I apologize to everyone.

Over this next quarter, I will have to read the entire book, "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander. So if all my arguments are straight regurgitation from the book, it's because I will be spending my time writing a paper every week on a different aspect of the books arguments.

I promise I will do better when I am not force fed this book after my quarter is over.

Is that a new kind of bourbon or something?

Force-fed whiskey? doesn't sound all bad but keep your regurgitation to yourself please.

If I was force fed whiskey I would die easily, since I don't drink.

I live and act like a devout Mormon in many ways, even though I am an atheist (I go out of my way to not drink coffee because I don't want to become reliant on the caffeine). My alcohol tolerance is approximately 0%.

Liquor tastes like soap to me. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I live and act like a devout Mormon in many ways

---

Magical underwear nonwithstanding?

~Jirisys ()

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

Magical underwear nonwithstanding?

~Jirisys ()

---

For those like me who wondered what that was about:

:on_gwow:

http://youtu.be/6cbfgmorIGE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Liquor tastes like soap to me. :confused:

---

I suggest changing the labels of your booze.

I looked at the book on Amazon. Looks like a good one; if it had been on Kindle I would have bought it.

The intro sound like heavy conformation bias for me, so I don't know how much help I will be in any discussion, but I look forward to hearing about your exploration of the book :)

What's the book about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Liquor tastes like soap to me. :confused:

---

I always thought of alcohol tasting more as like Nail-varnish remover (Which has alcohol in it, go figure).

You guys are aware that Johnson and Johnson is not a Bourbon brand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

What's the book about?

---

Simplistically (from my scan of the intro): race/caste and how to keep everyone in their proper place.

I have read the book in university setting.

PM me if you need anything

Or want noodz

The book is about the socioeconomic effects of the war on drugs on the african american community in America. Essentially, the double standards towards middle class white drug users and lower class black drug users is in effect a New Jim Crow that represses African Americans relative to whites and other ethnicities in that the longer jail times and tougher penalties given to blacks mean a relatively more unstable family life back home as black children go fatherless or longer periods of time, if they even get to have quality time with a father. This further perpetuates the state of poverty many blacks find themselves in, since the white father gets to stick around and care for his child, usually only paying a heavy fee or a small amount of jail time while the black father is locked away for most the of the child's upbringing.

I'm sure I am completely lacking the details that actually brings the argument together, but like I said, I have not actually read the book. I have only seen interviews the author has done.

I recall PanzerJeager wrote a lengthy post on his opposition to the claims the book makes somewhere a few months back. But **** me if I am going to find it in the pages of Backroom threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

Magical underwear nonwithstanding?

~Jirisys ()

---

lol, no lucky underwear. But I do have a lucky shirt I have worn since middle school.

I dare you to fact study how IQ between the races play a part, not to mention hormonal, adrenaline (aso) levels... Also throw in a meme argument or two "This is how green surroundings have told off kids for generations, this is how purple people have told off kids for generations).

If half the population is green coloured, more prone to rage, and generally more stupid, it also have a snowball effect... Someone green not prone to rage and quite smart will be shorthanded on the open market, where others see him/her just as "green". This makes the cultural bias larger than the actual physical difference.

But yeah... I'm not sure if that road of science is acceptable in your university settings ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I dare you to fact study how IQ between the races play a part, not to mention hormonal, adrenaline (aso) levels... Also throw in a meme argument or two "This is how green surroundings have told off kids for generations, this is how purple people have told off kids for generations).

If half the population is green coloured, more prone to rage, and generally more stupid, it also have a snowball effect... Someone green not prone to rage and quite smart will be shorthanded on the open market, where others see him/her just as "green". This makes the cultural bias larger than the actual physical difference.

But yeah... I'm not sure if that road of science is acceptable in your university settings ;)

---

Glad to see the spirit of Cecil Rhodes still hasn't died. And America is apparently the racist country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The book is about the socioeconomic effects of the war on drugs on the african american community in America. Essentially, the double standards towards middle class white drug users and lower class black drug users is in effect a New Jim Crow that represses African Americans relative to whites and other ethnicities in that the longer jail times and tougher penalties given to blacks mean a relatively more unstable family life back home as black children go fatherless or longer periods of time, if they even get to have quality time with a father. This further perpetuates the state of poverty many blacks find themselves in, since the white father gets to stick around and care for his child, usually only paying a heavy fee or a small amount of jail time while the black father is locked away for most the of the child's upbringing.

