Free speech is censorship!

The racist right has been most Orwellian in their terms this fall.

The blogger Fjordman has been given access in all three national newspapers, and has had several chronicles published. Many more than any other person could ask for. And yet, he sees himself as censored, as this blog post on not-racist gates of vienna is an example of.

You see, if Fjordman is not given unrestricted and immediate access with whatever he writes, he is censored. In his mind, it is the responsibility and duty of any newspaper to immediately publish any and all drivel he comes up with. The stupidity boggles the mind.

He is not alone though. Christian Tybring-Gjedde published a chronicle in Aftenposten, where he claimed to be an "oppressed dissident". Tybring-Gjedde is a member of parliament for the Progress Party. Not a random member either, he is one of the most prominent. Before that, he was a leading politician in the capitol, Oslo. he is a member of the select group of people with near unrestricted access to the media. The media are drooling for his comments, all he needs to do to get a front page is to pick up the phone and call a reporter. And yet, he sees himself as censored, oppressed and hunted, thus proving that bottomless stupidity isn't restricted to random bloggers.

Has the racist right lost its grip on reality completely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Has the racist right lost its grip on reality completely?

---

Did they ever have it?

It's fashionable nowadays for the more... "driven" right-wingers to portray and to think of themselves as victims. Look at Newt Gingrich' reaction to a question about his martial infidelity ("I'm appalled...I'm sick of the liberal media protecting Obama!") and how well that turned out for him in the primaries.

Or in the Netherlands: a majority in our "house of commons" wants to introduce legislation that will force political parties to publicize financial gifts that exceed 4500 euros. The PVV (Wilders) is against this, and not only comes up with a load of contrived excuses of why they're against it, but also proclaim that the measure is only intented as an attack on them.

Haha!

"Openness - the primary weapon of tyrants!"

Again, show me how Fjordman is racist. You won't find him shaking hands with the fatah-jugend on a certain island like your PM, that much is true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Again, show me how Fjordman is racist.

---

When you buy into the pseudo-science of racial IQ-levels, defines roles for ethnic groups based on their presumed average IQ level and claim that culture is genetic, I find it hard to class him as anything else.

Plus a bunch of other stuff, but I don't really feel like rambling on and on, I leave the rambling to Little Chubby Curlyhair.

EDIT: His racism is trumped by his hatred of women though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When you buy into the pseudo-science of racial IQ-levels, defines roles for ethnic groups based on their presumed average IQ level and claim that culture is genetic, I find it hard to class him as anything else.

---

Haven't followed him extensively but haven't seen any of that. Does mention genetic defects because of inbreeding. Don't know about Norrway but that's nothing new here. As for IQ, it's a fact that people from islamic countries have lower IQ's, that's not an opinion it's a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Haven't followed him extensively but haven't seen any of that. Does mention genetic defects because of inbreeding. Don't know about Norrway but that's nothing new here. As for IQ, it's a fact that people from islamic countries have lower IQ's, that's not an opinion it's a fact.

---

If you haven't read his drivel, why do you challenge the claim that he's racist? Why challenge something you actually have no knowledge of?

I've no idea about IQ levels (measuring intelligence without measuring bias is very, very tough), but it does seem to be the case that certain races are faster sprinters for example - unless the Olympics also has some affirmative action going on. There may well be other areas where some races perform better than others, rather than the production of melanin.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If you haven't read his drivel, why do you challenge the claim that he's racist? Why challenge something you actually have no knowledge of?

---

Not having followed him extensively doesn't mean I haven't read his stuff, site I frequent used to link him. What you say is there I haven't seen there, I mostly agree with him really

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I've no idea about IQ levels (measuring intelligence without measuring bias is very, very tough), but it does seem to be the case that certain races are faster sprinters for example - unless the Olympics also has some affirmative action going on. There may well be other areas where some races perform better than others, rather than the production of melanin.

~:smoking:

---

That's a perfectly non-racist position.

Turning it racist is easy, however, all you need to add is "...and so african people should only be allowed to take jobs in transportation" or something like that, which Fjordman has done.

IQ-research is pseudoscience at best, and the claim that it is genetic is silly, unless the pakistani immigration to Norway all had superhigh IQ and bred with most norwegian women, as IQ levels as measured at conscription has risen significantly over the last 50 years. Not to mention that IQ tests was designed as a way to keep african americans from being allowed to vote....

Some of the research on IQ may be solid. But those claiming their findings to be "fact" comes off as loonies.

'Turning it racist is easy, however, all you need to add is "...and so african people should only be allowed to take jobs in transportation" or something like that, which Fjordman has done.'

Show me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

'Turning it racist is easy, however, all you need to add is "...and so african people should only be allowed to take jobs in transportation" or something like that, which Fjordman has done.'

Show me

---

It was in the same post where he claimed that the current mess Somalia finds themselves in is because of their genes, as "culture is decided by genetics".

Feel free to dig it up, I can't be bothered.

