I apologize to everyone.

[Fragony]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[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

[HoreTore]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Montmorency]

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.

[Major Robert Dump]

East Asians aren't necessarily smarter, they just have far harder work ethics.

But it is funny that in the USA they are pretty much wholesale excluded from talks of race, quotas, affirmative action, etc because the left does not consider them a true minority even though, by definition, they are, and they most certainly suffer from discrimination. It is also funny that racism against non muslim Asians is often ignored and brushed under the rug, especially when the racism is levied by a black or Hispanic person.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

Because I have declared that all darkies are stupid?

It's a hard topic to debate, as people put way to much emotion into it, often to the degree where they shut of their analytic part of the mind. Heck, even in some cases doing extremely stupid things like completely making up statements from the opposition.



Will get back when I have more time, just wanted to put some sort of a dampener on the more... special ways to interpret me.