I'm sure I am completely lacking the details that actually brings the argument together, but like I said, I have not actually read the book. I have only seen interviews the author has done.

I recall PanzerJeager wrote a lengthy post on his opposition to the claims the book makes somewhere a few months back. But **** me if I am going to find it in the pages of Backroom threads.

---

I am curious why it would not compare middle class whites with middle class blacks, and lower class whites with lower class blacks.

I understand full well that money tends to get people off when in court, and that designer drugs are more indicative of the middle class, etc..... but this Jim Crow talk hints of some national conspiracy. While I certainly believe marijuana and heroin laws very much started out in that spirit in the early 1900s, I find it hard to swallow any more, particularly with the number of minority judges we have these days

However, I would be curious to know if the incarceration rates between poor white trailer trash meth users is really that much different than the rates of poor black crack users. Same with poor white weed convictions vs poor black weed convictions.

Assuming this is still an epidemic, how do we fix it? Do we implement the reverse of mandatory sentencing, and say anyone of race X must receive a prison sentence -30% as harsh as whitey gets for the same crime. Is that not the spirit of quotas, and of the reasoning that the oppressed cannot truly become equal until the former oppressors suffer as bad as the formerly oppressed did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Glad to see the spirit of Cecil Rhodes still hasn't died. And America is apparently the racist country.

---

Elaborate?




EDIT: As an example, I for one - if I had two equal candidates to join my sprint team or marathon team - would go with a black guy before a white guy.

Why?

Because the odds are with me on the negroe progressing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I dare you to fact study how IQ between the races play a part, not to mention hormonal, adrenaline (aso) levels... Also throw in a meme argument or two "This is how green surroundings have told off kids for generations, this is how purple people have told off kids for generations).

If half the population is green coloured, more prone to rage, and generally more stupid, it also have a snowball effect... Someone green not prone to rage and quite smart will be shorthanded on the open market, where others see him/her just as "green". This makes the cultural bias larger than the actual physical difference.

But yeah... I'm not sure if that road of science is acceptable in your university settings ;)

---

It's rather controversial for obvious reasons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Bell_Curve

I haven't read it mind you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Because the odds are with me on the negroe progressing more.

---

El negro quiere bailar.

http://journals.witpress.com/paperin...=400&width=600

~Jirisys ()

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

El negro quiere bailar.

http://journals.witpress.com/paperin...=400&width=600

~Jirisys ()

---

Thanks for the link pointing at the physical side of things, and the quote on the cultural factor :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Elaborate?

EDIT: As an example, I for one - if I had two equal candidates to join my sprint team or marathon team - would go with a black guy before a white guy.

Why?

Because the odds are with me on the negroe progressing more.

---

The minute you brought up IQ scores with a serious face was when I really stopped taking your argument for anything other than racism. Why did you even bother substituting black with green in your original analogy? Just say what you are thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The minute you brought up IQ scores with a serious face was when I really stopped taking your argument for anything other than racism. Why did you even bother substituting black with green in your original analogy? Just say what you are thinking.

---

Bringing up IQ is of course racism as it suggests differences between races, but what if that is simply true. Why wouldn't it be true for humans if it's true for dogs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The minute you brought up IQ scores with a serious face was when I really stopped taking your argument for anything other than racism. Why did you even bother substituting black with green in your original analogy? Just say what you are thinking.

---

Why I substituted black with green? To show the cultural factor, You for one immediately assume I talk about blacks when I mention a human subgroup prone to anger and stupidity.

Why are we pretending like these physical and cultural differences doesn't exist? Am I in todays world supposed to BOTH consider myself intellectual AND think all human races are equal in every regard, all actual facts aside?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Bringing up IQ is of course racism as it suggests differences between races, but what if that is simply true. Why wouldn't it be true for humans if it's true for dogs

---

Different breeds of dogs have been experiencing very strong artificial selection by humans for different traits for thousands of years. No one has been doing the same for humans.

Define "race".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Why I substituted black with green? To show the cultural factor, You for one immediately assume I talk about blacks when I mention a human subgroup prone to anger and stupidity.

Why are we pretending like these physical and cultural differences doesn't exist? Am I in todays world supposed to BOTH consider myself intellectual AND think all human races are equal in every regard, all actual facts aside?