Could be bothered to open no less than 3 rant-threads about the good man. Not saying you are making things up but I haven't seen it

I would very much like to see a source on the claim that people from Islamic countries have lower IQ's.

And even if it were true, that would have nothing to do with ethnicity, right?

Here's a global map with the average IQ per nation https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-Map-World.png

Can't edit, that one looks like they are making fun of Australe, here's another there are plenty http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-84yaQQ9AVW...ge_iq_2000.png

I don't know man, Turkey and Malaysia appear to come out relatively well. Still, don't you think that increased urbanisation and education have more to do with the average IQ than say, religion or (God forbid) ethnicity?

For example, an Iranian scientist was awarded a prize for best research on cancer treatment. Still, Iran looks pretty bad on the map, right?

Not directly linked to the topic at hand, but very relevant.

https://i.imgur.com/dwnOr.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I don't know man, Turkey and Malaysia appear to come out relatively well. Still, don't you think that increased urbanisation and education have more to do with the average IQ than say, religion or (God forbid) ethnicity?

---

Sure looks that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Can't edit, that one looks like they are making fun of Australe, here's another there are plenty http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-84yaQQ9AVW...ge_iq_2000.png

---

lol... ofcourse australia cant have such a low iq... ofcourse not... i can tell you why the maps differ. the one takes into account the australians and the other one is higher because they also take into account the mass influx of asian students that come to australia to study. hence the 30 point increase on average... its all just a big joke 0_0

if it were genetic it would make sense. australians descend from criminals and all criminals are total idiots, they have smaller headsize, like prostitutes. you can read that 19th century scientific paper as proof... lmao

iq is the result of education. get proper education in any of these countries, or bring the people to a country with a proper education system and the iq will rise.

Considering that the Norwegian IQ has risen over the last 50, linking IQ to genetics seem....well, not that clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Considering that the Norwegian IQ has risen over the last 50, linking IQ to genetics seem....well, not that clever.

---

No but it's still true that people from islamic countries have lower IQ's.

Define 'people'.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.futuretwit.com/2012/02/ph...tually-do.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Not directly linked to the topic at hand, but very relevant.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/dwnOr.gif

---

That cartoon doesn't recognise the fact that any supposed disadvantages that the lower-IQ ethnic group has have been accounted for in plenty of studies. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study gave white and black children the exact same conditions in their upbringing and still found the white children to have IQ's that were high enough to be statistically significant. The nature of that study meant that any educational or cultural factors were made redundant.

What I see in everyday life tells me that there are not huge differences in the mental capabilities of white and black people. But when you are talking about races that have lived in isolation from each other for thousands of years and begin from a very limited gene pool, then the way in which they develop certain racial characteristics over the generations is simply an extension of the same principle where children tend to take on their parents features. That's why Mongoloids have epicanthic folds, Northern Europeans have fair hair, Africans don't have crowns on the tops of their heads, native Americans can't grow facial hair, Ashkenazi Jews are particularly prone to certain genetic defects etc. These are not evolutionary traits that were selected for in some sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest enviroment. They are just hereditary traits passed down from parent to child, but magnified over many generations, as is the way of things. I don't think it is therefore outrageous to suggest that mental differences will complement these physical ones, in fact common sense says that is is impossible for them not to not exist at all (no matter how insignificantly).

Although at the same time using white and black as the categories to base the study of intelligence and everything else on is not ideal. 'Race' isn't something clear cut, different races aren't billiard balls (to use the political comparison with nation states) that never interact. Different races or peoples or whatever you want to call them have never been completely isolated, and thats why for example even though Somalians have black skin, they tend to have more Semitic facial features.

But just because race isn't something as simple as being black or white doesn't mean that it can be dismissed entirely, I think that is just wishful thinking and ignoring common sense and reality.

And although I don't think that racial differences are anywhere near significant enough to trump what all of humanity has in common, I've got to say I find the prospect of a world where everyone has brown skin, brown eyes and black hair to be pretty terrifying.

Since when has IQ ever been a relevant measure of anything, except what tack the trick cyclist is going to try with you next?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Not directly linked to the topic at hand, but very relevant.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/dwnOr.gif

---

It would be better to have "get a bunch of whites to enslave other whites and sell them to black traders". Or would that muddy the waters of one lot utterly guilty and one lot utterly innocent?

~:smoking:

also, dont forget the part where you are make sure that they understand in every possible way that they are not human.

or would forgetting that just turn it into 'common slavery'...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

That cartoon doesn't recognise the fact that any supposed disadvantages that the lower-IQ ethnic group has have been accounted for in plenty of studies. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study gave white and black children the exact same conditions in their upbringing and still found the white children to have IQ's that were high enough to be statistically significant. The nature of that study meant that any educational or cultural factors were made redundant.

