• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Yoshi vs JordanN Debate Apocalypse Episode 1: "Stop calling Republicans Racists"

Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Because for me personally, racism comes down to a form of hypocrisy and an attempt to justify assumptions that one group is better than another, which is why I asked the questions that I asked. If you agree that words matter, can be overused to the point of harming their original meaning, and should be reserved for instances that fit their definition, I would think you'd want to define that original meaning yourself rather than letting others define it for you.



You already gave your personal definition of the word racism? Perhaps I missed it. Could you link the post?
That's not racism. All some people are trying to do is explain why there is a gap between races for certain metrics, in which many have had research on it. Whether you agree or disagree with the research is another entirely different question. But there are logical attempts to explain the difference.

Racism is more like blanket degrading statements that are outright silly in nature. And most of the time the person saying it likely knows it's really dumb but they still claim it just to piss people off.

Someone saying Whites have higher IQ than Blacks due to research data on factors x, y, z seems like a good attempt at explaining it.

Someone saying Whites have higher IQ than Blacks due to dark skin being ineffective at brushing off rain water leading to overabsorbtion of liquids and overhydrated cells is something that would come from a comic book.

There are differences in people around the world. Not everyone has the same demographics. Don't be afraid to see data showing attempts at why things are the way they are.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
@ssolitare I'm going to debunk your research! It's so easy!

30 minutes later

@ssolitare




But I'm just going to take a wicked guess, and he's not actually going to debunk the actual data set, but attack the characters of Jensen,Murray,Rushton by finding some quote of them having "controversial personal views" or he's looking up sources that paint Richard Lynn's findings as flawed or manipulative (even though I never claimed he was the only source of this information).
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,061
1,962
1,180
Then post them again.
See, look how scared people get that something so simple as refuting "evidence" requires a long drawn conversation of nothing.

I've been here for 9 pages and no one has said anything to refute the evidence I have so far. Just lots of wincing and moaning, but 0 facts.


It's 100 years of the same gaps occurring over and over again.

This is literally like climate change/evolution all over again.

"But but it's too early! You need to wait 10 BILLION years to prove evolution is true and not a theory."

Once again, stop moaning. I'm only here for facts, not your feelings.
It's a fact that you are not here for facts, otherwise you wouldn't exclusively use the same shitty research.

You haven't changed in the last year. The research does not inform you, you look for research that supports the results that you favor. Until you move on from that, you're played out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 404Ender

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
The Flynn Effect doesn't mean shit in countries that are already industrialized.
The Flynn Effect establishes substantial environmental power over IQ via said modernization. You continually argued against this effect being real because it weakens your premise that environmental factors are extremely weak upon IQ.

I've said intelligence is anywhere up to 80% genetic. I never said it made up the complete 100.
I said you deny that the IQ race gap is caused by nongentic/environmental factors. Here you are doing exactly that:

Blacks and Whites both grow up in the same environment.
And these factors definitely require an environmental explanation and not the fact they created themselves because....?
It is completely possible for Black IQ to increase but also drop down later. The problem is, without actually self selecting for your brightest to reproduce the most, IQ will regress to the average after just 1 or 2 generations.
This is you dismissing the value of nongenetic factors nearly entirely. Charles Murray does the same, and thinks there are no nongentic factors left to decrease the gap. Is this your position? This is exactly the position I'm talking about.

JordanN said:
Inferior to who? Did I ever say Whites were inferior to Asians because they score lower on IQ tests?
Oh? Are you now pretending that IQ average don't matter in terms of successful countries and society, which was your explicit causal claim the last time we debated?


lol reading comprehension fail?
Something something Republicans racism, let me count my fucks.
 
Last edited:

LegendOfKage

Gold Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,430
3,320
660
Because for me personally, racism comes down to a form of hypocrisy and an attempt to justify assumptions that one group is better than another, which is why I asked the questions that I asked.
I wasn't suggesting that is a definition of racism, I was saying that is the reasoning behind it. This is how I defined racism earlier in the thread:

Personally, I've always viewed racism as taking generalizations about a group and applying them to individuals in a group. Not that the generalizations are okay in the first place, because they're not.

Why can't groups be "different"? Why is the go to answer always "superior/inferior"?
That's the area you enter when you're talking about IQ. Intelligence is kind of a big deal.

Again, this is why I can't take the word seriously because of how easily manipulative it can be.
Which is why I think you'd want to define it for yourself. Others could disagree if they'd like, but at least you'd be taking a stand on what you think the definition of the word should be.

It is universally accepted that Men and Women possess different physical strength ON AVERAGE. Yet no one is called sexist or a hypocrite for pointing this out.
This is a less then perfect comparison, because women are seen as statistically superior to men in other areas. In what ways do you feel black people are superior on average to other races? To be honest, even asking that question makes me uncomfortable, because it doesn't matter, because people are individuals. I don't care about any of that.

