Population of Blacks/Whites in US by IQ

[rousseau]

So do IQ tests account for differences in income levels, social discrimination, robustness of economy, environmental differences, religiosity, quality of education systems.. etc etc etc etc.

You can't take person A with economic and environmental deficiencies, give them a test, and expect them to do as well as a white kid eating a plate full of vegetables, chicken, and who is going to go play xbox after dinner. The playing field is just not the same.

When someone can normalize for environmental factors, I'll be listening.

Scientifically there is no such thing as a "white" kid.

How so?

 

[untermensche]

Scientifically there is no such thing as a "white" kid.

How so?

There is no scientific definition of "white" or "black".

Humans do not divide into any discrete non-overlapping categories.

There are people that don't even fit into the categories of male and female.

See the article I posted in #17 above.

 

[iolo]

How so?

There is no scientific definition of "white" or "black".

Humans do not divide into any discrete non-overlapping categories.

There are people that don't even fit into the categories of male and female.

See the article I posted in #17 above.

Ye-es! Tellum, tellum, telllum, tellum, tellum! If only they would catch up with the human race and throw away this antiquated bullshit!

 

[rousseau]

Race may be a useful distinction when considering isolated cultures.

 

[iolo]

Race may be a useful distinction when considering isolated cultures.

Depends on how fast you run.

 

[untermensche]

Race may be a useful distinction when considering isolated cultures.

Not useful for biology. Humans have been here too short of a time for any significant genetic differences to arise because of isolation. All the differences we see are superficial.

Maybe useful for slave traders.

 

[rousseau]

Race may be a useful distinction when considering isolated cultures.

Not useful for biology. Humans have been here too short of a time for any significant genetic differences to arise because of isolation. All the differences we see are superficial.

Maybe useful for slave traders.

I wouldn't argue with you that it's likely not a useful biological distinction, but I reject your comment 'maybe useful for slave traders' in reference to being a cultural distinction, although I guess I can understand the anti-racial reaction.

Consider the OP: a lot of people would make the conclusion that blacks are less intelligent than whites. I don't think that's the conclusion you can draw from that graph at all. The real conclusion: people who identify as black underperform against people who identify as white in IQ tests. So if we make the assumption that black and white people aren't genetically distinct, than this disparity actually points to and highlights the prevailing systemic racism and discrimination that exists in society.

If we take the politically correct road and turn a blind eye to the distinction between semi-isolated cultures such as black, white, asian, native identified, then we can't see their social differences and correct them.

 

[untermensche]

Not useful for biology. Humans have been here too short of a time for any significant genetic differences to arise because of isolation. All the differences we see are superficial.

Maybe useful for slave traders.

I wouldn't argue with you that it's likely not a useful biological distinction, but I reject your comment 'maybe useful for slave traders' in reference to being a cultural distinction, although I guess I can understand the anti-racial reaction.

Consider the OP: a lot of people would make the conclusion that blacks are less intelligent than whites. I don't think that's the conclusion you can draw from that graph at all. The real conclusion: people who identify as black underperform against people who identify as white in IQ tests. So if we make the assumption that black and white people aren't genetically distinct, than this disparity actually points to and highlights the prevailing systemic racism and discrimination that exists in society.

If we take the politically correct road and turn a blind eye to the distinction between semi-isolated cultures such as black, white, asian, native identified, then we can't see their social differences and correct them.

I would have to peruse the raw data before I even believed that graph represented anything real. Racists have fabricated data for decades.

There is no such thing as "black" or "white".

Humans cannot scientifically be divided in this manner.

 

[Frikki]

When did this forum turn into Stormfront lite?

 

[rousseau]

I wouldn't argue with you that it's likely not a useful biological distinction, but I reject your comment 'maybe useful for slave traders' in reference to being a cultural distinction, although I guess I can understand the anti-racial reaction.

Consider the OP: a lot of people would make the conclusion that blacks are less intelligent than whites. I don't think that's the conclusion you can draw from that graph at all. The real conclusion: people who identify as black underperform against people who identify as white in IQ tests. So if we make the assumption that black and white people aren't genetically distinct, than this disparity actually points to and highlights the prevailing systemic racism and discrimination that exists in society.

