young and the next generation improve.

China is doing the same thing with spitting publicly and rubbish and it's slowly working.

Since you say it's all culture and education, then tell me, why did Jim Crow stop black children from doing better in school? What did Jim Crow have to do with stopping a culture from working hard?

 

[Panda1]

Whether all the other stuff like studies on iq are right or not I have never looked up. But if your argument is biologicly a race has lower iq. Then changing that argument to well actually they just don't go to school even if it is biology that makes then not interested in school your taking back your previous assertions about iq and environment wealth etc being the factor. Despite your claim to the contrary



No the government and society pressure and wealth play a huge roll. And of course like anywhere good grades are rewarded with good jobs.
While not chinese myself I'm married to Chinese and have half Chinese kids. I just don't know how you jump to such crazy conclusions.
The thing is a black kid in china would also be doing 12 hour days. You get there they close the gate you can't get out. Which is why crazy people also can't get in.
Your initial examples of intelligence curves have to assume equal opportunity for all parties or else it shows nothing. If black people were allowed 1 hour of school or could only afford that and all whites got 12 how would that all all show that one race is biologicly less intelligent.

Now you have changed it to some sort of biology makes them lazy or unmotivated?

As for teachers after Jim Crow I'm pretty sure teachers that are the best get the best jobs in the best neighborhoods. I'm not sure what your arguing.

That shitty neighborhoods with high violence get the best qualified or just as qualified people that can concentrate on their jobs in an equal mannor the the high grading schools? I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out the answer to that one.

And all this doesn't matter anyway in practice. As the curves in your data overlap and have outliers meaning each person needs to be assessed for employment, grading for University etc on an individual basis and you can't assume all are not suitable for the position based off their race anyway.

Which answers a question you asked previously about why people don't look at iq etc and being biological for fear of being seen racist. The answer is what difference does it make in practice so why bother why spend all that money on it when you could spend it on improving schools etc.
There is no gain except to maybe feel superior.

As a parent with a half asian child that does pretty good at school and does well on piano. I can tell you that has zero to do with his own ability to self motivate and everything to do with us spending those hours with him keeping him going.

That's cultural and education based not biological. Everything in my body screams this fucking sucks I would do anything other than hear this song again. But I want the best for him. And it's learned behaviour that will pass on and also be useful in other areas of his life.

Do you think Japanese people pick up after themselves because it's taught from a young age or biological? These societies had problems in the past. It takes time but they instill better values young and the next generation improve.

China is doing the same thing with spitting publicly and rubbish and it's slowly working.

But why not a mix of both. IQ is mainly genetic and environment as I understand it. You are doing the best in the environment terms giving him a head start but if your child is not academically inclined and wants to e a footballer why the issue? Intelligence is not the be all or end all of the world. It wont limit success. However ignoring it as part of genetics is stupid.

 

[JordanN]

This explains the slower growth of knowledge; not genetics.
I also like that you've seemed to forget about places Egypt, which accomplished feats so insanely advanced for their time that people have formed conspiracies about help from aliens.

The two go hand in hand.
Knowledge began to spread as humans settled down and started societies. Africans did this. Europeans did this. Asians did this. Native Americans did this.
But having a higher IQ is what allowed these civilizations to advance and develop new technologies.

Now I know what people are going to say. "But Jordan. Europeans had access to rare metals/better resources than other groups. Without copper, you can't advance".
Well yes, but rare metals doesn't give you science. Or philosophy. Or buildings that are taller than 2 stories. Human beings had to make these discoveries first, and actually utilize them.

Yeah, that's why they're called "Africans." People who moved are referred to by other names.
And again, all you've done is essentially mention isolation.

The point is, if Africans have been isolated away from other groups for thousands of years, why it wrong to assume that their intelligence in their environment didn't undergo the same changes?
Like I said, I think Africans evolved perfectly fine to survive Africa. There's no denying this. But Africa is not like Europe, where something like the Ice Age posed a threat to humans who couldn't plan for the future and died off when winter came.

Are you suggesting that Neanderthals' DNA contains inherently smarter traits? I'm not sure where you're going here.
If that is what you're suggesting, I'll ask you a question: Why did the Neanderthals die out if their DNA was somehow special? Why are we not Neanderthals with a smidgen of homo-sapien DNA instead of the current situation?
I'd also like your thoughts on the other humanoid races which died out, like the races which lived in Africa, which still show up in today's DNA.

Neanderthals had the biggest brain of all human-like species. There is definitely a theory in science that suggests they were smarter and that humans living in Europe and Asia inherited those genes from coming in contact with them.
I'm also aware of the archaic DNA admixture in Africans. But I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's of equal importance to the Neanderthals who lived outside of Africa.

I mean.... only the billions of examples we have from the around the world which show clear and obvious progressions from species to species.

Ok, so are you saying every species evolved in millions of years?
Evolution can take millions of years. In can also take only a few years.

Look at the flu virus. It shows up every year and people still get sick. Even after developing vaccines. But because it evolves at a very fast rate, it bypasses people's immune systems.

Are YOU going to say dogs weren't selectively-bred? By the most-intelligent species on Earth, no less? Let's not forget it took hundreds of generations of highly-specific breeding to achieve what we had today (you know, something that hasn't occurred in humans).

I recognize they were selectively bred. But you also have to recognize that also means they underwent changes in a relatively short time.
For humans and other animals, this is what natural selection does. Take a rare genetic mutation or take an environment that changed rapidly. These create pressure on an organism to either adapt or die out, resulting in a new species.

But even still, dogs are the perfect example: Every single species of dog on Earth can be trained to do a variety of tasks. Even "dumb" dogs can be easily trained. There is zero practical difference in terms of intelligence between species of dogs, and that's even when humans have deliberately been trying to train for intelligence.
Ironically, it's actually easier to train a puppy than it is to train a human infant. I mean hell, humans shit themselves for YEARS, but a day-old puppy is smarter than that.
It's almost like intelligence has little to do with physical (not psychical) differences between members of the same species.

Hold up.
You're saying a dog is smarter than a baby? What do you think happens to the baby when it grows up? And are you saying the physical differences between a baby, an adult and a puppy are the same?
Think about this for a second.

But even stranger... if the smart-gene in our DNA originated BEFORE people left Africa, that would mean it's linked to breeding with Neanderthals (or else sub-Saharan Africans would also have it), but then that STILL begs the question of why the Neanderthals all died out.