If I make the same scienitific observations when it comes to other human groups, then I do not want to be called racist for using these facts.
I'm not calling you a racist. Me deciding that you are or are not a racist doesn't interest me. I just want to better understand the reasons behind your opinions, and to challenge those opinions. So again, to ask the questions I asked earlier:

Do you dislike like it when others generalize straight people, white people, men, or any other group?

Do you feel what you're doing is different because of statistics that you've found?

What do you feel separates the beliefs you've formed based on statistics you've read, and the beliefs of people with opposing ideology based on the statistics they've read?

I think there's a real danger in looking at statistics, and then forming negative views on groups of people simply because they're supported with research. This doesn't only apply to you, of course. This is true for anyone who does this. People who oppose your political beliefs also do this all the time, which is why I'm challenging you to show me where you differ from them.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
That's the area you enter when you're talking about IQ. Intelligence is kind of a big deal.
So is physical strength. Again, are people sexist/hypocrites for claiming Men & Women do differ on average?
I'm not seeing the argument why intelligence makes people "racist", but describing Women as lacking strength compared to Men doesn't make you sexist.

Which is why I think you'd want to define it for yourself. Others could disagree if they'd like, but at least you'd be taking a stand on what you think the definition of the word should be.
We can't even come to a definition on what sexism is, I don't think defining racism is going to make the situation any better.

This is a less then perfect comparison, because women are seen as statistically superior to men in other areas. In what ways do you feel black people are superior on average to other races? To be honest, even asking that question makes me uncomfortable, because it doesn't matter, because people are individuals. I don't care about any of that.
Statistically, they outperform everyone else in the NBA.

Do you dislike like it when others generalize straight people, white people, men, or any other group?
Do they have facts to sponsor it? If they do, then no I'm not offended by it.

Do you feel what you're doing is different because of statistics that you've found?
Yes, my arguments are based on science. I am not making generalization without having some kind of structural basis behind them.

What do you feel separates the beliefs you've formed based on statistics you've read, and the beliefs of people with opposing ideology based on the statistics they've read?
There isn't a difference provided the evidence is factual.

Claiming all men are fire breathing dragons without any evidence is not a fact. Claiming men on average commit more violent crimes than women citing police statistics is a fact.

I think there's a real danger in looking at statistics, and then forming negative views on groups of people simply because they're supported with research.
Once again, we go everyday of our lives recognizing physical strength differences between Men and Women. By your logic, shouldn't this mean Women must hate themselves? Or do they not see they are just biologically different from Men?
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
The Flynn Effect establishes substantial environmental power over IQ via said modernization. You continually argued against this effect being real because it weakens your premise that environmental factors are extremely weak upon IQ.
No.
America is already industrialized. There is no more Flynn Effect. We don't see IQ scores increase forever.


I said you deny that the IQ race gap is caused by nongentic/environmental factors. Here you are doing exactly that:
I don't deny there are environmental factors. What do you think the 20% stands for? It's not pixie dust, that is the environment.

This is you dismissing the value of nongenetic factors nearly entirely.
I didn't dismiss anything. You just have terrible reading comprehension.
Edit: And you spent time cropping them out of the original context where they came from. In other words, you don't have an argument.

For example, when I said "blacks and whites grew up in the same environment", I was referring to the fact they both live in the same country.


Oh? Are you now pretending that IQ average don't matter in terms of successful countries and society, which was your explicit causal claim the last time we debated?
You are arguing two different things.
Once again, when did I say Asians score higher on IQ makes White people inferior?
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Arkage

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
It's a fact that you are not here for facts, otherwise you wouldn't exclusively use the same shitty research.

You haven't changed in the last year. The research does not inform you, you look for research that supports the results that you favor. Until you move on from that, you're played out.
Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

This is you. Facts don't care about your feelings.
 
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
This whole IQ debate is going in circles.

Unless someone is somehow against IQ scores and thinks every researcher is lying for the past 100 years, if your google IQ scores by country, the lists are generally similar. It goes from highest to lowest:

- East Asian
- Central/Northern Europe (with Canada and US somewhere in there)
- Outskirts of Europe/Eastern Europe/Russia

From there, I skimmed fast, but something like:

- South East Asia
- Latin countries/South America
- African

Guess what people? Believe it or not, there's differences. Just like every other demographic or metric in life about humans.

If you skim reports, people have all kinds of hypotheses. Everything from genetics to education to one about weather temperatures and lots more.

You can debate which factors sound good or not vs. the researcher, but can't deny facts. People have different IQ scores. Just like different demographics of people make more money or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iPaul93

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,474
1,647
755
Damn, what is going on in here, I don't open the topic for a week and it's going nuts. And where Yoshi at?

Also, I'm still waiting for somebody to prove JordanN is a racist. Nobody has done it yet.
 

LegendOfKage

Gold Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,430
3,320
660
Statistically, they outperform everyone else in the NBA.
Really? That's the olive branch you're offering in terms of what black people on average are better at than white people?