---

No one is pretending these cultural differences don't exist. That's the point of the book is to try and show why these cultural differences exist. What's incredibly perplexing is how eager people are to start calling the blacks and the browns naturally dumb when books like The New Jim Crow make it a point to show just how much the physical differences we may perceive are in fact a result of cultural oppression and chains that whites continue to support.

It's racist white Europeans that try to pass the buck on why Africa is so fucked up. When you abandon a continent with arbitrary drawn lines that run right through multiple tribal lands and say "here's democracy! Now it's all on you if you fuck up!", you should not be surprised if 50 years later, there is still violence and power struggles.

It's racist americans that try to pass the buck on why so many African Americans are in jail. When you finally dismantle a system of active segregation and suppression but neglect to actually you know, change the tone of entire of body laws that still exist besides the Civil Rights Act and then say, "Look we let you vote now! Any problems you have is your fault now!"...yeah you should not be surprised when 50 years later there are still systemic issues within the african american community. And no, idealistic liberal laws that tried to force blacks and whites to be buddy-buddy did nothing to change the tone of the general body of laws that we all live by. Blacks were actively repressed socioeconomically up until 50 years ago and the laws have always punished the poor the hardest. So even though you are now no longer kicking a man while he is down, you are still sitting on his head and asking him why he is struggling so hard to stand up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Define "race".

---

Easy, in general whites, blacks, asians and arabs.

The world IQ-map shows the obvious differences. Asians are the smartest and blacks the dumbest. You don't have to like that but it's true

The problem is that the word Arab doesn't mean anything​.

Most "race" terminology papers over a huge amount of diversity; part of its power. Its easier to demonize/extol "classes" that bear no real relation to facts.

I'm curious about how the book deals with cause/effect relations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

The problem is that the word Arab doesn't mean anything​.

---

There is such a thing as Arab, they live in northern-africa and the middle-east, and it's impossible to deny that the average IQ is lower there. Also here they perform poorly in general, you will hardly find them in the top-tiers of education, much unlike Asians who outdo us whiteboys in just about every way, especially with Starcraft. It's not a matter of judgement but acceptance of the fact that there are differences. Being more intelligent isn't necesarily a good thing anyway, in Japan where they have the highest IQ they also have some deeply social problems

Yeah, why don't you tell me what exactly constitutes an Arab. Because I'm sure you know exactly what you're talking about.

Let me put it differently: in many countries that are part of the Arab League, the nomer "Arab" is put on everyone that speaks Arabic as their mother language, regardless of their "ethnic" origins. This is the single thing that seperates "Arabs" from "Berbers", for example. Interestingly, the Aramaic-speaking communities of Syria and Iraq are often called Arabs as well, even though there has been a trend amongst these communities to self-identify as Chaldaeans or Assyrians. Do you have any idea about how arbitrary these terms are?

Let me give an example. Maltese is defined by many linguists as an Arabic language. Do you think the Maltese are generally less intelligent than other European communities? How about the Maronite Cypriots, who speak their own dialect of Arabic? The Arabic-speaking communities of Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkey? How do they fit into your neat list of idiotic people?

In other words, these so-called "ethnic" terms are completely arbitrary and more often than not (especially in history) refer to the place where somebody was born, rather than their actual ethnic background.

This is as much as I need http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&au...7EW_cTNSzCM%3A

Wrong about Australia by the way, but you can find others, this one is better http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&au...iJxTX6yPWpM%3A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

It's racist white Europeans that try to pass the buck on why Africa is so fucked up. When you abandon a continent with arbitrary drawn lines that run right through multiple tribal lands and say "here's democracy! Now it's all on you if you fuck up!", you should not be surprised if 50 years later, there is still violence and power struggles.

---

That would be the fault of American anti colonialism pressure making us leave too quickly to sort out any of the borders properly.

Personally I think we should have incorperated them into our own democracy, stayed together in a reforged federation of equals instead of just breaking up, but that's just me, pointing out that national self determination isnt the cure all end all you guys attest it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

This is as much as I need http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&au...7EW_cTNSzCM%3A

---

[sarcasm] Yes because iq is the perfect intelligence indicator and totally takes into account the lack of educational capabilities causing it instead of "natural stupidity" [/sarcasm]

If we would consider that as well it only gets worse, because by our standards most that were born here and that did an education here are retarded as well

But then again, that goes for Dutch people too, as you aptly demonstrate with each post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Yeah, why don't you tell me what exactly constitutes an Arab. Because I'm sure you know exactly what you're talking about.