It's the neanderthals that carried the genes that all non sub-sarahan Africans mixed with, not the other way around.
The neanderthals were their own distinct species that lived outside Africa.

If Africans were perfectly-evolved for their environment, why would they bother to leave in the first place?
If Africans were perfectly-evolved for their environment, why would they breed with clearly-inferior species like Neanderthals? Wouldn't that be like us mixing races? *shudder* But then, on the flip-side, if Neanderthal DNA is what contains the smart-gene, why would they breed with us?
And even more strange: If Africans somehow are perfectly-evolved for their environment, yet still don't possess the smart-gene, why does every other culture on Earth also demonstrate the same self-destructive behaviors?

That's a good question, and I'm still putting more research into this.
Why did Neanderthals want to breed with Humans? Perhaps it was done by force? Maybe humans and neanderthals engaged in kidnapping and had their way with the captives.

Regarding self destructive behavior in non-Africans? Having a higher IQ doesn't prevent you from causing a lot of damage. Like someone who invents a machine gun but later uses it to gun down a mall is still intelligent, but also a psychopath.

Fun fact: IQ tests were invented to test for mental-deficiencies. But your lack of understanding of your own terms is beside the point.
Please explain, because I must be too dumb to follow:
I mean, it's obvious that the balmy temperature of Europe and Asia, with their fertile lands and ample supplies of water, are clearly more difficult to live in than Africa. The fear of being trampled by a goat clearly outweighs the threats of lions.
The part I don't get is how these inherently-smarter migrants managed to survive at all. Is the difference in intelligence really THAT vast?

Imagine what happens when these high IQ humans came in contact with another group of humans who were just like them? They either got conquered or went to war with each other.
Because no one wants to really die or be held captive by some next door tribe that hates you, we saw an arms race develop.
This is easily explained by how many empires we saw constantly pop up and grew bigger and bigger each time a new challenger showed up.

I want you say, with a straight-face, that these are credible studies.

Well I removed the link. Unfortunately, there are still hateful people out there who will misuse science for hateful means, and I don't want to be associated with any groups like that.

With that out of the way, I still value scientific research. I've said it since the beginning , I only value truth and not emotions. Unless the criticism actually debunks the research and not just stir up feelings, the studies
remain valid.

I don't know how you can link to an article which clearly states the man had a birth defect, and cite that as evidence.

But yes, money =/= intelligence.
Being able to pay for a good education certainly helps, though.

The entire concept of school doesn't lead people to be smart.
What do you believe school is? It's a learning facility. But how do you learn? You actually need to be able to absorb information and apply it.

I hear people blame "bad teachers" for why students fail but you know what? It's not true.
As a personal anecdote, I remember my High-school years. I had teachers that were good, there were others that I absolutely couldn't stand and hated.
And yet, all my grades in school were pretty high. Even in the classes where I thought the teacher sucked, it ultimately didn't stop me from succeeding in that class.

A teacher is just one part of education. Think of them as robots who assign homework and tests and grade them. It doesn't matter if this robot wasn't helpful in explaining certain topics.
If you the student failed to keep up with the brightest kids in school, who gets the blame? Unless an entire school is made up of failing kids, in which case, this would require a further investigaton of
what is going wrong where no one is succeeding?

You continue to show your lack of reading-comprehension skills. Even ignoring how poorly you've proven to understand basic things like heredity and evolution, this one takes the cake.
Why did you conveniently leave out my mentioning of confirmation-bias?

I didn't say 'being in the news makes people smart.' I said the people who make the news are the only ones we ever really hear about. The next Einstein could be your next-door neighbor for all we know, but if he gets sick on his interview day and never gets a job, we'd never know about it.

But why does it matter if a smart person is in the news or not? Einstein will always be smart, even if he lived out a life in secrecy. What confirms he is smart is from publishing his papers on science that anyone can still read today.

I'm not a huge fan of typing-out emojis, but *sigh*
Aristotle proves my point. He was one of the most-publicized and well-reported scholars of his day. He made the news all the time. He was so famous he had nicknames around the world, for crying out loud.

But he was still smart in spite of being well publicized. It doesn't have to do with any wealth or fame. It's great if he did get highlighted for this, but all of this pales without actually looking at what made the man smart.
His philosophy. Where did his philosophy come from? His brain.

I'm sure the fact that education in Mongolia is completely free, and many schools even provide free-housing for the students, thus eliminating the struggles of the lower-class (economically) has nothing to do with it.

So are you implying some kind of socialism system is behind higher IQ? Even though the USA represents the complete opposite (for profit schools)?

South African education is taught in 11 different languages. Mongolian education is taught in one. Perhaps there are some language barriers?

IQ tests don't require language.

You're still just arguing about physical differences, all of which appeared after migrants left Africa.

I like your logic though. I can now safely tell my girlfriend that she's inherently dumber than I am because I have a male's head, and she has the inferior female head.

Well yes! That's kinda the point! Race isn't just about skin color!
It's not just differences in skin color. Living on separate continents gave rise to biological differences! We classify these shared differences as belonging to a race.

And please don't tell someone they are inferior because of their gender.
Why is it so hard to accept that there may differences in humans, but that doesn't make people inferior/superior? A women will always have the ability to birth a child then men cannot.
Do you consider that to be men being inferior, or nature assigning gender different reproductive roles?

 

[JordanN]

This debate is purely academic.

Modern science shows the negroid mind lacks robustness in the areas of approbativeness and suavity and yet is pronounced in the loci of combativeness, destructiveness, and smell.

While we can admire their superiority in smell it's problematic to imagine what and how they may think without further study.

How do you test Phrenology? What kind of science is it using that makes it relevant?

It's a terrible comparison. IQ tests actually measure how good people are at recognizing patterns. What's so controversial about that?

This is the thing people are freaking out over. A bunch of squares and circles is considered "racist".

 

[I_D]

I'm going to try to cut some of this down in size, since these quote-chains are getting ridiculous...

The two go hand in hand.
Knowledge began to spread as humans settled down and started societies. Africans did this. Europeans did this. Asians did this. Native Americans did this.
But having a higher IQ is what allowed these civilizations to advance and develop new technologies.

Now I know what people are going to say. "But Jordan. Europeans had access to rare metals/better resources than other groups. Without copper, you can't advance".
Well yes, but rare metals doesn't give you science. Or philosophy. Or buildings that are taller than 2 stories. Human beings had to make these discoveries first, and actually utilize them.