There's a stereotype of someone with low athletic ability and high intelligence, and there's a stereotype of someone with high athletic ability and low intelligence. These are the nerd and the jock, respectively. If we ignore those, and just think of how these qualities are viewed by society as they apply to the average person, intelligence matters far more than athleticism.
To think of black people on average as less intelligent than other races is insulting, even if that could be scientifically proven. To play devil's advocate, let's say you're right. If you hypothetically know black people on average are less intelligent, what does that say of groups and the assumptions you will make? If you have 100 black people and 100 white people, will you assume the black people will be less intelligent? What about five of each? What about one black person and one white person? Because this is how generalizations are born, and I think of it as the foundation of racism.

As I've said before, I've always viewed racism as taking generalizations about a group and applying them to individuals in a group. Not that the generalizations are okay in the first place, because they're not. If negative generalizations can be proven about white people, does that make them okay?

Do they have facts to sponsor it? If they do, then no I'm not offended by it.
Yes, my arguments are based on science. I am not making generalization without having some kind of structural basis behind them.
Don't you think that's also true of your ideological opponents? Yes, they do have facts and science and studies to support every bit of prejudice and generalization that they have, and every assumption that they make. And I'm sure you would disagree with most of their sources, just like a lot of people in this thread are disagreeing with yours.

There isn't a difference provided the evidence is factual.

Claiming all men are fire breathing dragons without any evidence is not a fact. Claiming men on average commit more violent crimes than women citing police statistics is a fact.
Sure, but to think negatively of all men as "more likely to commit violent crimes" just because that's supported by statistics is kind of messed up. To preemptively view men as a whole with that particular lens, or any other negative lens, is wrong. The same is true with negative assumptions about women, and the same is true with race.

Your view on these matters seems to come down to your belief that your science is right, theirs is wrong, so your judgement on the statistical differences between these groups is scientifically sound."

My view on these matters comes down to "I don't care about science or statistics, people are individuals who shouldn't be generalized, and people shouldn't make negative assumptions about people based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc."

Here's a bit of science for you. Consider the statistical likelihood of your science being biased or wrong. Consider the statistical likelihood of their science being biased or wrong. Now consider my universally applied principle of "don't negatively generalize people," and the likelihood of bias or improper implementation.

As a general rule, I don't defend my worldview with science or studies. I instead do so with universally held beliefs that apply to everyone equally, from myself to those who disagree with me. There're no studies to defend or criticize there, only values that you ask everyone to uphold (including yourself) regardless of political ideology. There's some definite advantages there. You should consider it.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,685
19,271
1,250
Australia
I look at these things in terms of diagnosis ---> treatment. In the diagnosis end of the problem, you review relevant literature, attempt to establish facts, critically examine and discuss said facts, and attempt to identify the reasons why the problem may be the way it is. There are no value judgments in the diagnosis end. In the treatment end, you specify what, if anything, to do about the problem and how. In my observation, Jordan has been operating solely in the diagnosis end of the problem. That doesn't mean I think he is completely correct -- I don't know as I don't care enough about the topic/don't have enough time to do my own critical analysis. Jordan cites what he believes are relevant literature and facts, while others rebuke them, typically with hysterical shrieks of 'racist!' without supplying their own counter-evidence (up until SH's contributions).

I haven't looked into it in detail myself, but given what I know about evolution, I would be extremely surprised if there were not group-level differences in mean IQ between racial groups just as there are differences in external physical attributes. Why would intelligence magically be the sole attribute that evolutionary forces left alone? Race is simply the genetic expression of the environment that your ancestors evolved in, and different environments require different attributes. However, I would also be extremely surprised if the difference in mean IQ were more than a few points between any particular pair of groups. Assuming normally distributed data, this would mean significant overlap between the two groups to the point that the likelihood of an individual selected from the group with the higher mean having a higher IQ than the group with the lower mean would be close to parity. For practical purposes, i.e. the treatment end of the problem, this would render the data close to meaningless.

While Jordan is obviously heavily engaged in diagnosing the problem, I have not seen him propose any treatments (if you have, please cite them here). This is why I do not call him a racist -- it is a heinous accusation akin to suggesting that someone is unfit for society and should be exiled. Until I have sufficient evidence to the contrary, I believe that Jordan is just someone who is likely on the spectrum and obsessed with finding the truth of a topic he believes is unfairly silenced from public discourse. Moreover, I don't see it as my moral duty to police any potential racist thoughts that Jordan may have. However, others apparently see it as theirs, and willingly apply ideological blinkers to themselves in the process. For those who consider Jordan a racist, have you considered asking him what he believes should be done about differences in IQ? If his answer is "nothing", i.e. no treatment required, how is he a racist? Want to see what a real racist says? Check out the posts that got Enygger_Tzu banned.