---

Nitpicking over the particulars doesn't really take away anything from the general point. OK, Arab nationalists love to argue over who is the 'purest' Arabs, and maybe some people living in what is generally considered the Arab-world are in fact from other minorites. Yeah, maybe a tiny island in the Mediterranean Sea which has been politically and culturally removed from the rest of that world for centuries might offer a conundrum, but there's no need to get bogged down in atypical cases.

*****

As for the main thread topic, racial differences are simply an extension of the principle behind family differences. They are not only possible - they are a necessary consequence of the way we reproduce.

However, the War on Drugs has had a crippling effect on black communities, and does a lot more to explain their problems than racial differences themselves. I think people underestimate the extent of the problems people have in staying out of trouble when they are brought up in an environment of gangs, drugs, violence and a sense of opposition to anything seen as being part of the 'establishment'. Combine that with a poor/troubled upbringing and no hope of achieving anything through education, then what are they supposed to do? They're human so they are going to start dealing drugs or doing what they can to improve their lives and keep a tough/respected image in what is a very violent environment. I've seen this in the UK in white communities, from what I've seen in documentaries or read online its much the same in the USA, it just happens to be that most poor people there are black.

At the same time, while the War of Drugs does affect black communities more than white ones, as MRD points out, their vulnerability in this respect is at least largely due to their socioeconomic rather than ethnic status. Poor communities suffer disproportionate legal and social costs as a result of it - black communities tend to be poor so they are more likely to be affected. But don't forget there is a white underclass too. It would be more helpful to talk about the problems in social rather than racial terms.

In fact, breaking up the human species (which here we take to exist in fact) into anything fewer than some thousands of distinct races is nothing short of irresponsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Elaborate?

EDIT: As an example, I for one - if I had two equal candidates to join my sprint team or marathon team - would go with a black guy before a white guy.

Why?

Because the odds are with me on the negroe progressing more.

---

You should also pick the Swedish hockey player and the Norweigian skiier, because the success of the group identity will influence their results. And it's around there things get really messy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Easy, in general whites, blacks, asians and arabs.

The world IQ-map shows the obvious differences. Asians are the smartest and blacks the dumbest. You don't have to like that but it's true

---

Swing and a miss.

There's a lot of nonsense posted in the Backroom, but your claims on world IQ-scores is definitely the worst. Not only is your point rubbish - even worse is it that the data you back your claims on doesn't even exist.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry, it's just so pathetic I simply do not know where to begin.

Sorry about that pick any you want http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&au...COHW0QXoxIGICw

Quote:

---

Nitpicking over the particulars doesn't really take away anything from the general point. OK, Arab nationalists love to argue over who is the 'purest' Arabs, and maybe some people living in what is generally considered the Arab-world are in fact from other minorites. Yeah, maybe a tiny island in the Mediterranean Sea which has been politically and culturally removed from the rest of that world for centuries might offer a conundrum, but there's no need to get bogged down in atypical cases.

---

...no, it's not, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there is no such thing as "the purest Arab", hell, there's not really anything such as an "Arab" anyway. Compare and contrast the province of Arabia Petraea back in Roman time with the southern-most tip of the Arabian peninsula (Yemen). Do you honestly believe the exact same people were living there? We only call it Arabia because the Greek and Roman writers referred to everything behind the ante-Lebanon as "Arabia". They don't speak the same language and they don't look like one another.

Someone please explain to me the justification for comparing lower class blacks with middle class whites, and not lower vs lower and middle vs middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

...no, it's not, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there is no such thing as "the purest Arab", hell, there's not really anything such as an "Arab" anyway. Compare and contrast the province of Arabia Petraea back in Roman time with the southern-most tip of the Arabian peninsula (Yemen). Do you honestly believe the exact same people were living there? We only call it Arabia because the Greek and Roman writers referred to everything behind the ante-Lebanon as "Arabia". They don't speak the same language and they don't look like one another.

---

I know enough to know that you are trying to muddy the waters by deliberately using the most controversial examples. First Malta, and now you mention Yemen, where I am aware there is controversy over their ethnic origins because of their history as a more urbanised society in ancient times, and their connections to Ethiopia.

