(June 2, 2018 at 5:43 pm)Alexmahone Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I'd like to see that.

I googled it. http://thealternativehypothesis.org/inde...d-poverty/

Quote:Summary: In this post, I am going to look at how well differences in socio-economic status can explain racial IQ differences. First, we will see that affluent Blacks score lower than poorer Whites and Asians on tests of cognitive ability. Second, it will be seen that the Black/White IQ gap is highest among the rich and lowest among the poor. Third, it will be shown that the Black/White SES gap has fallen dramatically over the last 100 years while the Black/White IQ gap has not. And finally, it will be seen that most of the Black/White IQ gap remains when holding SES constant. Over all, it will be concluded that SES probably explains only a small portion of the Black/White IQ gap.

---

More interesting would be to compare the mean IQ's of men and women. Reports that they happen to be exactly equal are probably not credible. After all, men have larger brains even after adjusting for body size.

---

(June 2, 2018 at 4:01 pm)Khemikal Wrote: At this point, I can answer your OP Q.  Yes, it;s racist, lol.

I guess it would be if I wasn't South Asian myself. It's good to be exonerated by the low mean IQ of your own race.

Men may have bigger brains even accounting for body size, but I submit that a lot of them are like this-






Bigger brains mean dick when they're just muscle.

(June 2, 2018 at 7:58 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: That doesn't even make any sense. East Asians are intellectually superior to Whites.

Never mind the fact that your precious 'Bell Curve' has been debunked, which I notice you continue to ignore.

If the writers placed whites at the top of the list then their racist agenda becomes transparent, so they have no problem placing Asians at the top as an attempt to shield their racism.

The same applies when Fox news wants to say something racist, they roll out a black person to say it; because how can it be racist? A black person said it.

How can the Bell Curve be racist? Asians are at the top of the list....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and...d_Japanese

Quote:Although of a different race, the Japanese were considered by Nazi ideologists such as Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, as having sufficiently superior qualities to warrant an alliance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_whites

Quote:Honorary whites is a term that was used by the apartheid regime of South Africa to grant almost all of the rights and privileges of whites. Most notably, East Asians also were ascribed as honorary whites. Japanese, Koreans and Taiwanese were granted the honorary white status, and the Chinese and individually designated figures of other races were later added as well.

(June 2, 2018 at 7:58 pm)Alexmahone Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 7:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

That doesn't even make any sense. East Asians are intellectually superior to Whites.

Really?  What exactly is “intellectually” superior?

Are you quite sure such intelligence as IQ is purported to measure is the same thing as “Intellect”?


There are published results that suggest East Asian score higher in visual spatial oriented tests than people of European descent, but lower in verbal oriented tests.

Which is intelligence and which is intellect?

---

(June 2, 2018 at 4:02 pm)Alexmahone Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Question: do any of the scientists you're using for this "race"-IQ research do any studies where they look into the IQs of middle and upper class black people and compare them with those lower on the socioeconomic totem pole? Maybe if they do that and still find their intelligence is subpar, they could actually have a legitimate point. If not, they're missing a potentially illuminating piece of the puzzle.

I think they've compared blacks of high socio-economic status with whites of low socio-economic status and found that the whites still had higher mean IQ's.

I think they’ve also found blacks in the US today on everage score higher on IQ tests than whites did on average in 1945.

There you go, the blacks today are smarter than what many whites identify as the greatest white generation.

So blacks today are smarter than the generation of whites who won against Germany and japan and made American the greatest power on earth,  while the whites today elected trump.

So your story of how the average intelligence whites and blacks in American might compare is not looking solid.

Huggy74 Wrote:Never mind the fact that your precious 'Bell Curve' has been debunked, which I notice you continue to ignore.

Yeah, I forgot that you used Wikipedia to debunk the Bell Curve, lol.

So our races have been found to be less intelligent than others. Why do you take that so personally? Have you wondered if your reaction to this research would've been different if you were White or East Asian? If so, you're suffering from a bias. Unlike you, I happen to respect scientific research and reason but I still maintain that people should be treated as individuals and not based on the average characteristics of their groups.

If people should be treated as individuals, then why is the “average IQ” of the “Races” noteworthy to you?

What do you plan to do with this information other than in the service of not treating people of different “races” as individuals?

(June 2, 2018 at 9:25 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: If people should be treated as individuals, then why is the “average IQ” of the “Races” noteworthy?

What do you plan to do with this information other than in the service of not treating people of different “races” as individuals?

Charles Murray justifies studying intellectual differences among races on the grounds that if we didn't study them, we would falsely attribute all the educational and socio-economic disparities between blacks and whites in the US to discrimination and racism.

(June 2, 2018 at 9:27 pm)Alexmahone Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 9:25 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: If people should be treated as individuals, then why is the “average IQ” of the “Races” noteworthy?

What do you plan to do with this information other than in the service of not treating people of different “races” as individuals?

Charles Murray justifies studying intellectual differences among races on the grounds that if we didn't study them, we would falsely attribute all the educational and socio-economic disparities between blacks and whites in the US to discrimination and racism.

