Race and IQ

[Norepinephrinistania]

If there are clear physical differences between races, why no intellectual differences?

There aren't any clear physical differences between races nor do races exist.

You have evaded how cultural differences cause over a standard deviation in IQ differences between whites and blacks, and why that's more likely than biological factors.

BAHAHAHAHAHA. No, I directly address it. Then when I did, you ran away and avoided my response, as you are adept at doing.

http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/paper ... 012int.pdf

Not true.

I never said racial differences are 100% biological, I said they are mostly biological. Discrimination may be down (or up, in favor of blacks), and interbreeding with whites has led to white genetic intellectual traits being passed to Africans.

[Grave_n_idle]

Don't forget that there are several studies showing a racial bias written into the SAT, as well.

SAT is a stupid way to measure intelligence. So is IQ, actually.

I don't think SAT's are actually considered a way to measure intelligence - they are (definitively) supposed to purely measure 'scholarly aptitude' - at least, that's the idea.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Evolution is the answer to that. Why do people from hotter climates have curly hair. The answer to this is because the hair helps them sweat faster, thus cooling them faster. Why do some rabbits that live in hotter climates have such huge ears, it is because they need to cool down faster.

In science and philosophy, a just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[1] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and mythology (where they are known as etiological myths—see etiology).

[USS Monitor]

Africa has its own evolutionary challenges like dealing with predators, dry climates where it is necessary to migrate in search of food and water, etc.

Vast majority of large human migrations have been within Eurasia, not Africa. This leads to constantly facing new intellectual challenges, and higher IQs as a result.

So Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Australian Aborigines should be the most intelligent because they migrated farthest from Africa and had to deal with the sea?

[Norepinephrinistania]

I think this has to do with the different environments that black and white people usually grow up in. I'm no sociologist, but I think it's safe to assume that more black than white people grow up in poor areas and single-parent households. This makes it harder for these black kids to get as good of an education as white kids. Also, I'm not sure how much of an affect this might have, but poverty in the black community can lead to malnourishment, which might make it harder for children's brains to develop... but like I said, I'm not sure if that has any affect or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota ... tion_Study
89 average IQ for blacks adopted by whites, 106 for whites adopted by whites. Over a standard deviation so much more likely to be biologically influenced.

[Mavorpen]

Not true.
(Image)

If there is no genetic difference between races, why do we have so many obvious phenotypical differences?

Because there aren't any. Rather, there are small ones that are irrelevant and superficial but we focus on because we've evolved to be social and visual creatures.

I never said racial differences are 100% biological, I said they are mostly biological. Discrimination may be down (or up, in favor of blacks), and interbreeding with whites has led to white genetic intellectual traits being passed to Africans.

Still waiting.

Still waiting on these genetic differences. Here, I'll give you a place to start. Point to me the genetic differences that are inherent and exclusive to each race.

[Flyover]

I think this has to do with the different environments that black and white people usually grow up in. I'm no sociologist, but I think it's safe to assume that more black than white people grow up in poor areas and single-parent households. This makes it harder for these black kids to get as good of an education as white kids. Also, I'm not sure how much of an affect this might have, but poverty in the black community can lead to malnourishment, which might make it harder for children's brains to develop... but like I said, I'm not sure if that has any affect or not.

This is very true. Iodine deficiency alone can actually lower IQ by 10-15 points.

[Mavorpen]

You know the OP is on their last leg when I can literally just quote things I've already responded to them with in response to their posts.

[Terminus Alpha]

Oh hi, racist.

Here are some links for you:

http://www.nature.com/news/poverty-shrinks-brains-from-birth-1.17227?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
https://apa.org/pi/families/resources/newsletter/2012/07/neurocognitive-impacts.aspx
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/268066.php
http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/articles/research-to-policy/research/children-raised-in-poverty-are-at-greater-risk-for-developing
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=53&articleid=287&sectionid=1889


In case you think that black people are inferior to you because your ancestors evolved harder:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730125/

And because you think black people are inferior because genes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Now, mr. stormfront, please leave.

(Bonus: Africa had a lot of advanced civilizations, even outside of the totes-not-african-even-though-its-literally-on-the same-continent Egypt.)

[Redsection]

Vast majority of large human migrations have been within Eurasia, not Africa. This leads to constantly facing new intellectual challenges, and higher IQs as a result.

So Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Australian Aborigines should be the most intelligent because they migrated farthest from Africa and had to deal with the sea?

By god your right , If the op is correct then i am smarter just because of race,all thanks to my ancestors crossing the land bridge.

[Vassenor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
89 average IQ for blacks adopted by whites, 106 for whites adopted by whites. Over a standard deviation so much more likely to be biologically influenced.

You mean the study that its own authors said was not conclusive?

[Flyover]

I think this has to do with the different environments that black and white people usually grow up in. I'm no sociologist, but I think it's safe to assume that more black than white people grow up in poor areas and single-parent households. This makes it harder for these black kids to get as good of an education as white kids. Also, I'm not sure how much of an affect this might have, but poverty in the black community can lead to malnourishment, which might make it harder for children's brains to develop... but like I said, I'm not sure if that has any affect or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota ... tion_Study
89 average IQ for blacks adopted by whites, 106 for whites adopted by whites. Over a standard deviation so much more likely to be biologically influenced.

Further down the Wikipedia page:

Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994) responded to Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994).[7] They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences; but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[7] On the question of Arthur Jensen (1998) examined these studies and reviewed the evidence that adoption does not affect children's IQ scores after age 7.

Also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
89 average IQ for blacks adopted by whites, 106 for whites adopted by whites. Over a standard deviation so much more likely to be biologically influenced.

You mean the study that its own authors said was not conclusive?

