I apologize to everyone.

[Hax]

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

[HopAlongBunny]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[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.

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Greyblades]

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.

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]

[Fragony]

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

[Hax]

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Hax]

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.

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

...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.

[HopAlongBunny]

deleted post; ooops

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[HopAlongBunny]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Hax]

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.

[The Lurker Below]

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[HoreTore]

Double post..

[Kadagar_AV]

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

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[HoreTore]

*@ 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".

[Kadagar_AV]

*@ 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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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?