The point is, if Africans have been isolated away from other groups for thousands of years, why it wrong to assume that their intelligence in their environment didn't undergo the same changes?
Like I said, I think Africans evolved perfectly fine to survive Africa. There's no denying this. But Africa is not like Europe, where something like the Ice Age posed a threat to humans who couldn't plan for the future and died off when winter came.

Neanderthals had the biggest brain of all human-like species. There is definitely a theory in science that suggests they were smarter and that humans living in Europe and Asia inherited those genes from coming in contact with them.
I'm also aware of the archaic DNA admixture in Africans. But I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's of equal importance to the Neanderthals who lived outside of Africa.

You have your cause and effect backwards, which is the crux of your misunderestanding.
The discovery of something like copper then allows people to experiment with it, thus creating more discoveries. More discoveries allows for more discoveries, and so forth. But without that initial catalyst, a whole branch of science may never be discovered.

So yes, rare metals DO give you science (though philosophy existed waaaaaaaaay before using metal tools) in a roundabout way, because something as simple as a tool which won't break will free up your time to accomplish other goals. Once you have more free time, you have more time to make discoveries.

You also seem to be really honing in on this 'planning for the ice age' idea. First, the Pleistocene Epoch, which is what you're referring to, began more than a million years before homo-sapiens ever existed. It's not like people were migrating and suddenly glaciers popped up.

And you do realize that people were able to "plan ahead" when they were still in Africa, right? It's not like they went out and hunted for every single meal of every single day. They stored food just like anybody else.

Ok, so are you saying every species evolved in millions of years?
Evolution can take millions of years. In can also take only a few years.

Look at the flu virus. It shows up every year and people still get sick. Even after developing vaccines. But because it evolves at a very fast rate, it bypasses people's immune systems.

I recognize they were selectively bred. But you also have to recognize that also means they underwent changes in a relatively short time.
For humans and other animals, this is what natural selection does. Take a rare genetic mutation or take an environment that changed rapidly. These create pressure on an organism to either adapt or die out, resulting in a new species.

I'm not saying it takes millions of years. I'm saying it takes many generations.

Your example of the flu proves what I'm talking about. The amount of time it takes for changes to appear is insignificant because that varies from species to species. The important factor is how long it takes to reproduce.

It also doesn't "show up every year." It's here year-round. You're also failing to recognize the confirmation-bias here as well. You're ignoring how many billions of flu viruses are prevented from reproducing because of our vaccines. But because the flu's reproduction cycle is so short, it's able to adopt a multitude of mutations in a short amount of time, thus making our vaccines no longer effective. It's not like the flu which gets you sick this year is the same flu virus from last year, and it was just lurking in the corner waiting to get you again. It's last year's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great^nth grandson (about as many generations as it takes to get from wolf to dog).

The reason there aren't any measurable intelligence differences in modern homo-sapiens is because we haven't been around long enough for any to appear. We just don't reproduce quickly enough. If you were to compare our timeline to the flu's timeline, our ~200,000 year lifespan is still in its infancy compared to the average flu virus. And now that we've globalized and are able to spread knowledge anywhere we want, the chances of intelligence-differences showing up is even less likely than before.

And again to the dogs. It was not a relatively short amount of time, it was a massive number of generations. When you selectively-breed animals, especially when you force them to mate, you can accomplish all kinds of things in a short amount of time; but the number of generations remains the same. And even if it did take a bunch of time, and generations weren't what actually is important, domesticated animals really aren't a good example to use, since they were under the protection of humans and therefore even the weak could survive.
Those same factors have not affected humans.

Hold up.
You're saying a dog is smarter than a baby? What do you think happens to the baby when it grows up? And are you saying the physical differences between a baby, an adult and a puppy are the same?
Think about this for a second.

This was so obviously a joke that all I'm going to say about this is that you've only weakened your argument further by displaying your lack of basic reading-comprehension.

That's a good question, and I'm still putting more research into this.

No it's not! I was joking! How in the world can you not recognize how sarcastic my post was? I said goats are more dangerous than lions, for crying out loud!

The reason Neanderthals reproduced with Homo-Sapiens is because they considered each other attractive. The reason they considered each other attractive is because they were so similar. The reason they were so similar is because it takes a gazillion generations for any meaningful intelligence differences to appear, and they hadn't been around long enough for that to happen.
A Homo-Sapien finding a Neanderthal would be about the same as an Irishman finding a Korean: Slightly different-looking, but equally intelligent.

Well I removed the link. Unfortunately, there are still hateful people out there who will misuse science for hateful means, and I don't want to be associated with any groups like that.

With that out of the way, I still value scientific research. I've said it since the beginning , I only value truth and not emotions. Unless the criticism actually debunks the research and not just stir up feelings, the studies
remain valid.

So... do you have any other sources to prove your older posts?
If you admit the sources are flawed, surely the arguments you derived from those sources are also flawed, yes?

The entire concept of school doesn't lead people to be smart.
What do you believe school is? It's a learning facility. But how do you learn? You actually need to be able to absorb information and apply it.

I hear people blame "bad teachers" for why students fail but you know what? It's not true.
As a personal anecdote, I remember my High-school years. I had teachers that were good, there were others that I absolutely couldn't stand and hated.
And yet, all my grades in school were pretty high. Even in the classes where I thought the teacher sucked, it ultimately didn't stop me from succeeding in that class.

A teacher is just one part of education. Think of them as robots who assign homework and tests and grade them. It doesn't matter if this robot wasn't helpful in explaining certain topics.
If you the student failed to keep up with the brightest kids in school, who gets the blame? Unless an entire school is made up of failing kids, in which case, this would require a further investigaton of
what is going wrong where no one is succeeding?

You misinterpret once again...

I'll break it down for you:

Student A lives in a wealthy home. His mother is a stay-at-home mom because dad makes enough money for them to live happily. When Student A gets home from work, he has immediate supervision and somebody to help him answer any questions he may have about his homework. When Student A gets older, he can afford any college he wants.

Student B lives in a poor home. He's never met his dad, and his mom works two jobs to support the family. When Student B gets home, he has no supervision whatsoever, and nobody to help him with his questions. Because his homework is hard, because kids give up easily, and because there's nobody home to tell him otherwise, he skips the homework and goes to play outside, thus shirking his education. But even if his mom was home to help, it wouldn't be of any use, because his mom dropped out of high school (because she had no supervision and shirked her homework). When it comes time for college, Student B looks on with jealousy. Not only does he not have the grades to get into a good school, because he never had supervision, but he couldn't afford a college anyway. His mother lives from paycheck-to-paycheck, and even something like a car accident could ruin their whole lives. College is simply out of the question.