What I see in everyday life tells me that there are not huge differences in the mental capabilities of white and black people. But when you are talking about races that have lived in isolation from each other for thousands of years and begin from a very limited gene pool, then the way in which they develop certain racial characteristics over the generations is simply an extension of the same principle where children tend to take on their parents features. That's why Mongoloids have epicanthic folds, Northern Europeans have fair hair, Africans don't have crowns on the tops of their heads, native Americans can't grow facial hair, Ashkenazi Jews are particularly prone to certain genetic defects etc. These are not evolutionary traits that were selected for in some sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest enviroment. They are just hereditary traits passed down from parent to child, but magnified over many generations, as is the way of things. I don't think it is therefore outrageous to suggest that mental differences will complement these physical ones, in fact common sense says that is is impossible for them not to not exist at all (no matter how insignificantly).

Although at the same time using white and black as the categories to base the study of intelligence and everything else on is not ideal. 'Race' isn't something clear cut, different races aren't billiard balls (to use the political comparison with nation states) that never interact. Different races or peoples or whatever you want to call them have never been completely isolated, and thats why for example even though Somalians have black skin, they tend to have more Semitic facial features.

But just because race isn't something as simple as being black or white doesn't mean that it can be dismissed entirely, I think that is just wishful thinking and ignoring common sense and reality.

And although I don't think that racial differences are anywhere near significant enough to trump what all of humanity has in common, I've got to say I find the prospect of a world where everyone has brown skin, brown eyes and black hair to be pretty terrifying.

---

I've heard that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent. So your argument that it's possible for blacks to have a lower average IQ because of relative genetic isolation is false, imo.

Also, not that it matters, but Native Americans can grow facial hair. Just throwing that out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Since when has IQ ever been a relevant measure of anything

---

You see any reason to dismiss it's importance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No but it's still true that people from islamic countries have lower IQ's.

---

Well. Our IQ has risen over the past 50 years. Our level of education, and especially the Spread of education has risen dramatically. Thus, if you want to make any IQ-based conclusion, it would seem that the conclusion is that IQ depends on The level of education.

Now, let's turn to the Islamic world. Who would've thought that a social-democratic first world nation would score higher than semi-fascist authoritarian states who see education as a threat to their powerbase? Wooah! Shocking news! Of course we should score higher. Until democracy hits the mid-east, we will continue to be on top, as we will simply be better educated. And that's not because of smarts, it's because of being given the chance to actually get that education. Or until the fascist right people like Fjordman promote, in which case we will plummet down the scale due to sheer incompetence on the part of the fascists. Ever seen their plans for the education sector? Bah, you'd think none of them have ever heard of Vygotsky!

And that, of course, leaves out the horrendous difficulty of collecting IQ scores from entire nations, something which those who promote the IQ-nonsense love to say we already have, but which we in reality aren't even close to doing. Of course, facts doesn't get in the way of a racist wanting to feel superior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

I've heard that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent. So your argument that it's possible for blacks to have a lower average IQ because of relative genetic isolation is false, imo.

---

Africa's genetic diversity does nothing to prove my claim false. Africa's genetic diversity stems from the fact that modern day Africans can trace their lineage back to a number of different isolated population that all originated in Africa - they are not diverse in the sense that they have mixed with the human populations outside of Africa that modern day non-Africans are all descended from.

According to the out of Africa theory the rest of the human population (in my understanding) left before they could mix with many of these ancient African population groups, and are instead descended from the most ancient human population groups that sprang up in Africa and hence their lack of genetic diversity. But the limited genetic variation of these humans that left Africa means there would be an obvious potential for the traits of their ancestors to be magnified in their descendents - whether that is increased/decreased intelligence, increased/descreased strength etc.

But then talking about white and black here is too simplistic and can be misleading. Skin colour is superficial. Of itself it doesn't necessarily have to carry other attributes whether they be physical or mental. From my understanding of evolution the original humans would have almost certainly have been white, and the darkening of their skin would have been a response to losing their body hair (and only then if Africa had a similar climate then as it does now, whis is IIRC another point of contention).

As a white person, there might have been a point in my ancestry where my ancestors would have had black skin. But then that doesn't mean that they had the other features associated with black people today. All of humanity outside of Africa today is descended from a very small ancestor group that sprang out of Africa, while all Africans and their diaspora are descended from a whole host of ancestor groups that the rest of humanity has no connection to whatsoever. These groups would have made a huge contribution to the genetic traits of modern Africans.

So if anything I would think all this reinforces the possibility of IQ differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

Also, not that it matters, but Native Americans can grow facial hair. Just throwing that out there.

---

Well it is at least a lot less prevalent than it is with those of European descent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Of course, facts doesn't get in the way of a racist wanting to feel superior.

---

First off, can you stop referring to people with racist beliefs as "a racist". It's dehumanising. Racism is an aspect of a person's beliefs, not a descriptor for their entire being. You wouldn't say to somebody, "hey, so you're a gay", would you? Or "oh, you're a black".

And in any case, you don't know how racist people think or why they believe what they do.

And I get the feeling that facts won't make you change your beliefs either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It would be better to have "get a bunch of whites to enslave other whites and sell them to black traders". Or would that muddy the waters of one lot utterly guilty and one lot utterly innocent?