Yeah, I get that the geographic landmass of Arabia and the Arabs as a distinct ethnic group are two different things. Terminology changes. But when we are talking about Arabs in this thread, it is a reference to a collection of bedouin tribes from 6-7th century Arabian peninsula that spread their culture and to varying extents their gene pool across parts of North Africa and the Middle-East over the next few centuries, and in doing so created a cultural and genetic legacy that still exists today. For all the variations, the common langauge, cultural, and religious roots are evidence of this.

deleted post; ooops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Someone please explain to me the justification for comparing lower class blacks with middle class whites, and not lower vs lower and middle vs middle.

---

I've noticed this with America - social problems tend to be expressed as race issues rather than social issues. It could be because there is a lot of racial awareness and idenfication, but far less (for want of a better word) 'class' awareness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Someone please explain to me the justification for comparing lower class blacks with middle class whites, and not lower vs lower and middle vs middle.

---

If that is how the book breaks down populations for comparison, it could be a serious flaw. Since I have not read the book I'll have to wait for ACIN to clarify what's going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Sorry about that pick any you want http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&au...COHW0QXoxIGICw

---

....and not a single one of those have any academic merit whatsoever. That was the point, Frags.

If you had any clue as to what you're talking about, you would've known those maps to be absolute rubbish.

Quote:

---

I know enough to know that you are trying to muddy the waters by deliberately using the most controversial examples. First Malta, and now you mention Yemen, where I am aware there is controversy over their ethnic origins because of their history as a more urbanised society in ancient times, and their connections to Ethiopia.

Yeah, I get that the geographic landmass of Arabia and the Arabs as a distinct ethnic group are two different things. Terminology changes. But when we are talking about Arabs in this thread, it is a reference to a collection of bedouin tribes from 6-7th century Arabian peninsula that spread their culture and to varying extents their gene pool across parts of North Africa and the Middle-East over the next few centuries, and in doing so created a cultural and genetic legacy that still exists today. For all the variations, the common langauge, cultural, and religious roots are evidence of this.

---

Right, and how much do we know about this particular period? I'm not deliberately picking this example to muddy the waters, it's because this is a subject I know a lot about.

Whatever, Yemen/Malta. Could have picked Morocco or Algeria, where self-identification as an Arab still has much more to do with the language people speak at home, rather than haplogroups or whatever. The cultural legacy I can *sort of* understand, but you don't honestly believe that all the Arabic-speaking inhabitants of Egypt (the largest Arabic country in the world) were imported from the Arabian peninsula? The same goes for the inhabitants of Iraq, large parts of the Levant and the entirety of North Africa, up to Sudan and Niger. Additionally, there are more Arabic-speakers in Africa than there are in Asia. Have you ever looked at a Somali? You of all people, would you go along gladly if you were identified as "English" because you speak English?

I chose the example of Arabs and Arabic to demonstrate that the notion of a ethno-linguistic notion doesn't really make any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I've noticed this with America - social problems tend to be expressed as race issues rather than social issues. It could be because there is a lot of racial awareness and idenfication, but far less (for want of a better word) 'class' awareness.

---

Here would we prefer to be called a racist or a communist? kidding? Or perhaps an author is trying to make a point that doesn't exist if a valid comparison were made? Have not read this book.

Quote:

---

In fact, breaking up the human species (which here we take to exist in fact) into anything fewer than some thousands of distinct races is nothing short of irresponsible.

---

This seems very reasonable and would go a long way to explaining the nonsense that is Kansans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

No, no, no, no.... First of all, why would you think an IQ test is a good way to tell which part of the world is smartest? Obviously you're going to have lower scores in countries with lower educational standards (or none at all) like you might see in parts of Africa or the Middle-East. No real science has ever proven that skin color is an indicator of mental faculties. And if skin color is not your identifier for "race" than what is? You can't use location, because you can't track migrations back far enough. Your entire world-view is intentionally or unintentionally racist here.

---

The first problem is that we don't have a good/satisfactory way to measure intelligence. The second problem is that we don't know the nature of intelligence, ie. "born or developed". The third problem is that even if IQ-tests is a good way to measure intelligence, noone has done any large-scale IQ-testing of the world, thus we have no data.

Double post..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

No, no, no, no.... First of all, why would you think an IQ test is a good way to tell which part of the world is smartest? Obviously you're going to have lower scores in countries with lower educational standards (or none at all) like you might see in parts of Africa or the Middle-East. No real science has ever proven that skin color is an indicator of mental faculties. And if skin color is not your identifier for "race" than what is? You can't use location, because you can't track migrations back far enough. Your entire world-view is intentionally or unintentionally racist here.