Protest all you like, the topic is relevant to disparate group-level outcomes that current_year equity policies are designed to address by working backwards from the group level to the individual level, i.e. assuming that the mean applies to the entire group. When applied in a different context, we call that racism.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Maybe I'm getting lost in the verbatim, and I haven't read all the posts, but Yoshi is finally saying intelligence has a genetic component? I thought his theory at the beginning was every creed is the exact same, but what makes people different is 100% environmental/society factors, rather than raw genetics.
Are you fucking kiding me? Where did I ever say that intelligence had no genetic component? I have said numerous times I do not deny that intelligence has a genetic component, I was only denying that it has been scientifically proven, that the IQ difference in the IQ tests JordanN has posted is caused by genetic difference between ethnicities.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Protest all you like, the topic is relevant to disparate group-level outcomes that current_year equity policies are designed to address by working backwards from the group level to the individual level, i.e. assuming that the mean applies to the entire group. When applied in a different context, we call that racism.
As we have established numerous times, we operate on different definitions of racism, where yours is more restrictive than mine, so I see no value in discussing this, as JordanN has, to my knowledge, not made explicit any concrete actions to take other than encouraging racial segregation in terms of procreation. But I need to ask you, since you deem it relevant whether it is possible to determine a genetically caused IQ differential between "black" and "white":

Assume for a moment, there is a mean differential. You have already established it would be very surprising if it was more than a few points, so let's say scientists had determined that there is a genetically caused IQ differential between blacks and whites such that whites are at a mean advantage of 5 IQ points (I feel, given what you said, this is at the higher end of your expectation). What do you think is possible to conclude based on that for the group-level outcomes? Surely, a genetically caused IQ differential of 5 would not mean that any level of difference in group-outcomes is to be expected in the absence of structural racism in terms of income and education?

My issue with your argument here is, that the effect of such an IQ differential would be basically unquantifiable and cannot be used to inform us what level of alignment efforts would be overreach. Such a result could be used to support the claim that some difference in outcome may be expected genetically, but that's it, and it would hardly be helpful to determine a suitable level of affirmative action. It would be a wholly insufficient argument to counter affirmative action in general.

And by the way, since you feel it necessary to seriously consider JordanN's sources as anything even potentially valid: I advise you to take a look at the video of the Professor he posted - and not just the time stamp, continue until he talks about crimes and black people, as well as AIDS and Africa. Then you will probably get a better understanding of the mindset one needs to be in to rely on this guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkage

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,685
19,271
1,250
Australia
Are you fucking kiding me? Where did I ever say that intelligence had no genetic component? I have said numerous times I do not deny that intelligence has a genetic component, I was only denying that it has been scientifically proven, that the IQ difference in the IQ tests JordanN has posted is caused by genetic difference between ethnicities.
If it hasn’t been scientifically proven, how the fuck can you “not deny that intelligence has a genetic component”? You’ve spent the entire thread arguing opposite and labelling Jordan as part of your moral crusade. You’re all over the place. Be consistent.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
If it hasn’t been scientifically proven, how the fuck can you “not deny that intelligence has a genetic component”? You’ve spent the entire thread arguing opposite and labelling Jordan as part of your moral crusade. You’re all over the place. Be consistent.
That it has a genetical component is a different question from whether the IQ differential between black and white people is caused by the genetical component. You seem to be tired.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,685
19,271
1,250
Australia
You have attributed several assertions to me that I never made and have built arguments around them that I refuse to spend any more energy on. You are logically inconsistent and your moral crusade is obviously in pursuit of boosting your own ego. For my own sanity, I’m not engaging your autism any further.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
985
503
540
A recent Joe Rogan podcast with Brett Weinstein briefly got into the race and IQ issue (here, it's around the 2:07 mark). The only thing that Brett had commented on before was that it isn't scientific to make an absolute a priori claim that there are no differences between groups of people. They aren't really interested in the question itself, though, and theorize that people who really get into it feel inferior to the huge number of great black achievers in fields like music and sports, and are trying to compensate.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,474
1,647
755
They aren't really interested in the question itself, though, and theorize that people who really get into it feel inferior to the huge number of great black achievers in fields like music and sports, and are trying to compensate.
This is stupid imo. You can't just assume ulterior (racist or otherwise) motives automatically for any research which exists that you don't like or agree with. Unless you can prove that the ulterior motives put a thumb on the scale during the research, biasing the results.
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
985
503
540
This is stupid imo. You can't just assume ulterior (racist or otherwise) motives automatically for any research which exists that you don't like or agree with. Unless you can prove that the ulterior motives put a thumb on the scale during the research, biasing the results.
A theory is not an assumption; you could actually watch the video if you want to see all the reasons they had for that theory.