~:smoking:

---

Right on the money rory_20_uk, right on the money.

Science, no one here is doing it right

Plenty of white slaves but you don't learn that on school http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
At times I still get emotional

you are not on the money, you are betting on the wrong horse. the american slavery was fundamentally different than any other slavery ive ever heard of existing on this world. you can value it as you want but you cannot deny that it was different.

as for frag, you can say that slavery is not principally rascist and i would agree, but to say that the american slavery is not rascist is just wrong.

in that system they have taken away all humanity and all hope from one group of people for a few hundred years.

set a slave free in the viking era in norway and he will be indistinguishable from his neighbour, he will be protected by law and he can take care of his family. a slave in rome can come from anywhere, he couldve been even roman but he can also rise within the household of his master or when set free no person would frown upon his offspring. a christian in the ottoman empire could become part of the yeni ceri and wield power and respect. on the barbary coast, if nothing else atleast a freedman could return home but if not he would again be protected by law and he would most likely live a normal life and same for his family. set a slave free in america and he would still be less than a dog, he would have less rights than a dog, no law would protect him because he was unhuman. his family would be tainted the same way if he could even survive to sustain one.

and even now after slavery has been abolished they fell victim to the same rascist thought and ideas that were the cause of their ancesters slavery for atleast a century and even to this day it still happens to some. no dane is still looked down upon because his ancestor was a thrall, no christian descendent on the barbary coast is discriminated against because of the same reasons that his ancestors were enslaved, no slav has been denied rights because his grandfather was part of the slavecaste.

again, you can brand it how you want, and i brand it evil to the core of its system, but you cannot deny that they are fundamentally different in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Science, no one here is doing it right

---

I'm not a scientist I'm just saying what I know off the top of my head, people can feel free to correct me. :shrug:

Quote:

---

you are not on the money, you are betting on the wrong horse.

---

I'd look up the Ashanti Kingdom if I were you.

what for? i do not say that you are wrong about what you say, im just saying that it is irrelevant. i do not dispute that africans sold africans to europeans. i do not dispute that europeans were enslaved by corsairs from the coast, or even by their own nobles. i am not talking about a question of guilt. i do not say that whites traders are guilty and the african sellers are not or that this is even remotely interesting. it is not, it is in the past and i have had nothing to do with it nor have you regardless of who our ancesters have been.

yet i have looked it up and if i can rely on wikipedia as a good source their slavery is the opposite of what i just pointed out in my post and more the rule for what was common in slavery in the world while the american slavery was definitly an exception if not an unicum. (however the neutrality of the argument/entry has been disputed on wikipedia so i shall not value it too much.)

if we regard slavery as bad/evil because it is fundamentally inhumane, there is no doubt, atleast for me that the american slavery was the worst in this regard because it took away all hope for any humane situation. not all slaves were regarded as less than humans, but many slaves were in all the different systems, however in all the systems that i know off there was always a way for the slave to become a freedman and for his family to integrate into society. they would then become citizens and be protected by law. this did not exist in america even a freed negro slave would have no legal right (perhaps in theory but definitly not in practice) and the same for his descendants. they were still less than human. to say that this was common in all slave systems is wrong, and i think it was unique to that specific american slavery, although i might be wrong on that, i have never known of another system that was similar.

@Fragony: yes I do see reasons for not attaching value to IQ scores. First of all, IQ tests are designed to be administered under very specific circumstances, secondly they are only a measure of how well do you do on test taking. Secondly, IQ tests as a prediction of anything work only on large data sets (carefully controlled for a lot of variables), and not for an individual; and even then the predictions are not always very strong.

So when it comes to these little studies that “follow” a few subjects over the years, the alarm bells should be going off. No way that this is anywhere near a large data set, no way that this is anywhere near controlled enough. So as research it is not entirely useless: it provides data points for testing whatever the fashionable hypothesis du jour is/ arguments in the debate, but it doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful about IQ in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Plenty of white slaves but you don't learn that on school http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
At times I still get emotional

---

I lol'd

'as for frag, you can say that slavery is not principally rascist and i would agree, but to say that the american slavery is not rascist is just wrong. '

Did I miss something

no, it was related to the article you posted. i didnt mean that you said that personally. sorry if i did not make that clear.

Chattel slavery esp. as it was practiced in the new world was fundamentally different than much of the slavery that was practiced in the old. Not that either was particularly comfortable mind you but there are distinict differences. Not that I really feel any guilt over it, There are certain positions I empathize with the black community on because of it and how it has shaped that group socially and culturaly but I'm not going to get on my knees and bob for the apple either

Now as per Race and Intelligence

Let's first off assume we have concrete definitions for both of those things as they are two of the most fluid words in the kings English. Many of you here are talking past each other becuase you haven't set your parameters, many of you are simply here to confrim your anecdotal biasis. Some indispuitable, demonstrable facts

-IQ Test scores have been rising each year since the IQ started being Aminstered
-It is documented that in a multi racial society the race which is seen as "lesser" will eventually come to emulate that. This theory holds true even for Koreans in Japan who by the arc of this thread should show no difference.
-Education, nutrirtion and a cultural value on education have been shown to be much more statistically valueuble than race.