Spoiler

If you turn this into a "Student B should have worked harder" argument, I'll consider you a lost cause.

But why does it matter if a smart person is in the news or not? Einstein will always be smart, even if he lived out a life in secrecy. What confirms he is smart is from publishing his papers on science that anyone can still read today.

But he was still smart in spite of being well publicized. It doesn't have to do with any wealth or fame. It's great if he did get highlighted for this, but all of this pales without actually looking at what made the man smart.
His philosophy. Where did his philosophy come from? His brain.

So are you implying some kind of socialism system is behind higher IQ? Even though the USA represents the complete opposite (for profit schools)?

I'll break it down again:

Scientist A is a white male. He comes from a wealthy family, and so forth. When it comes time for interview day, he shows up early in a $600 suit, and he nails the interview since he had public-speaking lessons in his private school. Scientist A becomes rich and famous, and everybody is happy.

Scientist B is a black male. He comes from a poor family, and so forth. When it comes time for interview day, he has to ride the bus in an $80 shirt, which is 3-months of savings. He nails the interview, but he doesn't look nearly as presentable as Scientist A; plus he has an African name, so he isn't hired. He still needs money, though, so he takes a job at Walmart and doesn't bother applying to Science-Company anymore, because he simply can't afford the time. So even though he's exceptionally smart, nobody will ever know about it.

Or I'll break it down another way:

You're Aristotle's neighbor. Your mother died in childbirth, and your father shovels horseshit for a living. When it comes time for your education, your father sends you to be a blacksmith's apprentice, with huge hopes for your future.

Meanwhile, Aristotle's father is the King's doctor. When it comes time for Aristotle's education, he's sent to go learn with Plato (who is part of the wealthiest family in the area), and has access to every book in the world with nearly limitless time since his family has servants to do the hard work.

But you and Aristotle played together as kids. You know fully well you're just as smart as he is, because you would frequently beat him in the games you played. Yet, somehow, he's able to accomplish so much more than you do. You both come from the same area, so it can't be the environment. You've both descended from the same tribe of Africans, so it can't be that he has the magical Neanderthal DNA and you don't. It must be... $omething el$e.



And I can't believe you honestly just claimed the US focuses on for-profit schools. Our entire education system is compulsory, and paid for by the government if needed. It's as Socialist as Socialism can get.

IQ tests don't require language.

They do if you want the test-subject to understand what's going on.

But you miss the point again:
If a kid speaks Language 7, but the teacher speaks language 4, then this kid will fall behind. And the kid who speaks language 11, which nobody in the whole town speaks (he walks 10 miles to get to school), he's definitely screwed.

Well yes! That's kinda the point! Race isn't just about skin color!
It's not just differences in skin color. Living on separate continents gave rise to biological differences! We classify these shared differences as belonging to a race.

And please don't tell someone they are inferior because of their gender.
Why is it so hard to accept that there may differences in humans, but that doesn't make people inferior/superior? A women will always have the ability to birth a child then men cannot.
Do you consider that to be men being inferior, or nature assigning gender different reproductive roles?

No, we do not classify differences as belonging to a race: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564
Race is excellent for observing social differences, but not genetic. Humans haven't reproduced enough for any meaningful differences to appear.
Skin color, hair color, brow-shape, etc. are all sliiiiiiight physical differences. They do not affect intelligence.

Accepting differences in humans is easy enough. You're claiming these changes also affect intelligence, though, suggesting certain groups of people are inherently smarter than others. This is just x-supremacy (in this case, white-supremacy), no matter how you look at it.

Like... think about it. If a guy from Europe has a baby with a woman from Africa, does their kid have half-smart genes from Neanderthals? Are the smart-genes dominant or recessive?

Or how about this?
Neanderthals lived in these smart-gene-producing areas of the world far longer than Homo-Sapiens have lived in the dumb-producing areas of the world.
In the timeline of scientific advancements and accomplishments, Neanderthals are so pathetically far behind Homo-Sapiens that they don't even exist anymore.


I pose a new interpretation!
Sub-Saharan Africans are the smartest of all humanoids, because they're still here, and nobody else is.

 

[waxer]

The problem is and people keep bringing up multiple thread post because of it is to have a discussion you need to listen and try to understand what is being said by the other party. I don't mean reading what they write i mean actually trying to comprehend what they are saying. Normally when people talk about arguing in good faith etc that's all encompasses this.

In a movie the woman yells at the guy "you never listen to me". Of course he listened and remembers what she said. That isn't the point. It's the self delusional understanding of what she means and he probably tells himself shes wrong and that he does listen rather than take time to understand.(don't make this he vs her bullshit I used guy as I can relate being one myself)

One needs to have self respect, responsibility and to be honest with themselves. They probably don't even know what they are doing.

I am guilty of the same. But understanding yourself and spending the long long long time it takes to change that and slowly grasp the meaning of what others mean takes time to learn.

Its my fault but I also see these characteristics in my extremely selfish and now disowned mother. When people say it's time to grow up it means that you don't know what they mean by grow up not to "act" like adult. I am both a product of my environment and terrible roll models and not wanting to face reality.

What has any of that got to do with genetics and iq and proving environment wealth upbringing etc play a part in who you are and your ability to pass a test. In an weird way Everything.
As I'm stating main points I tried to make in last post that got ignored or twisted in a very different way.

It's why in my last post I referred to race and iq being for superiority.
Your like your own proof against your own argument. Like the reporter debating Jordan in that video. Unable to listen and debate the other. Focused only on their own goal and winning rather than all the benefits communication and true understanding of each other gives us.

It's your lack of understanding or perhaps not even wanting to to understand, even you don't agree. One could ask is it your genetics or is a product of whats made you you to this point in your life. I changed myself therefore I say it's not biological. But is that true for everyone?

Eq(emotional intelligence) and iq are both important in my eyes. There is more to life to ones ability to function. To be intelligent is more than just shapes in a test.

Haha funnily enough despite being first at math and chemistry at my school. I had a really low iq. The tests were rigged for funding as school was in a fairly low income town with majority minority population. So some of the questions were who's captain of national sport team etc along with all the other typical stuff I did know. I had no interest or idea what answers were at the time. I guess the government never screened what tests schools gave or bothered giving them all the same.