Maybe a better way to make sure educational and socio-economic disparity is not attributable to racism and individuals are really treated and rewarded by their personality and capability might be to make sure black children growing up in depressed neighborhood actually receive investment in their G1-12 education equal to the average enjoyed by whites, instead of writing them off as “well, their average IQ is lower anyway?”

(June 2, 2018 at 9:18 pm)Alexmahone Wrote:

Huggy74 Wrote:Never mind the fact that your precious 'Bell Curve' has been debunked, which I notice you continue to ignore.

Yeah, I forgot that you used Wikipedia to debunk the Bell Curve, lol.

So our races have been found to be less intelligent than others. Why do you take that so personally? Have you wondered if your reaction to this research would've been different if you were White or East Asian? If so, you're suffering from a bias. Unlike you, I happen to respect scientific research and reason but I still maintain that people should be treated as individuals and not based on the average characteristics of his/her group.

Hhahaa lulz  

No, I didn't use wikkipedia to debunk the Bell Curve...

Never mind the fact that Wikipedia cites sources for it's information, the Writer of the Bell Curve were debunked by their own peers.

This is from an article of the Scientific American dated February 1995, I'm going to color code the info so you can follow along, seeing how you admit to having a low IQ and all...

https://www.samtiden.com/tbc/las_artikel.php?id=66

Quote:Lynn's 1991 paper describes a 1989 publication by Ken Owen as "the best single study of the Negroid intelligence." The study compared white, Indian and black pupils on the Junior Aptitude Tests; no coloured pupils were included. The mean "Negroid" IQ in that study, according to Lynn, was 69. But Owen did not in fact assign IQs to any of the groups he tested; he merely reported test-score differences between groups, expressed in terms of standard deviation units. The IQ figure was concocted by Lynn out of those data. There is, as Owen made clear, no reason to suppose that low scores of blacks had much to do with genetics: "the knowledge of English of the majority of black testees was so poor that certain [of the] tests... proved to be virtually unusable." Further, the tests assumed that Zulu pupils were familiar with electrical appliances, microscopes and "Western type of ladies' accessories."

In 1992 Owen reported on a sample of coloured students that had been added to the groups he had tested earlier. The footnote in "The Bell Curve" seems to credit this report as proving that South African coloured students have an IQ "similar to that of American blacks," that is, about 85 (the actual reference does not appear in the book's bibliography). That statement does not correctly characterize Owen's work. The test used by Owen in 1992 was the "nonverbal" Raven's Progressive Matrices, which is thought to be less culturally biased than other IQ tests. He was able to compare the performance of coloured students with that of the whites, blacks and Indians in his 1989 study because the earlier set of pupils had taken the Progressive Matrices in addition to the Junior Aptitude Tests. The black pupils, recall, had poor knowledge of English, but Owen felt that the instructions for the Matrices "are so easy that they can be explained with gestures."

Owen's 1992 paper again does not assign IQs to the pupils. Rather he gives the mean number of correct responses on the Progressive Matrices (out of a possible 60) for each group: 45 for whites, 42 for Indians, 37 for coloureds and 28 for blacks. The test's developer, John Raven, repeatedly insisted that results on the Progressive Matrices tests cannot be converted into IQs. Matrices scores, unlike IQs, are not symmetrical around their mean (no "bell curve" here). There is thus no meaningful way to convert an average of raw Matrices scores into an IQ, and no comparison with American black IQs is possible.

The remaining studies cited by Lynn, and accepted as valid by Herrnstein and Murray, tell us little about African intelligence but do tell us something about Lynn's scholarship. One of the 11 entries in Lynn's table of the intelligence of "pure Negroids" indicates that 1,011 Zambians who were given the Progressive Matrices had a lamentably low average IQ of 75. The source for this quantitative claim is given as "Pons 1974; Crawford-Nutt 1976."

A. L. Pons did test 1,011 Zambian copper miners, whose average number of correct responses was 34. Pons reported on this work orally; his data were summarized in tabular form in a paper by D. H. Crawford-Nutt. Lynn took the Pons data from Crawford-Nutt's paper and converted the number of correct responses into a bogus average "IQ" of 75. Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices--HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils.

Seven of the 11 studies selected by Lynn for inclusion in his "Negroid" table reported only average Matrices scores, not IQs; the other studies used tests clearly dependent on cultural content. Lynn had earlier, in a 1978 paper, summarized six studies of African pupils, most using the Matrices. The arbitrary IQs concocted by Lynn for those studies ranged between 75 and 88, with a median of 84. Five of those six studies were omitted from Lynn's 1991 summary, by which time African IQ had, in his judgment, plummeted to 69.

Basically, the IQ figures were made up out of thin air.

How do you respond to the above info?


Whats your response to the above information?

Ehh, didn't mean to ask the same question twice.

It got awfully quiet in here...

(June 3, 2018 at 4:27 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Ehh, didn't mean to ask the same question twice.

It got awfully quiet in here...

We're just waiting for you to catch up.