These other factors are so much more important it makes talking about race redundanent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

no, it was related to the article you posted. i didnt mean that you said that personally. sorry if i did not make that clear.

---

np mia muca

'So when it comes to these little studies that “follow” a few subjects over the years, the alarm bells should be going off. No way that this is anywhere near a large data set, no way that this is anywhere near controlled enough. So as research it is not entirely useless: it provides data points for testing whatever the fashionable hypothesis du jour is/ arguments in the debate, but it doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful about IQ in general.'

You know perfectly well that statistical probabilty is always taken into the equation. It doesn't say much that is true, modern pshycholigy destuingishes 6 types of intelligence including curving a ball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You know perfectly well that statistical probabilty is always taken into the equation. It doesn't say much that is true, modern pshycholigy destuingishes 6 types of intelligence including curving a ball

---

Yes, yes it is. So much so we have a whopping accuracy of +/- 3 points on each test, which is only like 2-3% of the total score. On a population of millions that's nothing, riiiiiiiiiight? Let's put it this way, if you tried to sell medicine with studies that are anywhere near that level of accuracy statistical irrelevance you'd first not get past the regulations, and second you'd get sued out of business if you did from disgruntled people who weren't aware of the effects that happen with “only” 2% chance.

That's the whole point: statistics are all good fun when you have a population of millions to talk about, but I don't see that study comprising millions of test subjects, do you? With something as highly variable as IQ all you can say at the end of a small scale study is “well those subjects here have comparatively high IQ, and those there don't”. You can't extrapolate the results in a meaningful way, precisely because you don't know which of those variables is relevant. For all we know it could be the food, or the water.

For a Mathematics analogy: I have a black box function that maps 20 different stochastic variables onto a 21st one (IQ). You don't know what those 20 ones are, so you have to guess. Now try and find me a definition of the function that, given each possible input will produce the correct output.

You being the clever scientist you are, you try and keep 19 of those the same while attempting to take samples of the 20th one and observe the function result. Yet you don't actually know how it works, you don't actually know whether or not you are controlling for the *right* variables and you don't actually know whether or not your sample is representative.

To top it all off, there is on average less genetic difference between an American Africans and a WASP than there is between two WASPs or two African Americans....

Everything can be reversed using the same data, cause and effect is always chicken&egg. But it's still the same test everywhere, is it important no it isn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Everything can be reversed using the same data, cause and effect is always chicken&egg. But it's still the same test everywhere, is it important no it isn't

---

Is your Dutch as cryptic as your English? Is that what gets those little Dutch tulips all hot and bothered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Is your Dutch as cryptic as your English? Is that what gets those little Dutch tulips all hot and bothered?

---

TA gets it, chicken and the egg: what came first.

the muca

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Some indispuitable, demonstrable facts

-IQ Test scores have been rising each year since the IQ started being Aminstered
-It is documented that in a multi racial society the race which is seen as "lesser" will eventually come to emulate that. This theory holds true even for Koreans in Japan who by the arc of this thread should show no difference.
-Education, nutrirtion and a cultural value on education have been shown to be much more statistically valueuble than race.

These other factors are so much more important it makes talking about race redundanent.

---

They may be facts but they all have enough complications within themselves for us to question if they are really more reliable variables than race.

About the first point, I think that can be largely attributed to people getting more 'fly' for tests, and apprently this trend has now more or less levelled off. It also doesn't explain how those of different races that went through the same education system would have significantly different results. There have been studies that address this point in relation to race.

Now the second point about Koreans in Japan. It is a good point but it raises even more questions. If a Korean in Korea normally scores as well as a Japanese person in Japan, then it would seem likely that a Korean in Japan scoring more lowly might be due to culture/education, presuming they went over as immigrants taking the poorer jobs. In that scenario, to see how important education was you would have to compare the results of the low class Koreans in Japan with the lower-class Koreans in Korea.

I wouldn't be surprised if education accounted for that difference, but it just doesn't compare to the differences in IQ seen between blacks and whites in America. Since having been integrated into America's white-created education system, black peoples' IQ has increased, although remains lagging quite significantly. You then have to wonder why this gap remains - if someone were to point out that these black Americans have roots in countries with extremely low average IQs, that's a valid point. We are still left wondering how far race, culture and education each contribute to these differences.

And as for the final point, it doesn't address the issue of causation. A culture that does not value education could very well be a product of the frustration that a group of people have had as a result of their failure in the education system. Or their culture could simply reflect their own natural aversion to pursuing education.

Of course culture is something that is heavily conflated with race. However when the two are separated as individual variables, I've already provided an example of a study which showed that race proved the factor which caused variations in results.