I'm not good at expressing what I mean so hopefully what I mean will make sense to someone

After re reading this I'm going to guess you will just argue that I meant Iq is not a good way of evaluating intelligence and still ignore the true meaning behind my words.

 

[JordanN]

I'm going to try to cut some of this down in size, since these quote-chains are getting ridiculous...


You have your cause and effect backwards, which is the crux of your misunderestanding.
The discovery of something like copper then allows people to experiment with it, thus creating more discoveries. More discoveries allows for more discoveries, and so forth. But without that initial catalyst, a whole branch of science may never be discovered.



So yes, rare metals DO give you science (though philosophy existed waaaaaaaaay before using metal tools) in a roundabout way, because something as simple as a tool which won't break will free up your time to accomplish other goals. Once you have more free time, you have more time to make discoveries.

How much copper is needed to build a Pyramid? How much copper is needed to discover atomic theory? How much copper is needed to create the tenants of democracy?
I don't see why copper is even needed to invent the wheel. Do we consider people who invented these things smart, or because they had a lot of copper?

You also seem to be really honing in on this 'planning for the ice age' idea. First, the Pleistocene Epoch, which is what you're referring to, began more than a million years before homo-sapiens ever existed. It's not like people were migrating and suddenly glaciers popped up.

And you do realize that people were able to "plan ahead" when they were still in Africa, right? It's not like they went out and hunted for every single meal of every single day. They stored food just like anybody else.

I made a slight error. It wasn't humans planning for the ice age, it was the rapid fluctuations in climate during this time. The humans who couldn't survive these quick changes in the environment (i.e cold winters) were the ones
who died off. This idea fits in perfectly for why evolution and changes in intelligence didn't require millions of years to happen.

As for why this planning is different than Africa, it was about delaying gratification (a toleration of waiting a bit longer for a reward). It's an interesting subject that I will continue doing more reading about.

The reason there aren't any measurable intelligence differences in modern homo-sapiens is because we haven't been around long enough for any to appear. We just don't reproduce quickly enough. If you were to compare our timeline to the flu's timeline, our ~200,000 year lifespan is still in its infancy compared to the average flu virus. And now that we've globalized and are able to spread knowledge anywhere we want, the chances of intelligence-differences showing up is even less likely than before.

And again to the dogs. It was not a relatively short amount of time, it was a massive number of generations. When you selectively-breed animals, especially when you force them to mate, you can accomplish all kinds of things in a short amount of time; but the number of generations remains the same. And even if it did take a bunch of time, and generations weren't what actually is important, domesticated animals really aren't a good example to use, since they were under the protection of humans and therefore even the weak could survive.
Those same factors have not affected humans.

But IQ testing clearly shows why this is not the case. In fact, what you just said strengthen the arguments immensely.
No matter how much money you spend, no matter what "quality" of school you go to, no matter how many humans have access to a cellphone or the internet, IQ gaps persist on a racial basis.

No it's not! I was joking! How in the world can you not recognize how sarcastic my post was? I said goats are more dangerous than lions, for crying out loud!

The reason Neanderthals reproduced with Homo-Sapiens is because they considered each other attractive. The reason they considered each other attractive is because they were so similar. The reason they were so similar is because it takes a gazillion generations for any meaningful intelligence differences to appear, and they hadn't been around long enough for that to happen.
A Homo-Sapien finding a Neanderthal would be about the same as an Irishman finding a Korean: Slightly different-looking, but equally intelligent.

Well our definitions of similar is very different (if this makes sense).

Neanderthals in relation to modern man were quite different looking. They had massive skulls, which also coincides with them having the biggest brains.

Some depictions of Neanderthals also put them as being "beast looking" or really hairy.
Even if you cleaned these guys up and put them in a suit, the difference would still be more apparent than irishman vs Korean.

Part of me wishes these guys were still around today, as the argument against races would be even more pathetic.

"I make $5,000 a year, came from a broken home but my IQ is 115. All my brothers and sisters also did tests and came out with the same IQ. But we're all one race, the human race. Even disregarding my giant cranium and short stature, we're all just the same, right?"

So... do you have any other sources to prove your older posts?
If you admit the sources are flawed, surely the arguments you derived from those sources are also flawed, yes?

My sources aren't flawed. I posted the WW1 test which predates all other research and I linked to a 1970s new article where a court judge admitted there was a 15 point IQ difference between black and white children.

I'll break it down for you:

Student A lives in a wealthy home. His mother is a stay-at-home mom because dad makes enough money for them to live happily. When Student A gets home from work, he has immediate supervision and somebody to help him answer any questions he may have about his homework. When Student A gets older, he can afford any college he wants.

Spoiler

If you turn this into a "Student B should have worked harder" argument, I'll consider you a lost cause.

This says nothing about intelligence. Even with all the money and parental supervision in the world, it still down to the student to personally succeed.

I remember school. It was not my teachers or my parents doing the tests for me. Could they have helped you with those things? Sure. But if having a parent giving you direct answers to your homework,
is that the child being smart? No. The parent did the work for them.

It's invalid to say parents giving kids their answers boosts their intelligence. Did you ever cheat on a math test? Did you ever trade papers or copy off the kid sitting next you? If you did, you didn't become smart!
You're merely copying from another person, who made also be stupid or smart.

Someone posted in this thread that millions of Chinese kids go to school and study on their own volition. While China is technically rich, I don't think their living standards is as consistently high as ours in the Western world.
And yet, they still have work ethic! It was never about wealth or having the best teachers. Intelligence is separate from that!

I'll break it down again:

Scientist A is a white male. He comes from a wealthy family, and so forth. When it comes time for interview day, he shows up early in a $600 suit, and he nails the interview since he had public-speaking lessons in his private school. Scientist A becomes rich and famous, and everybody is happy.

Scientist B is a black male. He comes from a poor family, and so forth. When it comes time for interview day, he has to ride the bus in an $80 shirt, which is 3-months of savings. He nails the interview, but he doesn't look nearly as presentable as Scientist A; plus he has an African name, so he isn't hired. He still needs money, though, so he takes a job at Walmart and doesn't bother applying to Science-Company anymore, because he simply can't afford the time. So even though he's exceptionally smart, nobody will ever know about it.

Before I continue on, can I address something? Can we stop assuming every white person is coming from a wealthy family or has access to luxurious education? Since this is a thread on white privilege, I want debunk this idea
that all white people are magically rich. Or all white people magically go to the best colleges dressed in $1000 clothing.