---

IQ tests are what we use to sort the IQ intelligence :shrug:

As to the bolded part - please prove it. It seems like a VERY big statement.

From what I have read, skin colour do affect the roll of the dice at birth.


Also, I for one claim that the CULTURAL difference is a way bigger indicator of different abilities than race. That's why I don't want people from (what I perceive as) sub-standard cultures to influence mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That was my point. Frags is quickly jumping on bunk science (or perhaps just listening to something someone made up) because it suits his confirmation bias.

---

Indeed, I was agreeing with you, GC ~;)

IQ "science" is the definition of pseudoscience in our times, just as skull measuring was the definition of pseudoscience around 1900. It's simply a field respectable academics just will not touch(for better or worse, that's the reality), leaving the field in the hands of the hacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

*@ Kad: What? No, I don't have to prove a damned thing. Bring me a peer-reviewed study that says skin color influences your intelligence directly and I'll fly to Sweden so you can watch me eat my shoe. Otherwise, I'm not even going to dignify that.

The roll of the dice at birth is socio-economic, and physical. People are born dumb and smart all over the world, and in all colors. People are born in countries with schools, and people are born in countries without schools. People are born able to afford the security that affords a learning disposition, or they are not. An IQ test measures your ability to relate to the intelligence standards that exist in academia (at whatever level). They are not a basic indicator of raw intelligence, largely because of exactly what HoreTore said: Scientists are still arguing over what exactly intelligence is.

For example: I'm a pretty smart guy. Book-Smart, at least. When I was in the Army I was usually the most book-smart person around. I scored quite high on the Army version of the IQ test. On the other hand, I had very little practical intelligence at 18, having never really worked a difficult job of any sort. So, in this example, lets say Drill Sgt. Hands me a mop and says "Clean the floor." I'm going to over-think it. I might ask for specific clarification. Certainly I'm not going to hop to it. Now let's say Drill Dgt. Hands that mop off to a guy who has no book-smarts and just got out of prison, and says "Clean the floor." Dude's gonna clean the floor, and he's gonna do it fast. So how much was my 'intelligence' worth there?

Humans trying to contemplate their own 'intelligence', and categorize other humans based on their alleged 'intelligence', is the worst kind of arrogance there is. It is the root of all other arrogance.

---

....and I think this explains perfectly why almost everyone defines themselves at "above average intelligence".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

*@ Kad: What? No, I don't have to prove a damned thing. Bring me a peer-reviewed study that says skin color influences your intelligence directly and I'll fly to Sweden so you can watch me eat my shoe. Otherwise, I'm not even going to dignify that.

The roll of the dice at birth is socio-economic, and physical. People are born dumb and smart all over the world, and in all colors. People are born in countries with schools, and people are born in countries without schools. People are born able to afford the security that affords a learning disposition, or they are not. An IQ test measures your ability to relate to the intelligence standards that exist in academia (at whatever level). They are not a basic indicator of raw intelligence, largely because of exactly what HoreTore said: Scientists are still arguing over what exactly intelligence is.

For example: I'm a pretty smart guy. Book-Smart, at least. When I was in the Army I was usually the most book-smart person around. I scored quite high on the Army version of the IQ test. On the other hand, I had very little practical intelligence at 18, having never really worked a difficult job of any sort. So, in this example, lets say Drill Sgt. Hands me a mop and says "Clean the floor." I'm going to over-think it. I might ask for specific clarification. Certainly I'm not going to hop to it. Now let's say Drill Sgt. Hands that mop off to a guy who has no book-smarts and just got out of prison, and says "Clean the floor." Dude's gonna clean the floor, and he's gonna do it fast. So how much was my 'intelligence' worth there?

Humans trying to contemplate their own 'intelligence', and categorize other humans based on their alleged 'intelligence', is the worst kind of arrogance there is. It is the root of all other arrogance.

---

Challenge accepted.

Re-reading, I might have made a mistake...

Do you expect me to show how actual SKIN COLOUR affects intelligence (and what intelligence?).



I read the question as "Yo, can you prove them negroes bein stupider than whities".

To directly link the effects of skin colour to intelligence is of course impossible (An albino negroid will still be a negroid).