I know I am taking the unpopular position here but people on the other side just seem to be too complacent, whether by dismissing IQ tests completely or refusing to acknowledge the possibility of any sort of racial differences just because things might not be as simple as some people imagine them to be.

i dont know much about korean immigration to japan but i think that, looking at the japanese economy etc, that it is more likely the upper class koreans, the grad students, that will move from korea to japan then the lowerclass, farmer type.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDii69YCh_Q

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

Now the second point about Koreans in Japan. It is a good point but it raises even more questions. If a Korean in Korea normally scores as well as a Japanese person in Japan, then it would seem likely that a Korean in Japan scoring more lowly might be due to culture/education, presuming they went over as immigrants taking the poorer jobs. In that scenario, to see how important education was you would have to compare the results of the low class Koreans in Japan with the lower-class Koreans in Korea.

---

The minority position can be summarized as this. Start a test with a dumb blonde joke and you'll drop the IQ of the blondes in the group. It's that sensitive to have a visible effect.

And the blacks and slavery issue is touching on epigenetics. It's fast enough be influencial in a few generations. And slavery isn't exactly having a positive influence on intelligence. Now is that an issue today, it would atleast disappear in a few generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

First off, can you stop referring to people with racist beliefs as "a racist". It's dehumanising. Racism is an aspect of a person's beliefs, not a descriptor for their entire being. You wouldn't say to somebody, "hey, so you're a gay", would you? Or "oh, you're a black".

And in any case, you don't know how racist people think or why they believe what they do.

And I get the feeling that facts won't make you change your beliefs either.

---

I lol'd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Chattel slavery esp. as it was practiced in the new world was fundamentally different than much of the slavery that was practiced in the old. Not that either was particularly comfortable mind you but there are distinict differences. Not that I really feel any guilt over it, There are certain positions I empathize with the black community on because of it and how it has shaped that group socially and culturaly but I'm not going to get on my knees and bob for the apple either

Now as per Race and Intelligence

Let's first off assume we have concrete definitions for both of those things as they are two of the most fluid words in the kings English. Many of you here are talking past each other becuase you haven't set your parameters, many of you are simply here to confrim your anecdotal biasis. Some indispuitable, demonstrable facts

-IQ Test scores have been rising each year since the IQ started being Aminstered
-It is documented that in a multi racial society the race which is seen as "lesser" will eventually come to emulate that. This theory holds true even for Koreans in Japan who by the arc of this thread should show no difference.
-Education, nutrirtion and a cultural value on education have been shown to be much more statistically valueuble than race.

These other factors are so much more important it makes talking about race redundanent.

---

Amen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Everything can be reversed using the same data, cause and effect is always chicken&egg.

---

Well, partly. But here in the now it is clear that the current model egg precedes the current model chicken. The problem arises when you can't tell the egg from the chicken, or aren't even aware of the existence of either.

Still I submit that if ever you try your hand at recursion you should be careful with that chicken&egg philosophy, you may just lose yourself.

Quote:

---

is it important no it isn't

---

And here I was, thinking you disagreed with that line of reasoning:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You see any reason to dismiss it's importance?

---

Strike's knowledge of this subject, and other's ignorance of it, creates a nice juxtaposition.

what subject? its like 3 topics in one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

what subject? its like 3 topics in one...

---

Everything, Strike is God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Strike's knowledge of this subject, and other's ignorance of it, creates a nice juxtaposition.

---

So far all my points have been met with is three statements that were presented as facts but were in fact nothing more than conjecture, followed by a chorus of "hallelujah".

i dont think he was being serious

I can find citations if you wish....

"Race" and intellegence is such a murky subject. As evidenced by this thread we can't even agree what exactly race is and all of us have been taught in the same Western European style. We are a small, common sample group and we can't even define our question!

As a matter of utilizing race/intellegence to make public policy decisons....it wouldn't even crack my top ten. If there was ever any evidence that intellegence is somewhat hereditary (which some scientists think there may be) it still ranks much lower in making up what we conceive to be intellegence.

Quote:

---

They may be facts but they all have enough complications within themselves for us to question if they are really more reliable variables than race.

---

That's like your opinion man

Quote:

---

About the first point, I think that can be largely attributed to people getting more 'fly' for tests, and apprently this trend has now more or less levelled off. It also doesn't explain how those of different races that went through the same education system would have significantly different results. There have been studies that address this point in relation to race.

---

Damn, that's allot of Jensen citations. I know the man is considerd the godfather of "non-racist" hereidtary intellegence but damn. I would also point out in Jensens watershed reasearch he does concede one of the problems was how black children are conditioned by society. Immigrants from Africa socre much higher, now granted many of the immigrants are professionals but if there is such a statistically significgant gap we should see something. There are so many more layers to this before we even breach race, and even if we concede a 20 point IQ differential we have to ask if IQ is even a valid way to measure itellegence.