If we take the politically correct road and turn a blind eye to the distinction between semi-isolated cultures such as black, white, asian, native identified, then we can't see their social differences and correct them.

I would have to peruse the raw data before I even believed that graph represented anything real. Racists have fabricated data for decades.

There is no such thing as "black" or "white".

Humans cannot scientifically be divided in this manner.

Even if the original post is complete nonsense and races aren't genetically distinct, that two people can have a physical property that's highly divergent and causes them to identify with two distinct cultures, and relate to their society in fundamentally different ways, leads me to believe that racial social differences are at least worth thinking about and looking at.

Reduce the issue to an organism as simple as butterflies. If one species of butterflies is divided by two colours with negative or positive survival value in reference to each colour, why are we served by saying 'the colour difference doesn't exist'? Humans are no different but the ramifications are more complex.

I'm not making an argument for discrimination or genetic disparity, I'm making an argument for the recognition that white, asian, black cultural differences exist, and have real ramifications in the world.

And so yes, in a sense there is such a thing as a 'white kid'. A white kid is someone more likely to be born from a long line of privilege, to be better educated, better fed, to experience less discrimination.. and so on.

 

[untermensche]

I would have to peruse the raw data before I even believed that graph represented anything real. Racists have fabricated data for decades.

There is no such thing as "black" or "white".

Humans cannot scientifically be divided in this manner.

Even if the original post is complete nonsense and races aren't genetically distinct, that two people can have a physical property that's highly divergent and causes them to identify with two distinct cultures, and relate to their society in fundamentally different ways, leads me to believe that racial social differences are at least worth thinking about and looking at.

Reduce the issue to an organism as simple as butterflies. If one species of butterflies is divided by two colours with negative or positive survival value in reference to each colour, why are we served by saying 'the colour difference doesn't exist'? Humans are no different but the ramifications are more complex.

I'm not making an argument for discrimination or genetic disparity, I'm making an argument for the recognition that white, asian, black cultural differences exist, and have real ramifications in the world.

And so yes, in a sense there is such a thing as a 'white kid'. A white kid is someone more likely to be born from a long line of privilege, to be better educated, better fed, to experience less discrimination.. and so on.

Is a person who self identifies as "black" with recent ancestry from regions in what is now Nigeria the same thing as a person who self identifies as "black" with recent ancestry from what is now South Africa?

You know there are people with parents who self identify as "black" who look like people who self identify as "white".

 

[rousseau]

Even if the original post is complete nonsense and races aren't genetically distinct, that two people can have a physical property that's highly divergent and causes them to identify with two distinct cultures, and relate to their society in fundamentally different ways, leads me to believe that racial social differences are at least worth thinking about and looking at.

Reduce the issue to an organism as simple as butterflies. If one species of butterflies is divided by two colours with negative or positive survival value in reference to each colour, why are we served by saying 'the colour difference doesn't exist'? Humans are no different but the ramifications are more complex.

I'm not making an argument for discrimination or genetic disparity, I'm making an argument for the recognition that white, asian, black cultural differences exist, and have real ramifications in the world.

And so yes, in a sense there is such a thing as a 'white kid'. A white kid is someone more likely to be born from a long line of privilege, to be better educated, better fed, to experience less discrimination.. and so on.

Is a person who self identifies as "black" with recent ancestry from regions in what is now Nigeria the same thing as a person who self identifies as "black" with recent ancestry from what is now South Africa?

You know there are people with parents who self identify as "black" who look like people who self identify as "white".

No, then we get into cultural sub-groups, whose divergences can also be studied.

 

[rousseau]

Defining human beings as the 'human race' also useful, but I think it's also useful to consider that the root description. When you start digging into the 7 billion members of the human race then experiences and relationships become incredibly diverse and are not easy to categorize. But I'd argue there's a lot to learn via that categorizing.