If, however, you would allow me to use data to compare nations divided by skin colour on an intellectual level, or would let me show how certain groups of people prosper/don't prosper irrelevant of settings, than I could very easily prove you wrong.

Take asians, they ARE smarter than us whities. No racism about it, with equal BNP% in schooling they beat us.

Sure there are as well environmental factors, but hey, Asians beat the rest in intelligence in - guess what - every environment we have yet tested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Take asians, they ARE smarter than us whities. No racism about it, with equal BNP% in schooling they beat us.

---

Gonna bang my head against the wall.

Dem smart Asians that somehow fell behind Europe technologically in the 1500s and 1600s.

Dem smart Japanese that saw no problem raping entire Chinese cities (Nanking).

Dem smart Chinese that lived in poverty under a Communistic dictatorship for 30-40 years until they finally adopted free markets.

Dem smart Asians that still live off of meager wages in sweatshops, even though they could easily triple their wages and still remain competitive against US workers getting payed minimum wage.

Hold the phones guys, China, Korea and Japan do so much better than us on tests. Guess we should acknowledge our intellectual superiors. It can't be a culture that emphasizes very strongly on performing well on tests could it? Noooo, Japan and Korea have much higher student suicide rates than us because they're so intelligent that they already have internships lined up for their afterlife.

How many Asians have you even talked to bro?

Asia is a living cautionary tale of what happens when a society tries to skip a few steps in becoming a modern pseudo-european nation from a medeval society and ends up missing out on the lessons learned by doing it the long way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....and not a single one of those have any academic merit whatsoever. That was the point, Frags.

If you had any clue as to what you're talking about, you would've known those maps to be absolute rubbish.

---

Sure mia muca

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Asia is a living cautionary tale of what happens when a society tries to skip a few steps in becoming a modern pseudo-european nation from a medeval society and ends up missing out on the lessons learned by doing it the long way.

---

Which Asia is that? Everything from Asia Minor to the Far East is fairly broad.

You've got Israel, Singapore, India, Japan and South Korea within that definition. As well as Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iraq.

Might as well say that Greece is socially and economically the same as Norway.

Ah... Sometimes I forget I'm not only talking to americans and clueless north west europeans. When I said asia I mean eastern Asia: China, Korea, Japan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

with equal BNP% in schooling

---

Why on earth is the percentage important...? If you want to make your point, wouldn't it be less stupid to use the absolute numbers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Which Asia is that? Everything from Asia Minor to the Far East is fairly broad.

You've got Israel, Singapore, India, Japan and South Korea within that definition. As well as Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iraq.

Might as well say that Greece is socially and economically the same as Norway.

---

China, South-Korea, Japan, they all got us whiteboys beaten. The Germans and the Dutch come close but must still accept defeat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Ah... Sometimes I forget I'm not only talking to americans and clueless north west europeans. When I said asia I mean eastern Asia: China, Korea, Japan.

---

North Korea certainly is medieval in its attitude.

China really isn't following a European Enlightenment or UK Westminister program to bootstrap itself. It has many issues to overcome from European colonialism.

Japan and South Korea are hardly basket case economies. Yes Japan seems to have peaked... It has an aging population and some of the longest lived people to look after... A cautionary tale for other economies.

South Korea has a lot of pros and cons. One of the obvious problems is North Korea. The less known one is that it is essentially a corporate run state.

Maybe helpfull (and where your map with no science backing it whatsoever comes from Horetore)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_...lth_of_Nations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Maybe helpfull (and where your map with no science backing it whatsoever comes from Horetore)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_...lth_of_Nations

---

This is exactly what I mean.

Lynn has been discredited by just about everyone. He's a hack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

This is exactly what I mean.

Lynn has been discredited by just about everyone. He's a hack.

---

No he wasn't, can't just decide things like that, it really has to be true; classical leftist mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No he wasn't, can't just decide things like that, it really has to be true; classical leftist mistake.

---

You're using discredited science to back up your claim. Who's "just deciding things" now, eh?

Lynn is accused of both confirmation bias and methodological errors. In scientific terms, that's a death sentence. I can understand that you desperately want such things to be true, as it would fit your political views perfectly. Sadly, there is no science to back it up.

Kinda like how Stalin went with Lamarckism, another discredited theory, because it fit with his political aims. Lamarck was a hack, just as Lynn is.

EDIT: your wiki article contains a quote which sums up the scientific community's view on Lynn pretty well:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

"(the book's) sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You're using discredited science to back up your claim. Who's "just deciding things" now, eh?