Quote:

---

Now the second point about Koreans in Japan. It is a good point but it raises even more questions. If a Korean in Korea normally scores as well as a Japanese person in Japan, then it would seem likely that a Korean in Japan scoring more lowly might be due to culture/education, presuming they went over as immigrants taking the poorer jobs. In that scenario, to see how important education was you would have to compare the results of the low class Koreans in Japan with the lower-class Koreans in Korea.

---

But as east Asians they should be scoring around the same, shouldn't they? They are marginalized as a group and there culture shows it

Quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if education accounted for that difference, but it just doesn't compare to the differences in IQ seen between blacks and whites in America. Since having been integrated into America's white-created education system, black peoples' IQ has increased, although remains lagging quite significantly. You then have to wonder why this gap remains - if someone were to point out that these black Americans have roots in countries with extremely low average IQs, that's a valid point. We are still left wondering how far race, culture and education each contribute to these differences.

---

The American school system is more segragated than it has ever been and the lions share of black children go to underfunded, overcrowded, piss poor public schools. Couple that with generations of people who have no history of education with a society that has a set defnition of how you should act (esp. if you are a male) and we have so much more to think about before we get to race. I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts the above factors matter exponentially more than some flimsy, western construct of race.

Quote:

---

And as for the final point, it doesn't address the issue of causation. A culture that does not value education could very well be a product of the frustration that a group of people have had as a result of their failure in the education system. Or their culture could simply reflect their own natural aversion to pursuing education.

---

No human has a natural aversion to learning, if we did we'd by dead. Now certain cultures in Western society may have an aversion to our style of education (which I don't think for a second is biologicaly ingrained but I digress) but that brings us back to the question of what is intellgence and how do we measure it.

Quote:

---

Of course culture is something that is heavily conflated with race. However when the two are separated as individual variables, I've already provided an example of a study which showed that race proved the factor which caused variations in results.

---

The adoption study?

Quote:

---

I know I am taking the unpopular position here but people on the other side just seem to be too complacent, whether by dismissing IQ tests completely or refusing to acknowledge the possibility of any sort of racial differences just because things might not be as simple as some people imagine them to be.

---

And you haven't set your parameters or defined your variables. Are we looking at intellegence differences between White Americans and black Americans based on IQ tests? Or have we defined these massively broad topics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

So far all my points have been met with is three statements that were presented as facts but were in fact nothing more than conjecture, followed by a chorus of "hallelujah".

---

People generally don't care about how good their arguments are in a case like this because they are mainly winning a little moral victory for themselves over the enemy. Some people prefer to do little else because they find it reassuring. But I would just let them...I don't think racial IQ is worth researching, not even to debunk the silly things said about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

People generally don't care about how good their arguments are in a case like this because they are mainly winning a little moral victory for themselves over the enemy. Some people prefer to do little else because they find it reassuring. But I would just let them...I don't think racial IQ is worth researching, not even to debunk the silly things said about it.

---

That hurts my feelings :sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

That hurts my feelings :sad:

---

lol, rather than name anyone specifically I chose to insult everyone I guess. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

People generally don't care about how good their arguments are in a case like this because they are mainly winning a little moral victory for themselves over the enemy. Some people prefer to do little else because they find it reassuring. But I would just let them...I don't think racial IQ is worth researching, not even to debunk the silly things said about it.

---

Yeah I've found the attitudes of some of the 'freethinkers' in this thread to be a bit uninspiring.

But Strike gave a good reply above, I'll get round to replying later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

And here I was, thinking you disagreed with that line of reasoning:

---

I don't, but it is of value. Back to chicken egg, are these area's poor because of low IQ or are IQ's low because these area's are poor. Either way there is a correlation.

there is a different option. there is a cause not yet specified by you that causes both the poverty as well as the low IQ. there is still correlation between the low IQ and poverty but neither caused the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

there is a different option. there is a cause not yet specified by you that causes both the poverty as well as the low IQ. there is still correlation between the low IQ and poverty but neither caused the other.

---

If you mean it's genetic, I don't go into that. Not that I have anything against racial theorists but I'm not playing

that is one scenario. i didnt mean that specifically. im just saying that there could be another option besides what you just said. enviroment could be another (the wide continent vs narrow long continent theory)

First off, sorry for taking so long after I said I would reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

"Race" and intellegence is such a murky subject. As evidenced by this thread we can't even agree what exactly race is and all of us have been taught in the same Western European style. We are a small, common sample group and we can't even define our question!

---

I think we have all agreed that race is something quite fluid, and not, well... all black and white. While this means we might each define the term 'race' differently, we can still debate the points tha have been brought up without talking past each other. What one person calls a racial difference, another person might view as just the standard process of traits being passed on hereditarily through generations. We can agree on the facts, while still having semantic differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

As a matter of utilizing race/intellegence to make public policy decisons....it wouldn't even crack my top ten. If there was ever any evidence that intellegence is somewhat hereditary (which some scientists think there may be) it still ranks much lower in making up what we conceive to be intellegence.