Unless you have data that says every white guy or girl in America is driving around in a rolls-royce with a paid off tuition to Harvard, it kinda strikes a chord with me when these examples you use says one race has everything magically handed to them, and it's only black people and sometimes asians who are coming from these dirt poor backgrounds with all of society keeping them down in some way.

Anyways, you assume grades are paid for. They're not. If a student is doing bad in school, please stop saying it's because they're not wealthy. Also, this part has me scratching my head.

Because his homework is hard, because kids give up easily, and because there's nobody home to tell him otherwise, he skips the homework and goes to play outside, thus shirking his education.

THAT'S NOT WORKING HARD. This may be the problem that's happening in America. Don't blame the schools. Don't blame the teachers. IF YOU SHIRK OFF YOUR EDUCATION TO GO AND PLAY GAMES, YOU ARE NOT WORKING HARD BY GIVING UP. You even said we live in a more globalized world? What happended to the internet? What happended to going to libraries to study?

If you say "fuck education, I'm going to play games" YOU. ARE. NOT. WORKING. HARD.

And I can't believe you honestly just claimed the US focuses on for-profit schools. Our entire education system is compulsory, and paid for by the government if needed. It's as Socialist as Socialism can get.

So is the government paying people to go to Harvard? Are they paying people to go to all the Elite Universities and Colleges?

And if you say education is compulsory, than what is your excuse about why black IQ scores are still coming out lower?

They do if you want the test-subject to understand what's going on.

But you miss the point again:
If a kid speaks Language 7, but the teacher speaks language 4, then this kid will fall behind. And the kid who speaks language 11, which nobody in the whole town speaks (he walks 10 miles to get to school), he's definitely screwed.

This is getting ridiuclous.

Every South African kid speaks 11 languages? Can I see a source on this? And where did they get all that time to learn all that a young age? Why would learning 11 languages be more important than an education?!?!?!?
This may be yet a case of terrible priorities.

No, we do not classify differences as belonging to a race: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564
Race is excellent for observing social differences, but not genetic. Humans haven't reproduced enough for any meaningful differences to appear.
Skin color, hair color, brow-shape, etc. are all sliiiiiiight physical differences. They do not affect intelligence.

It is absolutely genetic. Also, I didn't mean to say skin color or hair color affect intelligence. I said those are characteristics associated with different races.

Accepting differences in humans is easy enough. You're claiming these changes also affect intelligence, though, suggesting certain groups of people are inherently smarter than others. This is just x-supremacy (in this case, white-supremacy), no matter how you look at it.

You keep saying White Supremacy when I said multiple times ASIANS HAVE HIGHER IQS THAN WHITES. Where's the white supremacy? It amazes me how this constant fact gets ignored. Do you pretend Asians don't exist?

Like... think about it. If a guy from Europe has a baby with a woman from Africa, does their kid have half-smart genes from Neanderthals? Are the smart-genes dominant or recessive?

They're mixed race and yes, they do get a boost in their IQ. Black Americans actually have a small amount of European ancestry, which correlates to why their IQ's are actually higher than Native Africans.

Or how about this?
Neanderthals lived in these smart-gene-producing areas of the world far longer than Homo-Sapiens have lived in the dumb-producing areas of the world.
In the timeline of scientific advancements and accomplishments, Neanderthals are so pathetically far behind Homo-Sapiens that they don't even exist anymore.

They went extinct before all these happen. We haven't seen how different the world of science and technology would be if they stuck around.

I pose a new interpretation!
Sub-Saharan Africans are the smartest of all humanoids, because they're still here, and nobody else is.

Why limit it to humans? All animals that currently exist must have equal intelligence right? Because they're still here?

 

[I_D]

THAT'S NOT WORKING HARD. This may be the problem that's happening in America. Don't blame the schools. Don't blame the teachers. IF YOU SHIRK OFF YOUR EDUCATION TO GO AND PLAY GAMES, YOU ARE NOT WORKING HARD BY GIVING UP.

I just wanna say now that I totally called this.

I'm going to keep my word and call you a lost cause. I'm not going to respond anymore.

Go have fun with your bootstraps and your primitive beliefs. Hopefully one day you'll realize the flaws in your arguments, and start making the world a better place instead of perpetuating your backward ideals.

 

[Solomeena]

I hope the irony of your melodrama of posting your exasperation on a gaming forum and then claiming I’m some how trying to decide what this forum has to be isn’t lost on you.

There is no drama in my post bro. I asked you a genuine question and you can't even answer it, gotcha.

 

[JordanN]

I just wanna say now that I totally called this.

I'm going to keep my word and call you a lost cause. I'm not going to respond anymore.

Go have fun with your bootstraps and your primitive beliefs. Hopefully one day you'll realize the flaws in your arguments, and start making the world a better place instead of perpetuating your backward ideals.

Hard work doesn't come from playing games, my man. Imagine if we all sat behind our PS4's or Xboxes and played games all day. Do you consider that working hard?
Giving up on education is not the fault of schools. It's not the fault of a parent. Only you, the person, can make the choice to opt out of learning.

And bootstraps are primitive? Ayyye. Listen. My life has been really hard. I was rarely if ever given anything for free. Yet I work my ass to help me get ahead in life. If you just sit back and say "screw everything, I just want to play games"
don't be surprised you wont get the best jobs, or make the highest money. It makes me angry when you say "we live in a globalized world!" and yet people can still find excuses for why they choose to drop out of school. What's the point of globalization then? How can our intelligence converge, if there are people out there who believe working hard is "primitive"?

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I really like listening to Peterson but I will have to disagree that white privilege isn't a thing.

At the end of the day white privilege is just an expression that is supposed to encapsulate the fact that your heritage can be a lot of help and that it isn't something that people who benefit from their heritage will be confronted by.

Yes the extreme left takes it too far (privilege somehow invalidates what I think?), yes the extreme right does the same (there is no advantage in being white?).

 

[JordanN]

I really like listening to Peterson but I will have to disagree that white privilege isn't a thing.

At the end of the day white privilege is just an expression that is supposed to encapsulate the fact that your heritage can be a lot of help and that it isn't something that people who benefit from their heritage will be confronted by.

Yes the extreme left takes it too far (privilege somehow invalidates what I think?), yes the extreme right does the same (there is no advantage in being white?).

The problem with white privilege is that the same people argue race doesn't exist.