The main point is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of good reasons to be focused on the question at all.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,474
1,647
755
The main point is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of good reasons to be focused on the question at all.
I get what you're saying, and what they're saying (though I find it amusing how butthurt Weinstein comes across that he doesn't score as well as he would like on IQ tests). But it seems that the "best" reason not to be focused on the question is that being focused on it at all makes people "theorize" that you are a racist.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I get what you're saying, and what they're saying (though I find it amusing how butthurt Weinstein comes across that he doesn't score as well as he would like on IQ tests). But it seems that the "best" reason not to be focused on the question is that being focused on it at all makes people "theorize" that you are a racist.
There is such a thing as ethics in research. If you research question serves no purpose and potentially has severe negative consequences for society, then you should not do it. Finding out whether there is a genetical intelligence differential between blacks and whites is such a research question that serves no productive aim and is potentially very harmful for society (if it were to find out a genetical differential exists).
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
310
338
350
Finding out whether there is a genetical intelligence differential between blacks and whites is such a research question that serves no productive aim and is potentially very harmful for society (if it were to find out a genetical differential exists).
Discovering the truth is the antidote for lies. You can't chart a good public policy through lies or ignorance.
Currently people are being lied to and harmed through Social Determinist Theories that outright reject that evolutionary differences between populations that could explain a portion of the observed average differences in behavior and success.
Oppression and Racism is blamed for unexplained variance(when ignoring the obvious genetic contributors) between populations as though it's somehow moral to scapegoat others for something that is blatently not their fault. Beyond this, honest research could direct public policy far better, if we know what works and what doesn't, we can stop spending money in certain areas and spend money in others.

If we can discover the underlying causes of differences between humans, then we can take a better course of action in the future to make real changes.
 

bigedole

Gold Member
Mar 10, 2015
1,601
1,903
655
Austin, TX
There is such a thing as ethics in research. If you research question serves no purpose and potentially has severe negative consequences for society, then you should not do it. Finding out whether there is a genetical intelligence differential between blacks and whites is such a research question that serves no productive aim and is potentially very harmful for society (if it were to find out a genetical differential exists).
You're wrong in this case. Your "severe negative consequences for society" are purely subjective. That is, unless you want to argue that we should stop researching how different substances are metabolized and what foods make people fat. Would hate to body shame fatties when we tell them they should stop eating that donut covered in candy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

Whitesnake

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2018
860
2,282
550
There is such a thing as ethics in research. If you research question serves no purpose and potentially has severe negative consequences for society, then you should not do it. Finding out whether there is a genetical intelligence differential between blacks and whites is such a research question that serves no productive aim and is potentially very harmful for society (if it were to find out a genetical differential exists).
The pursuit of knowledge should not be beholden to your personal sensibilities.** The gaining of knowledg, the furthering of research, and the uncovering of the unknown is inherently always productive. Science may be the most productive cause there is.

Such a finding may be used by irrational people to justify irrational behaviors, yes. I don’t understand how that’s enough to justify the idea that no one should ever research this topic. If we can map intelligence to sequences in the human genome, that would tell us a lot about mankind. Some people justifying racism doesn’t oveshadow that.

**The only exception to that principle I can think of would be live human experimentation. but luckily that’s not being discussed here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
If we can map intelligence to sequences in the human genome, that would tell us a lot about mankind.
And I did not say anything against that. This is not unethical research and should (and is) in fact be done. It is just about the ethnic group research. This would be of no use, because within an ethnic group the genetic variance is enormous, so by finding just a difference between ethnic groups, you wouldn't actually know which genes in particular are important for intelligence.
You're wrong in this case. Your "severe negative consequences for society" are purely subjective. That is, unless you want to argue that we should stop researching how different substances are metabolized and what foods make people fat. Would hate to body shame fatties when we tell them they should stop eating that donut covered in candy.
"Fatshaming" is very different from a fundamental discriminatory view on ethnic groups. If ethnic group 1 was found to be, on average, genetically in disadvantage when it comes to intelligence when compared to ethnic group 2, then this finding could have severe effects on societal treatment of ethnic group 2 in relation to ethnic group 1 and the corresponding prejudice would likely also have an effect on self-view and consequently affect performance more negatively than the actual genetic difference ever could. It is important to keep in mind, also, that "race" is a concept that is not applicable to humans, so any such research would certainly have to be more granular than "white" vs. "black". Because those are not biologically homogenous groups at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkage

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Really? That's the olive branch you're offering in terms of what black people on average are better at than white people?
Ahhhhhh, so only you get to pick and choose which facts only matter to you?

And then people get annoyed when I rightfully point out that I don't care about feelings.

You asked for me to give you a field black people do better in and now it's still not good enough to meet your impossibly high bar of "racist". This is you, not me.

There's a stereotype of someone with low athletic ability and high intelligence, and there's a stereotype of someone with high athletic ability and low intelligence. These are the nerd and the jock, respectively. If we ignore those, and just think of how these qualities are viewed by society as they apply to the average person, intelligence matters far more than athleticism.
That's an opinion, not a fact.
Unless you're trying to insinuating people who play sports for a living have no importance at all? Maybe you should double check who you're calling a racist and hypocrite right now...