Lynn is accused of both confirmation bias and methodological errors. In scientific terms, that's a death sentence. I can understand that you desperately want such things to be true, as it would fit your political views perfectly. Sadly, there is no science to back it up.

Kinda like how Stalin went with Lamarckism, another discredited theory, because it fit with his political aims. Lamarck was a hack, just as Lynn is.

---

Of course he is accused of both comfirmation errors and methodological errors, that's normal, did you ever spend a day in university. Where they have occured isn't left out, it is perfectly obvious to the writers that their calculations aren't set in stone but merely a statistical probability

To paraphrase a psyc prof I had: IQ tests accurately and reliably measure how well people score on IQ tests. So the question becomes what exactly does that prove?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Of course he is accused of both comfirmation errors and methodological errors, that's normal, did you ever spend a day in university. Where they have occured isn't left out, it is perfectly obvious for the writers that their calculations aren't set in stone but merely a statistical probability

---

Nah, I went to a university college, as they have a much higher focus on didactics than the university does.

Lynn's theories simply aren't accepted by the scientific community, and thus becomes junk science. A theory isn't fact when only supported by a few, it needs to be supported by many. Lynn's theories just aren't. They're hardly accepted by anyone outside white supremacist groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

To paraphrase a psyc prof I had: IQ tests accurately and reliably measure how well people score on IQ tests. So the question becomes what exactly does that prove?

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Lynn's theories simply aren't accepted by the scientific community, and thus becomes junk science. A theory isn't fact when only supported by a few, it needs to be supported by many. Lynn's theories just aren't. They're hardly accepted by anyone outside white supremacist groups.

---

Leftist reflex, mistaking how you want things to be and how things are. The authors even have good intentions on how to improve things, that white-supremacy groups use it, well sure they do. But I doubt they read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Leftist reflex, mistaking how you want things to be and how things are. The authors even have good intentions on how to improve things, that white-supremacy groups use it, well sure they do. But I doubt they read it.

---

I'm not commenting on whether his theory is true or not. My point is that his theory isn't accepted by the scientific community, and is thus invalid.

Stalin wanted Lamarckism to be true because it fits with his political views. You want Lynn's theory to be true because it fits your political views. Both of you disregard the fact that it's not accepted by other scientists. I see little difference between the brains of you and Stalin.

EDIT: Here is a short paper which highlights many of the criticisms other scientists have on Lynn's "research". If you have access to jstor(or similar), I can give you much more.

I read that. It remains a chicken and egg story. But of what use is it to dismiss statistically sound results? You should really be happy with the conclusions as the aim is on development, not a genetical defect even if it might look like that at first. But it is a pretty solid examination on IQ-differences and wealth, making it more of a question rather than statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I read that. It remains a chicken and egg story. But of what use is it to dismiss statistically sound results? You should really be happy with the conclusions as the aim is on development, not a genetical defect even if it might look like that at first. But it is a pretty solid examination on IQ-differences and wealth, making it more of a question rather than statement

---

The bolded part is completely irrelevant.

It's pseudoscience, and one cannot be "happy" with pseudoscience. Until a proper scientific theory comes along, any possible IQ differences will remain a black spot. We simply don't have any knowledge of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Until a proper scientific theory comes along, any possible IQ differences will remain a black spot. We simply don't have any knowledge of it.

---

That much I can agree with

Asians...

Of course, the so-called "Arabs" will often be included in that classification.

Is it really surprising that East Asians - and East Asian immigrants - perform well academically? As surprising as the fact that they are quite accomplished cheaters?

Note that Southeast Asian immigrants chronically underperform.

And note that even Han Chinese is not so genetically or even culturally homogeneous to be counted as a race.

What is the sense, Kadagar, in trying to organize a universe that is built up out of certain fundamental particles into molecules or cells?

While it's certainly nice to think of the world as a simple place, it is most certainly not simple. Not nearly simple enough to dismiss a broad abstraction on the basis of other abstractions no-less-broad.

That there are differences between groups is obvious - an extension of the fact that there are differences between individuals. This broad principle, however, does not at all license you to declare, 'All the darkies are just stupid'.

There is more basis to legitimate groupings than sheer aesthetic distaste. Come back when every single human's genome has been sequenced and catalogued as only then may we begin to discuss these matters.