So which one is it? Do black people have white privilege since "race is a social construct"? Do Asian people have white privilege since there is no Asian race?
The term is self contradicting unless we do establish there are biological groups of people and not call it a "construct".

 

[JordanN]

The problem is and people keep bringing up multiple thread post because of it is to have a discussion you need to listen and try to understand what is being said by the other party. I don't mean reading what they write i mean actually trying to comprehend what they are saying. Normally when people talk about arguing in good faith etc that's all encompasses this.

I stop and listen when I see someone post data or research. In fact, I encourage this! I want to see research that challenges my own. I believe in having all data to be faithfully compared and come to a better conclusion.

But if someone only presents an emotional argument, I'm not going to care. Why would I? There's no facts if your only line of defense is "but but that's racist". TELL ME WHY SOMETHING IS RACIST.

If you just say you don't like something because your feelings are hurt, then how is it any different to people who say the earth is flat or gravity is fake? You will say "but we have evidence that gravity is real" then show me the evidence that says why IQ data is wrong!

Again, I don't care about feelings. If the world revolved around feelings, I honestly think any type of rational discourse would grind to a halt.

 

[Silas Lang]

Hard work doesn't come from playing games, my man. Imagine if we all sat behind our PS4's or Xboxes and played games all day. Do you consider that working hard?
Giving up on education is not the fault of schools. It's not the fault of a parent. Only you, the person, can make the choice to opt out of learning.

And bootstraps are primitive? Ayyye. Listen. My life has been really hard. I was rarely if ever given anything for free. Yet I work my ass to help me get ahead in life. If you just sit back and say "screw everything, I just want to play games"
don't be surprised you wont get the best jobs, or make the highest money. It makes me angry when you say "we live in a globalized world!" and yet people can still find excuses for why they choose to drop out of school. What's the point of globalization then? How can our intelligence converge, if there are people out there who believe working hard is "primitive"?

I wholeheartly agree. I didn't need no stinking parents, teachers, or anybody to teach me how to work or offer any guidance at all. It was all me. It was my innate ability as individual, of course.

I began researching when I was a kid. No time for games. Life is extremely tough. Luckily I was blessed with intelligent genes. It probably helps that I am Asian. I would feel bad for those with lesser genes, but feelings are stupid. Who needs emotional connection to others in this world anyway? Totally useless. Show me some data and then we will talk.

 

[TheMikado]

I stop and listen when I see someone post data or research. In fact, I encourage this! I want to see research that challenges my own. I believe in having all data to be faithfully compared and come to a better conclusion.

But if someone only presents an emotional argument, I'm not going to care. Why would I? There's no facts if your only line of defense is "but but that's racist". TELL ME WHY SOMETHING IS RACIST.

If you just say you don't like something because your feelings are hurt, then how is it any different to people who say the earth is flat or gravity is fake? You will say "but we have evidence that gravity is real" then show me the evidence that says why IQ data is wrong!

Again, I don't care about feelings. If the world revolved around feelings, I honestly think any type of rational discourse would grind to a halt.

Ok, sorry for taking so long to get back but I'll help give you the data because you are wholly misusing what IQ data actually means and don't know what you are talking about.

1) IQ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence. The abbreviation "IQ" was coined by the psychologist William Stern for the German term Intelligenzquotient, his term for a scoring method for intelligence tests at University of Breslau he advocated in a 1912 book.[1] Historically, IQ is a score obtained by dividing a person's mental age score, obtained by administering an intelligence test, by the person's chronological age, both expressed in terms of years and months. The resulting fraction is multiplied by 100 to obtain the IQ score.[2] When current IQ tests were developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less,[3] although this was not always so historically. By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores are between IQ 85 and IQ 115. About 2.5 percent of the population scores above 130, and 2.5 percent below 70.[4][5]

So what this in effect means is that every few years IQ is renormalized, otherwise the current average IQ of Americans would be 130...

2)IQ Black and White gap:

Knowing that IQ is an average means we can rate and understand what this means.

Because IQ is an average adjusted to 100, that means that the average white person pre-1950s would have had an average of a 70 IQ compared to todays black IQ of 85. Meaning White Americans pre-1950 would be considered MENTALLY RETARDED when compared to today's black Americans...

Further the gap is shrinking, meaning Black IQ rates are INCREASING AT A RATE FASTER THAN WHITE AMERICANS.

This means, if we want to continue with your incorrect interpretation of it being "genetic" rather than environmental, then Black IQs rise at rates FASTER than White Americans and will eventually OVERTAKE WHITE IQs to make WHITE IQs INFERIOR TO BLACK IQS. Again only if your incorrect interpretation persists.

3) IQs rise VERY VERY fast based on environmental factors.
Again, we see where the average IQ has rised almost 30 points in the US since pre-1950s.
Black individuals keeping pace and closing the gap indicates that
1) This is no Average IQ cap.
2) The rate of IQ increase is at least comparable if not faster for black IQs.

Now what all this tells us is that ultimately there is a gap in the environmental variables between black and white.

We see that global variables which would effect both populations such as national education and medicine so that the gap remains constant. Thus your understanding of this concept of IQ is just severely uneducated.

 

[TheMikado]

There is no drama in my post bro. I asked you a genuine question and you can't even answer it, gotcha.

"Why does this forum has to decide what it wants to be? Who says it has to, you? "
These were your questions and I already answered your first one. I didn't answer your second because it was an idiotic question, because I never claimed I it had to be me. Your failure and inability to properly comprehend made you concoct a question that I never claimed. Thus it didn't deserve an answer and I'm thank not to look nearly as foolish as you.

Gotcha.

 

[JordanN]

I wholeheartly agree. I didn't need no stinking parents, teachers, or anybody to teach me how to work or offer any guidance at all. It was all me. It was my innate ability as individual, of course.

I began researching when I was a kid. No time for games. Life is extremely tough. Luckily I was blessed with intelligent genes. It probably helps that I am Asian. I would feel bad for those with lesser genes, but feelings are stupid. Who needs emotional connection to others in this world anyway? Totally useless. Show me some data and then we will talk.

Go and apply to Microsoft using nothing but emotions. Get on your hands and knees and start begging "Please make me your CEO! I played Xbox all day!"

Do you think you'll even make it to the interview stage? No? Why not? Do you think Microsoft is just being "racist" for refusing to hire people who don't match that level of skill?