To think of black people on average as less intelligent than other races is insulting, even if that could be scientifically proven.
And Asians score higher on IQ than white people. Why is this fact completely ignored? Once again, you pick and choose what you want to hear but you still dare call me a racist and hypocrite, when you completely zone out things that confront your world view?

To play devil's advocate, let's say you're right. If you hypothetically know black people on average are less intelligent, what does that say of groups and the assumptions you will make?
It means groups of people are different on average. Why are you making this so difficult for yourself?

As I've said before, I've always viewed racism as taking generalizations about a group and applying them to individuals in a group.
So by you're logic, we're all sexist for generalizing women as having less physical body strength than Men on average.

Don't you think that's also true of your ideological opponents? Yes, they do have facts and science and studies to support every bit of prejudice and generalization that they have, and every assumption that they make. And I'm sure you would disagree with most of their sources, just like a lot of people in this thread are disagreeing with yours.
I don't disagree with facts. No where once in this thread did I say I disagree with statements that have proven themselves to be accurate.
And no, I wouldn't disagree with their source as long as what they say is accurate and not a lie.

Sure, but to think negatively of all men as "more likely to commit violent crimes" just because that's supported by statistics is kind of messed up. To preemptively view men as a whole with that particular lens, or any other negative lens, is wrong. The same is true with negative assumptions about women, and the same is true with race.
But it's not.
The rate at which women murder compared to men is statistically insignificant. Yet imagine if police dedicated a billion dollar budget in order to track down female murderers? That would be a huge waste of money.


My view on these matters comes down to "I don't care about science or statistics, people are individuals who shouldn't be generalized, and people shouldn't make negative assumptions about people based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc."
Well I care about science and statistics. For other people, it is their job to collect this data and either sell it to others or use for it research. To act like this data has no importance at all is naive.

Yet, we can treat people individually, but when it comes to groups and there are recognizable patterns that can be confirmed by science, then it's not wise to view every single group the same.

Just as how in crime, it is fact Men are committing more violent crimes than Women. This has nothing to do money or socio-economic status, it is just a biological consequence of Men being more likely to be aggressive than women. But if police officers tried to apply the law 100% equally, we would see a hell of a lot more male murderers running around on the streets.

As a general rule, I don't defend my worldview with science or studies. I instead do so with universally held beliefs that apply to everyone equally, from myself to those who disagree with me. There're no studies to defend or criticize there, only values that you ask everyone to uphold (including yourself) regardless of political ideology. There's some definite advantages there. You should consider it.
Ironically your world view actually seems to possess more danger.

For example, we know for a fact that black people on average have more poverty than the richest white people. Yet by your logic, we should be giving more welfare and social assistance to the people who literally wouldn't benefit at all from it.

This is the danger of going down the absolute path of egalitarianism. Life itself has never been perfectly balanced and yet you want people to close their eyes and pretend "nope, everything in life is the same equal".

Or imagine in sports, we forced women and men to box each other. Women would end up far more injured and worst case, dead, if you somehow put them up against Men who are biologically stronger than women. It is not wise, nor would it be moral, to see dead women to make a point about "equality".
 

Whitesnake

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2018
860
2,282
550
And I did not say anything against that. This is not unethical research and should (and is) in fact be done. It is just about the ethnic group research. This would be of no use, because within an ethnic group the genetic variance is enormous, so by finding just a difference between ethnic groups, you wouldn't actually know which genes in particular are important for intelligence.
If, over the course of that research, they discover things that in your view have unfortunate implications, like a certain race being genetically predetermined to be less or more intelligent than another or perhaps the sequence for intelligence being linked to any number of otherwise-superficial traits, would you want them to cover up those findings? Just pretend that this knowledge doesn't exist because you personally find the ramifications distasteful?
 
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Whether he wants to admit it or not, pretty sure deep down Yoshi knows groups are different and can have heredity reasons.

Looking at the posts, his main concern doesnt seem to be knowledge or research itself to find reasons, but more about thinking every scientist and internet reader is going to use the data (which already includes endless internet articles and scientic studies already!) and go parading on twitter that group a has some born and bred advantages than group b more often than.

Everyone has seen or heard about group a havingr on average better jobs or schooling or Germans are tall and whatever and nobody (including Yoshi seems to care), but hes thinking if more info about group a having 10pt IQ boost over group b gets out there, the whole world will go apocalyptic.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
While Jordan is obviously heavily engaged in diagnosing the problem, I have not seen him propose any treatments (if you have, please cite them here).
Believe it or not, I do believe the IQ gap can actually be diagnosed.

It wouldn't even be hard. If you select for the highest IQ in a group and encourage them to reproduce more, then after a few generations, you would see their average go up.

This is how evolution worked for humans through out the world. Europeans lived in an environment that selected for intelligence. The humans who couldn't plan for the winters died off.
In Africa, no such pressure had existed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
If, over the course of that research, they discover things that in your view have unfortunate implications, like a certain race being genetically predetermined to be less or more intelligent than another or perhaps the sequence for intelligence being linked to any number of otherwise-superficial traits, would you want them to cover up those findings? Just pretend that this knowledge doesn't exist because you personally find the ramifications distasteful?
And race based biological comparisons have been going on for probably 100 years.