 

[untermensche]

Is a person who self identifies as "black" with recent ancestry from regions in what is now Nigeria the same thing as a person who self identifies as "black" with recent ancestry from what is now South Africa?

You know there are people with parents who self identify as "black" who look like people who self identify as "white".

No, then we get into cultural sub-groups, whose divergences can also be studied.

Culture has nothing to do with it.

And you did not answer the question or address the point.

 

[rousseau]

No, then we get into cultural sub-groups, whose divergences can also be studied.

Culture has nothing to do with it.

And you did not answer the question or address the point.

Sure I did. I'm arguing that you can classify people based on their self identified cultural group, this isn't so hard.

If someone from South Africa and Nigeria both move to the same city in the US then you can group them under similar umbrellas if appropriate to do so. If they're in the Southern US they're both likely to experience serious discrimination, for instance.

If you want to dive down and look at South African and Nigerian natives in the south, then you can also do that as a further sub-group.

What I'm describing here is why there are historians of medieval europe, historians of specific areas of Africa, people studying the sociology of native tribes. Because people can be classified into cultural and geographic groups.

Yes, I concede your point that the line is often blurry, but that doesn't negate the overarching point I'm making that physical and cultural characteristics group people together, who consequently experience the world differently. This isn't really debatable, it's just how it is.

But back to the original thread, I don't disagree with you that races are genetically indistinct, and was initially arguing with you for the invalidity of the OP, so I don't know why we're going on and on about this.

When you spend multiple centuries discriminating against a particular class of people to the point that they're almost always driven into poverty, of course they're not going to be able to achieve high scores on a logic test in reference to people who are living on a cloud.

 

[untermensche]

Culture has nothing to do with it.

And you did not answer the question or address the point.

Sure I did. I'm arguing that you can classify people based on their self identified cultural group, this isn't so hard.

No you didn't.

Again, culture has nothing to do with it.

Most people with African descent in the US have no idea where their relatives came from and they were mixed according to the desires of slave owners so you can do all the genetic testing you want you can't specify where they came from..

And if two people who self identify as "black" can have a child that is able to self identify as "white" then self identification is meaningless.

 

[rousseau]

Sure I did. I'm arguing that you can classify people based on their self identified cultural group, this isn't so hard.

No you didn't.

Again, culture has nothing to do with it.

Most people with African descent in the US have no idea where their relatives came from and they were mixed according to the desires of slave owners so you can do all the genetic testing you want you can't specify where they came from..

And if two people who self identify as "black" can have a child that is able to self identify as "white" then self identification is meaningless.

I think I've made my point pretty clear, so I'm just going to leave it at that. If you disagree, I'm going to agree to disagree.

 

[untermensche]

No you didn't.

Again, culture has nothing to do with it.

Most people with African descent in the US have no idea where their relatives came from and they were mixed according to the desires of slave owners so you can do all the genetic testing you want you can't specify where they came from..

And if two people who self identify as "black" can have a child that is able to self identify as "white" then self identification is meaningless.

I think I've made my point pretty clear, so I'm just going to leave it at that. If you disagree, I'm going to agree to disagree.

Fine, the point I want to make was made.

There is no scientific definition of "black" or "white".

So there can be no scientific conclusion about a difference between "black" and "white".

 

[thebeave]

Funny how in threads like this (i.e. differences in IQ/abilities among races) people go to great lengths to minimize or even deny that there are actually different races. Yet in other threads, people go to great lengths to distinguish between the races (i.e. threads on affirmative action, increasing diversity, Black Lives Matter, "Dear White America", etc, etc.).

 

[untermensche]

Funny how in threads like this (i.e. differences in IQ/abilities among races) people go to great lengths to minimize or even deny that there are actually different races. Yet in other threads, people go to great lengths to distinguish between the races (i.e. threads on affirmative action, increasing diversity, Black Lives Matter, "Dear White America", etc, etc.).

You miss the distinction.

There are human conceptions of race but no scientific definition of race.

And ignorant humans use their conceptions to harm many based on very superficial differences.