Hard work and determination is the only way to make it to the top in life. This crap about "privilege" does a disservice to people of all races who all worked hard to get to where they are.

You can even look at who the current CEO of Microsoft is. He's not white! Are we suppose to blame this on privilege or opportunity, and not the fact the man must have worked hella hard and had a lot of patience, to be selected to lead one of the most powerful tech companies on earth? In a majority white country of all places? I'm serious.

But this seems to be the new trend among young people. Don't ever work hard anymore. Just put your hand out and expect everything to be given to you for free without question. Working hard is now considered "primitive". Everybody else just ended up successful because they were all born into it. That's the answer.

 

[Silas Lang]

Go and apply to Microsoft using nothing but emotions. Get on your hands and knees and start begging "Please make me your CEO! I played Xbox all day!"

Do you think you'll even make it to the interview stage? No? Why not? Do you think Microsoft is just being "racist" for refusing to hire people who don't match that level of skill?

Hard work and determination is the only way to make it to the top in life. This crap about "privilege" does a disservice to people of all races who all worked hard to get to where they are.

You can even look at who the current CEO of Microsoft is. He's not white! Are we suppose to blame this on privilege or opportunity, and not the fact the man must have worked hella hard and had a lot of patience, to be selected to lead one of the most powerful tech companies on earth? In a majority white country of all places? I'm serious.

I said I agree!

The Microsoft guy did it all on his own too. I heard he didn't even have parents. They found him as a child in the woods. Just one day started typing out some code and creating software with no help whatsoever. He didn't need parents to establish a good routine. He didn't need teachers or schools to help guide his thinking. He didn't need former employers providing examples of how work should be done. He just knew. Didn't even need to be taught and modeled how to use language. He knew innately. Work ethic will get you far. Brofist!

And your right. Emotional intelligence is so unecessary. Who needs networking?

Anyway, what data can you analyze looking at his skull? Good genes? IQ?

 

[Alfadawg]

Oh wow! I've been unbanned! The mods probably realised my threads are producing the best discussions on gaf in the long time!

JordanN a non white employee has to work 10x as hard to make the same progress as mediocre white employee. I've seen this first hand and even experienced it.

You make a mistake as a minority, you better believe co-workers and bosses will remember it for a long long time!

 

[JordanN]

I said I agree!

The Microsoft guy did it all on his own too. I heard he didn't even have parents. They found him as a child in the woods. Just one day started typing out some code and creating software with no help whatsoever. He didn't need parents to establish a good routine. He didn't need teachers or schools to help guide his thinking. He didn't need former employers providing examples of how work should be done. He just knew. Didn't even need to be taught and modeled how to use language. He knew innately. Work ethic will get you far. Brofist!

And your right. Emotional intelligence is so unecessary. Who needs networking?

Anyway, what data can you analyze looking at his skull? Good genes? IQ?

I_D told me all South Africans speak 11 languages. Wouldn't this mean they had 11 times the help that all non-African's don't have?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Jesus Christ dude, just stop. You actually think IQ is is biological? And some races are inherently superior/inferior?

It is a lack of opportunity. The reason the civil rights act didn't solve everything is because many black americans are stuck in the absolute worst school districts. No thanks to redlining neighborhoods (zoning laws). IQ can absolutely be taught. Critical thinking skills can be taught. Hard to pass a test if you can't read it. You give a child equal opportunity and they absolutely can perform. In my personal experience as a teacher, this has absolutely been what I have witnessed.

I am all open to opinions about solutions, policies, etc. I may not like them but whatever. However, I am not open to this bullshit. Suggesting eugenics, really dude? Just no.

I am looking forward to learning about some phrenology here soon.

A difference in intelligence even in cases where it is extreme does not make one superior or inferior. A person with Down's Syndrome even if they have less intelligence is not inferior.

Second several studies have shown school vouchers do not improve performance. Being placed in a better school doesn't seem effective.

A brilliant child in today's world of MOOCs, udemy, youtube, the free access to every journal piracy site that shan't be named, etc. Can outgun even the most expensive private school, and get access to university courses from the top IVY league universities. The question is will he have High IQ and Asperger's to forego spending all his free time chatting and playing video games, and become a self taught prodigy?

You can be trained to game one of the IQ tests, but your real IQ won't change you'll do badly on other unrelated tests designed to measure intelligence, and on everyday life situations. IQ cannot be meaningfully increased by any intervention, and learning to game one of the tests does not change the innate IQ. Eventually intelligence tests may be developed which consist of analysis of brain structure and genetics, which won't be gameable.

So what you are saying is that a higher level of IQ is talent or gift passed on from the parents, it's biology right?

So if your mother can sing you can sing if your father was painter you can paint? If you parents could not do these things there is no sense in training you to do these because your naturally incapable?

IQ is polygenic like height. Genes mix and match between parents and can give taller or shorter children when it comes to height similar happens when it comes to intelligence. But just as it will be difficult or probably near impossible for 4'5 parents to give birth to a 6'8 height child, similar may happen with regards to intelligence.

So the gene hierarchy so far is Asians > whites >>> blacks.... right?
Man being at the bottom is so sad...but hey don't be sad at facts!
I guess I can do Manuel labor or something..phew thanks Jordan

Here's the thing what some are saying is averages it does not apply to all, there are asians of lower IQ than any other race's average, and there are blacks with higher IQ than any other races average. What some are saying is the frequency of such happening may differ, which is a controversial claim.

That said if an individual cannot gain a high pay job due to lack of mental capability the state should give them unconditional basic income without need of work. It is one thing if for whatever reason a person chooses to work hard manual labor, it is another different thing if a person works such without having a choice in the matter.

 

[ilfait]

A difference in intelligence even in cases where it is extreme does not make one superior or inferior. A person with Down's Syndrome even if they have less intelligence is not inferior.

It's crazy to me how rare it is that someone makes this point.

 

[I_D]

I_D told me all South Africans speak 11 languages. Wouldn't this mean they had 11 times the help that all non-African's don't have?

I've made my stance clear: You're a lost cause.

Don't reference me again. I don't want to be associated with you in any way. If I wanted to ally myself with racist morons, I'd be on different websites.

 

[TheMikado]

I’m just disappointed that when JordanN gets completely debunked by actual facts, that post gets completely ignored by everyone in the forum.

 

[ilfait]

I’m just disappointed that when JordanN gets completely debunked by actual facts, that post gets completely ignored by everyone in the forum.

Can you quote the post?