Doctors have tracked ethnic/disease studies for years. Some diseases some reason manifests in different races more than others making illness more likely to happen in some people than others. Seems like a gene thing.

And nobody cares when scientists do reports on this.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
34,806
7,230
1,340
Believe it or not, I do believe the IQ gap can actually be diagnosed.

It wouldn't even be hard. If you select for the highest IQ in a group and encourage them to reproduce more, than after a few generations, you would see their average go up.
i like your thinking, it's gonna be taken the wrong way by some bad players tho

rules of the game are what they are
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Arkage
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Believe it or not, I do believe the IQ gap can actually be diagnosed.

It wouldn't even be hard. If you select for the highest IQ in a group and encourage them to reproduce more, than after a few generations, you would see their average go up.

This is how evolution worked for humans through out the world. Europeans lived in an environment that selected for intelligence. The humans who couldn't plan for the winters died off.
In Africa, no such pressure had existed.
There surely a combo of genes and environment but theres no way to perfect a model with every variable in he world making IQ scores based on a formula 10 miles long.

And knowing that, guys like yoshi will be one of forever decliners saying the research is no good. Keep trying and get back to me when 5000 variables are studied.

But IMO,

- good genes
- good parenting
- good schools
- good work ethic

These are the key reasons helping someone be smart. U don't need to be rich or even have great school funding (if you look at global IQ scores and educational funding, many asian countries have good IQs with shit infrastructure and funds but still score well. Check every chart and somehow a dirt poor place like mongolia has good scores where half the buildings look like they're going to fall apart.)

And as said in an earlier post how can asians have the best SAT scores when English might not even be their main language..... and SATs are only done in English. Lots factors. I'll stick to my opinion above.
 
Last edited:

Pumpkin Seeds

Member
Jul 13, 2018
556
607
365
Don't forget that genetics and heritability isn't breeding-pokemon videogame logic. It doesn't always pass on and there is randomness. Not every high IQ person has high IQ parentage. And for a long time, we had no reason to heavily select for intelligence.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,061
1,962
1,180
We won't know for a mimute how much and what genes for intelligence are consistently inheritable/missing, and then comparing that to environmental factors like nutrition, culture, and etc. You can't learn that from skulls or IQ.

Considering that race is a classification based on the psychology of people, this is a basic reason why all of this is amiss.

You might as well ask if there's an intelligence difference between white and black horses.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
We won't know for a mimute how much and what genes for intelligence are consistently inheritable/missing,
We already know it's 80% inheritable. We can fill in the blanks with what comes next.


ssolitare said:
and then comparing that to environmental factors like nutrition, culture, and etc. You can't learn that from skulls or IQ.
Whites still score lower than Asians on IQ tests in the same environment.

ssolitare said:
Considering that race is a classification based on the psychology of people, this is a basic reason why all of this is amiss.
Then why do universities bother screening for race? Are you in favor of white people applying for affirmative action then since there is no difference?

ssolitare said:
You might as well ask if there's an intelligence difference between white and black horses.
Why?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
We won't know for a mimute how much and what genes for intelligence are consistently inheritable/missing, and then comparing that to environmental factors like nutrition, culture, and etc. You can't learn that from skulls or IQ.

Considering that race is a classification based on the psychology of people, this is a basic reason why all of this is amiss.

You might as well ask if there's an intelligence difference between white and black horses.
Its not amiss.

Scientists give theories why there are deviating scores. There will never be an exact formula. So whther you believe the reasons, some of the reasons or none of them is your choice.

But what is fact is asians score highest, then whites, then latinos, then blacks.

You can have your key theories (I listed mine above) or simply not have any ideas thinking its all lies and random die throwing, but got to live with the scores.

It like sports. A football team wins 42-0. Some will focus on offence, or bad coaching, or a the winner got lucky wind behjnd their backs. Theories everywhere. Bottom line. Still 42-0.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
You really shouldn't ever quote wikipedia on science. Post more than 5 scientific journals with decent to high impact factors that directly support what you claim. You would be taken more seriously.
I am not doing science here and since I am not a biologist, citing scientific publications in a field I am not an expert in is not a very good idea; for the level of non-expert discussion (and I am not an expert), a layman-source is preferable.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,809
6,010
755
I am not doing science here and since I am not a biologist, citing scientific publications in a field I am not an expert in is not a very good idea; for the level of non-expert discussion (and I am not an expert), a layman-source is preferable.
Wikipedia is not a reputable source. This is taught in schools as early as elementary nowadays. Given the nature of how easily it is to change what is written given whichever political ideology/group is in power at the time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
We can Whites still score lower than Asians on IQ tests in the same environment.
Ya. Funny how all the anti-white bigots out there claim tests and research studies are biased for white because they are assumed to be designed by biased white guys.