---

This I would agree with and in in particular the prospect of any race/intelligence relationship being used in policy making seems horrific to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

That's like your opinion man

---

Well, it is a fact that correlation does not always equal causation. When somebody wishes to present a causational relationship as a fact, the burden of proof lies with them to say why the relationship must be causational, and not merely complementary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Damn, that's allot of Jensen citations. I know the man is considerd the godfather of "non-racist" hereidtary intellegence but damn. I would also point out in Jensens watershed reasearch he does concede one of the problems was how black children are conditioned by society. Immigrants from Africa socre much higher, now granted many of the immigrants are professionals but if there is such a statistically significgant gap we should see something. There are so many more layers to this before we even breach race, and even if we concede a 20 point IQ differential we have to ask if IQ is even a valid way to measure itellegen

---

I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to get into the nitty-gritty of all of this, I simply wished to point out the possibility of a racial factor still being on the cards. I'm just going to fling my hands in the air and concede that this is all still an ongoing debate in academic circles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

But as east Asians they should be scoring around the same, shouldn't they? They are marginalized as a group and there culture shows it

---

Certainly, education/culture seems the most likely factor in this case. Although I would like to point out that I always said that education would most likely be an important factor, of which race would simply be another. Crucially, do you know how big the IQ gap is in this Korean example, and how it compares to the cases where the divide is racial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The American school system is more segragated than it has ever been and the lions share of black children go to underfunded, overcrowded, piss poor public schools. Couple that with generations of people who have no history of education with a society that has a set defnition of how you should act (esp. if you are a male) and we have so much more to think about before we get to race. I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts the above factors matter exponentially more than some flimsy, western construct of race.

---

These are all valid points. But just as with the points I raised, we are only hypothesising until we look at some solid studies that isolate these variables and their impact on IQ.

And while defining your terms and parameters is important, I think maybe we can be a bit too strict sometimes. Obviously, when these things can be set in stone, they should be. But the fact that some concepts may be a bit too abstract to place into such a rigid framework doesn't mean we should abandon studying them entirely. Indeed, finding an agreeable definition for a term can be the very purpose of a debate, and IMO that is at least part of what is going on here.

I mean, I could ask what on earth a "western" construct is supposed to mean, and why it is automatically assumed that I'm advocating it. But I know what you are getting at, so I roll with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

No human has a natural aversion to learning, if we did we'd by dead. Now certain cultures in Western society may have an aversion to our style of education (which I don't think for a second is biologicaly ingrained but I digress) but that brings us back to the question of what is intellgence and how do we measure it.

---

I should have been clearer, I meant western style education, rather than any sort of learning per se. I will grant that IQ may be far from the only kind of intelligence there is, but if there were to be racial differences in different kinds of intelligence, then that would be no less worth considering that intelligence in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The adoption study?

---

That's the one I was referring to, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

And you haven't set your parameters or defined your variables. Are we looking at intellegence differences between White Americans and black Americans based on IQ tests? Or have we defined these massively broad topics?

---

We're looking at what we're looking at. IQ may well not be the be all and end all of intelligence, but if IQ differences exist I'm going to ask why. Likewise skin colour isn't the be all and end all of race, but if differences in skin colour coincide with differences in intelligence, I'm going to ask why. As I said earlier, this debate may be less about rigidly categorising 'races' and then studying the facts in that framework; and more about improving our understanding of what race means by studying the facts beforehand.

'As I said earlier, this debate may be less about rigidly categorising 'races' and then studying the facts in that framework; and more about improving our understanding of what race means by studying the facts beforehand.'

What good would it do, there is no way for it to be of any use, we can't base any policy on the results. Won't upset me either when someone looks into it though, to be offended is hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What good would it do, there is no way for it to be of any use, we can't base any policy on the results. Won't upset me either when someone looks into it though, to be offended is hypocrite.

---

It would remove much of the justification for affirmative action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

It would remove much of the justification for affirmative action.

---

Let idiots be idiots, better to just ignore affirmative action crazies, asking them to take the lead also helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

what subject? its like 3 topics in one...

---

That is the problem when you have an OP that is not focused on one subject and wanders into other topics. Confusion reigns. The title says something about Free Speech, but that does not seem to reflect the OP. We are talking aboutt QI, when I don't see too much intelligence in this thread to begin with.

Does't mean it isn't there , as you said you don't see it

If we're not going to utilize whatever sort of demonstrable results we get from these studies for policy what is the point of talking about this?

Unless someone argues to the contrary, I feel like race and intellegence has about as much merit as does a comparison of long and short muscle fibers between the same people

I have grown weary of this topic, you may all go home now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

If we're not going to utilize whatever sort of demonstrable results we get from these studies for policy what is the point of talking about this?

---

Because it furthers our understanding of the world around us?

I would think that the majority of topics that we study aren't directly related to political policy-making.

And like I said it is related to policies like affirmative action. I'm not one of these people that is enraged by the racism of it, I can completely understand that it had a time and a place, and that sometimes you have to bulldoze your way through to equality when a group of people have been held down by serious oppression. But that time is not today.