[Norepinephrinistania]

Don't forget that there are several studies showing a racial bias written into the SAT, as well.

SAT is a stupid way to measure intelligence. So is IQ, actually.

I don't think SAT's are actually considered a way to measure intelligence - they are (definitively) supposed to purely measure 'scholarly aptitude' - at least, that's the idea.

Correlates quite well with IQ, and IQ is quite good because it is predictive of academic success (even larger black-white gap) and earning potential.

[Norepinephrinistania]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota ... tion_Study
89 average IQ for blacks adopted by whites, 106 for whites adopted by whites. Over a standard deviation so much more likely to be biologically influenced.

Further down the Wikipedia page:

Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994) responded to Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994).[7] They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences; but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[7] On the question of Arthur Jensen (1998) examined these studies and reviewed the evidence that adoption does not affect children's IQ scores after age 7.

Also this:

You mean the study that its own authors said was not conclusive?

Exactly, it is not solely due to environment as Marvopen and others have claimed.

[Terminus Alpha]

Oh hi, racist.

Here are some links for you:

http://www.nature.com/news/poverty-shrinks-brains-from-birth-1.17227?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
https://apa.org/pi/families/resources/newsletter/2012/07/neurocognitive-impacts.aspx
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/268066.php
http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/articles/research-to-policy/research/children-raised-in-poverty-are-at-greater-risk-for-developing
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=53&articleid=287&sectionid=1889


In case you think that black people are inferior to you because your ancestors evolved harder:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730125/

And because you think black people are inferior because genes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Now, mr. stormfront, please leave.

(Bonus: Africa had a lot of advanced civilizations, even outside of the totes-not-african-even-though-its-literally-on-the same-continent Egypt.)

So, I guess you're gonna ignore this, then.

[Mavorpen]

Exactly, it is not solely due to environment as Marvopen and others have claimed.

Please don't pretend like you know what we have claimed. You can go barely five posts without posting a reply that has nothing to do with what we've posted, indicating you have no idea what the hell we're even claiming.

[Ifreann]

You know the OP is on their last leg when I can literally just quote things I've already responded to them with in response to their posts.

Implying the OP ever had a leg to stand on.

[Mavorpen]

Oh hi, racist.

Here are some links for you:

http://www.nature.com/news/poverty-shrinks-brains-from-birth-1.17227?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
https://apa.org/pi/families/resources/newsletter/2012/07/neurocognitive-impacts.aspx
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/268066.php
http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/articles/research-to-policy/research/children-raised-in-poverty-are-at-greater-risk-for-developing
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=53&articleid=287&sectionid=1889


In case you think that black people are inferior to you because your ancestors evolved harder:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730125/

And because you think black people are inferior because genes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Now, mr. stormfront, please leave.

(Bonus: Africa had a lot of advanced civilizations, even outside of the totes-not-african-even-though-its-literally-on-the same-continent Egypt.)

So, I guess you're gonna ignore this, then.

He ignores nearly everything that dismantles his argument. Then he selectively replies to the easier ones and pretends like he's winning somehow.

[Laerod]

I think this has to do with the different environments that black and white people usually grow up in. I'm no sociologist, but I think it's safe to assume that more black than white people grow up in poor areas and single-parent households. This makes it harder for these black kids to get as good of an education as white kids. Also, I'm not sure how much of an affect this might have, but poverty in the black community can lead to malnourishment, which might make it harder for children's brains to develop... but like I said, I'm not sure if that has any affect or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota ... tion_Study
89 average IQ for blacks adopted by whites, 106 for whites adopted by whites. Over a standard deviation so much more likely to be biologically influenced.

Not according to the authors of the study.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Exactly, it is not solely due to environment as Marvopen and others have claimed.

Please don't pretend like you know what we have claimed. You can go barely five posts without posting a reply that has nothing to do with what we've posted, indicating you have no idea what the hell we're even claiming.

So you view biology as a partial explanation for dismal African IQ?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

I don't think SAT's are actually considered a way to measure intelligence - they are (definitively) supposed to purely measure 'scholarly aptitude' - at least, that's the idea.

Correlates quite well with IQ, and IQ is quite good because it is predictive of academic success (even larger black-white gap) and earning potential.

IQ also correlates well with number of trips to Disneyland before age 12. Clearly trips to Disneyland are the primary determiner of academic success in America.

[Flyover]

Further down the Wikipedia page:

Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994) responded to Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994).[7] They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences; but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[7] On the question of Arthur Jensen (1998) examined these studies and reviewed the evidence that adoption does not affect children's IQ scores after age 7.

Also this:

Exactly, it is not solely due to environment as Marvopen and others have claimed.

Or genetic/racial, as you have said.
Turns out intelligence is complicated.

" results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, "

[Norepinephrinistania]

You know the OP is on their last leg when I can literally just quote things I've already responded to them with in response to their posts.

Implying the OP ever had a leg to stand on.

I've seen no conclusive proof that environment causes racial IQ differences. There are dog breeds recognized as smarter than others and dogs have spent less time in genetic isolation.

[Laerod]

Please don't pretend like you know what we have claimed. You can go barely five posts without posting a reply that has nothing to do with what we've posted, indicating you have no idea what the hell we're even claiming.

So you view biology as a partial explanation for dismal African IQ?

You're leaping to the entirely erroneous conclusion that low IQ scores are a racial thing, something that would require further evidence even if a significant biological component were demonstrated.

[Terminus Alpha]

So, I guess you're gonna ignore this, then.

He ignores nearly everything that dismantles his argument. Then he selectively replies to the easier ones and pretends like he's winning somehow.

It's not gonna make it go away. When you're factually wrong, you're factually wrong.