Pretty sure SATs, school programs and demographic studies showing Asians scoring highest arent being designed by a dude in Taiwan.

Notice how whenever someone brings up Asian test scores, anything to do with biased designed tests by whites disappears?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Also, in regards to the nutrition thing:

If nutrition was behind the "IQ gap", how is that Black people are still able dominate in sports? No one who is currently competing in the NBA or Boxing is malnourished.

Even in countries that are heavily affected by poverty, Black Men continue to break records of being the fastest in the world.




And before someone brings up "but I see U.S and European flags up there" google the names of the athlete and tell me what is their race? They're all black.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,061
1,962
1,180
We already know it's 80% inheritable.

Then why do universities bother screening for race? Are you in favor of white people applying for affirmative action then?


Why?
Use Wikipedia, just don't include the information that you like, include all of the actual information.

It's social. Black is not a race or population group, it is a spectrum of skin colors, but those distinctions are known to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yoshi

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Wikipedia is not a reputable source. This is taught in schools as early as elementary nowadays. Given the nature of how easily it is to change what is written given whichever political ideology/group is in power at the time.
It was not supposed to be a reputable source. If people doubt it they can look up the references within Wikipedia. You cannot use Wikipedia as a scientific source, but Wikipedia is a very good place to get a first overview over a topic. Also, with such huge pages such as the race page, they are very stable and well-kept up. Would I cite this in a paper? No. But I was talking about something that is written in Biology textbooks for highschool students for decades now, it is not exactly like I was referencing some fancy developing result.
 
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Also, in regards to the nutrition thing:

If nutrition was behind the "IQ gap", how is that Black people are still able dominate in sports? No one who is currently competing in the NBA or Boxing is malnourished.
Nutrition is a low priority in my books. When you got a poverty sticken place like Mongolia consistenly ranked good in IQ charts and lots of poor or fat ass Americans still showing good IQ scores, food cant be that important.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,536
1,047
445
deaftourette.com
Theory based on anecdotal evidence:

Asians score higher because their parents drill into them the importance of education and doing well in school above all else. Which is why so many Asians (at least the ones I know in the States) are good with musical instruments like the piano and violin.

It's cultural.

Then again, many African migrants or second generation Africans in the US score higher than most African Americans because of the focus on education.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,809
6,010
755
It was not supposed to be a reputable source. If people doubt it they can look up the references within Wikipedia. You cannot use Wikipedia as a scientific source, but Wikipedia is a very good place to get a first overview over a topic. Also, with such huge pages such as the race page, they are very stable and well-kept up. Would I cite this in a paper? No. But I was talking about something that is written in Biology textbooks for highschool students for decades now, it is not exactly like I was referencing some fancy developing result.
If you are having a debate, which is something you clearly are here, you would want to use the most reputable sources to disprove your opponent or catch them off guard. The fact that you realize it is not a reputable source and still used it anyway is silly and only gives bigger credence to JordanN's inane extrapolations/conclusions. Do better, Yoshi. I know you can do it.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: matt404au

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Theory based on anecdotal evidence:

Asians score higher because their parents drill into them the importance of education and doing well in school above all else. Which is why so many Asians (at least the ones I know in the States) are good with musical instruments like the piano and violin.

It's cultural.
Nothing about this contradicts it's also genetic.
If a group of people are high IQ, then they would build societies/cultures around this.

If anything, you need to show me the opposite example.


DeafTourette said:
Then again, many African migrants or second generation Africans in the US score higher than most African Americans because of the focus on education.
Immigrants represent an elite sample.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
If you are having a debate, which is something you clearly are here, you would want to use the most reputable sources to disprove your opponent or catch them off guard. The fact that you realize it is not a reputable source and still used it anyway is silly and only gives bigger credence to JordanN's inane extrapolations/conclusions. Do better, Yoshi. I know you can do it.
But I was not talking to JordanN with that point, it was just a side remark because someone asked me what my position on race is, if I say race is not a biological classifier. Consider who I quoted.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,809
6,010
755
But I was not talking to JordanN with that point, it was just a side remark because someone asked me what my position on race is, if I say race is not a biological classifier. Consider who I quoted.
It doesn't matter who are discussing it with. You should use the best quality/ most reputable sources as you can. Otherwise why would JordanN or anyone else take you seriously when you openly admit to using unreputable sites to make a point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Use Wikipedia, just don't include the information that you like, include all of the actual information.

It's social. Black is not a race or population group, it is a spectrum of skin colors, but those distinctions are known to change.
It absolutely is.

People have lived in Africa for thousands of years without ever stepping foot into Europe. You also have Europeans who lived in Europe for thousands of years without stepping into Asia. And people who lived in Asia that never met the Native Americans for thousands of years.

These are races. They have more in common with each other than they do with outside groups.
 
Last edited: