UG is more pure than your inferior race

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UG

I wish that some day we could have an open and honest debate about race.

In my classroom, on this message board, whatever.

---

I guess I'll get it started

Research shows that there are huge discrepancies in IQ based on race, but it also shows that to be just correlation, not causation. In the US, whites and Asians have the highest IQs while blacks and Hispanics have the lowest, but it's not due to any inherent capacity. It's due to poverty. Malnutrition and lack of education, to be more precise. Once those factors are equaled out, there is shown to be zero intellectual difference between ethnicities.

On a different note, if I wanted to speculate about if there is actually a biologically superior race, I would probably have to go with African American. There are several reasons for this.

1) Dark skin is simply better than white skin in modern society. White skin exists because humans migrated far north where there was little sun, and the less melanin, the more Vitamin D the skin absorbs from the sun. Since Vitamin D is super duper important for health, white skin got selected for by nature in the northern regions.

However, we don't have this problem anymore since we can drink milk or take supplements. Normally, a black person who lived in the UK would be deficient in Vitamin D, but due to modernization, they don't have to be anymore. On top of that, darker skin doesn't burn like white skin, and thus being out in the sun is much easier, and this is a hugely important factor in happiness. Being out in the sun a lot is very underrated, but it's also something that light skinned people cannot do that well.

And when white people do spend time in the sun, they end up soaking up so many rays that they photo age prematurely. Dark skin doesn't really have this problem since it doesn't absorb nearly as many rays. Think of how there's a sort of stereotype among white people that it's hard to tell how old a black person is. Well, if true, I would suggest it's simply because black people don't photo age prematurely that often, whereas white people do more often, and so some black people can be older than they look when compared to their white equivalent

2) I say African American, not just African, because during American slavery, there was some selective breeding of blacks. IMO, this is why sports like football are dominated by blacks. Slave traders and owners selected the biggest and strongest, and after several generations of pseudo-selective breeding, African Americans on average are bigger and stronger than white Americans.


On the flip side, one could make the argument that some Asians or whites are superior races based on an entirely different view. This view being longevity. The oldest people on record are by far white and Asian, and this could be due to several factors. Being relatively smaller than and consuming fewer calories and having smaller organs or something else could be why whites and Asians seems to live longer than blacks, but this could also be a pure and simple correlation and not causation just like with the IQ. There's a gigantic pool from which whites and Asians are able to live to their fullest potential, but not with blacks. Most of them live in Africa where death rate is super high, and most of those who live in modern societies are at or below median incomes. While the oldest person who ever lived was a French chick who smoked for like 80 years, if the tables were turned and white people were impoverished while black people were the ones who lived in modern societies, we may see the oldest people being black

But really, what it boils down to is that we're all extremely closely genetically related. We're still the same fucking species. Different species can still be super duper similar to each other, but we're not even that far. In fact, race is likely just an artificial construct, and on the medical level, there may be virtually no difference. There was a time when some thought that African Americans were more susceptible to heart disease, but we now know that's not true from a biological standpoint. It's diet related (due to higher levels of poverty, on average, blacks consume less healthy food), and this makes sense since geneticists also think that humans are just not different enough from each other to create medical distinctions based on race

That's different than direct lineage, though. Close relatives and ancestry plays a very important role in medicine.

As a personal side point, I've thought for quite a long time now that if I ever had kids I would want them with a black chick. I'm extremely white, and this has caused several problems for me (burn like crazy and absolutely awful teenage acne for starters), they're things that I would not want my kids to go through, and making them half black would eliminate many of them.

meh....as much as I love other races I might as well stir things up a bit -

WHITE POWER

My NAME is Aryan...so...

My name is Ryan.

What does that suggest?

Also on a more serious note I read OP's post finally and found it quite interesting.

I wish I were half because then I'd be way hotter!

wuf, estimates on how long it will take for race to virtually no longer exist? I mean I for example often come across people who upon meeting me have no clue what race I am. It would seem that as the world becomes more and more globalized the "pure" breeding pools will inevitably shrink until they simply dont exist. So, ya, how long do you think it would take?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by courtiebee

I wish I were half because then I'd be way hotter!

---

It's interesting how half black half something else tends to be where you find the most attractive people. Obviously, there are super attractive people of all ethnicities, but we all know how people like Halle Berry are almost iconic for 'having the best of both worlds'

I also think that this works better with half black and something else than with half white and something else because Africans tend to have more pronounced features of the sexual variety than the other races, and it's pronunciation of certain features that stimulate sexual attraction.

This is a great idea. :roll:


http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2302/ib4tl.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

wuf, estimates on how long it will take for race to virtually no longer exist? I mean I for example often come across people who upon meeting me have no clue what race I am. It would seem that as the world becomes more and more globalized the "pure" breeding pools will inevitably shrink until they simply dont exist. So, ya, how long do you think it would take?

---

I think it will take a very long time till only <10% of the modern population is white. This is because there are large pockets of white society that just don't garner much attention from other ethnicities, and there's still a lot of quasi-racism (think Russia, but many places in Europe and North America). Racism is actually somewhat normal. Back in pre-modern societies, people who looked different than you and your peoples were quite likely to be a threat to your acquisition of resources. The principle is similar to why lions and hyenas hate each other. In modern society, there's no excuse though, but the more different somebody is from what you're used to the more likely you are to not like them. I'm only making this point because even though we could hypothetically 'end' racism, we would never be able to end the innate differences between cultures, and this will perpetuate pockets of society not mingling.

Having said that, in the US, whites will be a minority by 2050 due to immigration from Latin countries and some degree of increased melting pot breeding, but it will still be very regional. In Hawaii, whites are already only like 25% of the population, I think maybe someplace like Texas or Arizona might only be 50% white, but even if the entire US is 40% white, I'm sure there will be several very white regions in Wisconsin or Utah or wherever.

As for when standard is some huge melting pot, it's just really hard to say. Whites are already a massive global minority (think: China, India, Africa, etc), and it's possible that over this century and the next we will find East Asia making a comeback, so to speak, and become the world leaders. I don't see that happening anytime before 2050, though, and even then it will only be in certain aspects that China may become a world leader. For example: US giving up its massive militaristic dominance is loltastic. That will not happen in our lifetime, and it will probably never happen. IMO, we're in a new era of globalization where Rome type paradigms don't apply, and we're not going to see rise and fall of empires much anymore due to interdependence.

Anyways, I would estimate that we're looking at like 2200 or 2300 before power shifts from white hands to the melting pot's hands (but it even could be as far as 3000, but we'll all be made extinct by AI by then), but I really don't know because the further into the future one predicts the higher the margin of error, so it's almost pointless to look that far ahead. It really boils down to incentivizing intermingling of ethnicities, and that requires huge money interests. The US is a great example of this. We're the melting pot simply because we're extremely wealthy and everybody wants to be here. If Norway was the place to be then it would be a melting pot as well, but it's not, and will likely not be any time even remotely close to soon

On a different topic, I predict an even larger gap between rich/poor and ethnicities in the future. This will be due to biotechnology being expensive. There may come a time when wealthy people can have designer babies and smart chips, while poor people still can't afford a dentist visit.

As is obvious, I don't really have much of a direct answer to the question. I just don't know, and I don't think anybody does. The only numbers I've actually seen are the ones involved with US whites being minority around 2050

Also, I never addressed the other end of the race spectrum. I think that Africa will be dominated by blacks for a very long time. Wealthy interests make money by keeping some third world as third world, and the only way for Africa to no longer be dominated by Africans would be if there was massive immigration from wealthy from other races, it hasn't happened that much yet, and I don't think anybody can predict why or how it would happen. There are just so many freaking factors.

Interesting to note, whites tried to emigrate to Africa, but were beaten back by disease. So we're probably going to have to eradicate many diseases before we find wealthy people from modern areas emigrating to humid areas like SE Asia, South America, and Africa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wesrman

This is a great idea. :roll:


http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2302/ib4tl.jpg

---

When adults get together, they can actually discuss real life things like real life adults.

Go find any science forum on the web and you'll see that they've all had several pragmatic race threads that don't get out of hand because, well, adults can act like adults

This might be a good place to share a piece or two of my childhood with you all.

When I was 3-4 my parents were in line somewhere like Kmart or Walmart and there was a black person behind my parents. I was in the cart facing backwards. I asked (at the top of my lungs), "MOMMY, IS THAT A NIGGER?" According to my parents, that's probably the first time I ever saw a black person irl.

The first black person I remember seeing and talking to on anything close to a regular basis was a kid in my grade who transferred to my elementary school for about 6 months and his name was Jamal. He lived with his mom and never knew his dad.

After that, I didn't really interact with any black people at all until I was in high school. I also wasn't regularly around anyone who was hispanic or Asian until high school. There were a few dozen hispanic kids and maybe two or three Asians. To give an idea of the size of my high school, there were about 290 people in my graduating class.

When I was say 6-7 or so, I truly believed that "the reason Mexicans and black people don't get along is that the black people are scared Mexicans are going to steal their welfare."

When I was 12 or 13, maybe 14, it was the first time they stopped letting this off-shoot of the KKK have a "float" (ie: a small trailer being pulled by a pickup truck, like all of the other floats) in the July 4th parade in the nearest town to here.

When I was somewhere around 9 I started to have actual thoughts and sort of took it for granted from then on that racism was pretty stupid. To me it's interesting because I truly have no idea where it came from. I hadn't really interacted with other races to have something to conflict with the information I was being given from my parents. I often wonder why I had that moment at such a young age and why people like my dad never had it at all.

Half asian half white people are almost always beautiful people. I am with a white guy as a favor to my future children.

isnt lucy liu (sp?) half white and half asian?

Apparently, that's the rumor, but word is that both her parents were Chinese immigrants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by courtiebee

Half asian half white people are almost always beautiful people. I am with a white guy as a favor to my future children.

---

yeah this is why I'm dating an asian...

http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland....teracial02.gif

these need to be weighted based on the distribution of whites and blacks in the population, but it comes out to be something like blacks are 50 times as likely to commit crimes against whites as vise versa.

cliffs notes of wuf's inevitable response: socioeconomic differences, malnutrition, rigged court system, and physically dominant race.

inexcusable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

As a personal side point, I've thought for quite a long time now that if I ever had kids I would want them with a black chick.

---

Ha, I want to have kids with a hot white chick, but I never even thought about this to be the reason. Now that I think about it, any race will do as long as she's hot, but historically I've been more attracted to white and lightly colored chick types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

wuf, estimates on how long it will take for race to virtually no longer exist?

---

As long as people live all across the globe, I'd say this won't happen. If everyone would live in the exact same kind of circumstances for a long time, then we could start to count down. I guess we'd have to see what happens when Apophis comes along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland....teracial02.gif

these need to be weighted based on the distribution of whites and blacks in the population, but it comes out to be something like blacks are 50 times as likely to commit crimes against whites as vise versa.

cliffs notes of wuf's inevitable response: socioeconomic differences, malnutrition, rigged court system, and physically dominant race.

inexcusable.

---

inexcusable? Lol, this is simple mathematics and you pointed it out to yourself. There are simply more whites as targets for blacks than there are blacks as targets for whites.

Also if I were a financially motivated criminal, who would I target? Poor minorities or the rich majority? Furthermore the implications of white collar crimes are often indirectly, if not directly, harmful to lower middle class and lower class people which many minorities fall into. Yet these crimes wouldnt be calculated into your nifty little pie chart.

It's not my pie chart, and it's mostly to spurn some real discussion and I'm especially interested in what wuf says to be honest.

And also, it bothers me that the subject can't be civilly talked about because people are too afraid of not coming off as being politically correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by courtiebee

Half asian half white people are almost always beautiful people. I am with a white guy as a favor to my future children.

---

Yeah but your white guy is ugly.



Just kidding dthorne I have no clue what you look like. I just assume you're ugly because what kind of loser hangs out on a poker forum amirite?

what does "perceived race" mean? are these crimes counting things like burglaries where most honkies are gonna blame a darkie?

I find topics on any prejudice pretty fascinating because no matter how unprejudiced I strive to be, I know that I have a shitton of prejudices and am sure that I act on them.

I also find it bizarre how people are generally afraid to own up to the fact that many stereotypes exist because there is some truth to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

And also, it bothers me that the subject can't be civilly talked about because people are too afraid of not coming off as being politically correct.

---

We won't have that problem. As long as we're grownups this can be discussed in a down to earth fashion

As for the pie chart

More information is needed. Notice how the chart says 'perceived race of offender'. This suggests to me that it's not based on hard facts exclusively, but includes anecdote. This can skew results quite a bit

It's important to remember that this data is not in anyway claiming WHY any of this is happening, just THAT it's happening. Once we realize that we can then look for evidence to explain why, and I'm confident that the evidence doesn't show that it's for genetic reasons. Keep in mind that if somebody thinks the chart represents data based on the genes of people, that they're claiming that blacks are inherently more criminal or hateful or whatever than whites. And frankly, it's wrong because there actually is no evidence for it. Seriously, find evidence that shows blacks are more criminal than whites due to genetic reasons.

People make the mistake of thinking that data that claims something happens is also claiming why that something happens, and that's simply not the case. This is super common, and one reason why it's easy for somebody to point to higher crime among blacks as evidence that blacks are inherently more criminal than other races, but in reality their conclusion is nothing but an assumption and a facepalm

Now, on to what the evidence does claim

Consider this: 98% of people who shoplift DVDs from Best Buy are not multi-millionaires. Think about this. While I pulled this statistic out of my ass, it's probably actually true. In fact, it's probably closer to 99.9%. Now, why would that be? Well, it's obvious; multi-millionaires have literally zero incentive to shoplift DVDs from Best Buy. What this would then show is that shoplifting from Best Buy was purely an economic thing.

Now, apply this logic to ethnicity and economic status. We find that blacks are poorer than whites, and so we would actually predict that there should be greater black on white thievery. The only thing I'm trying to illustrate is motivation. When you're somebody who was born and raised poor, never got a good education, maybe you're undernourished; you're substantially more likely to be a criminal because that's a much bigger option on your plate than on wealthy and well educated peoples' plates.

Think of The Wire. If you haven't seen it, you should make it the next thing you watch because it is more awesome than awesome. Anyways, it's about slums in Baltimore, and half the characters are kids who grow up ridiculously poor and uneducated and in a culture that favors crime, and lo and behold, most of them become criminals when they grow up.

Having said all that, this chart looks like it's about anecdote, and thus it isn't data on actual crime, but on accusations of crime. That's an entirely different thing. It could be a bunch of white people saying they saw a black guy running away with their stereo. While sometimes that's true, anecdote gives no indication about how true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

what does "perceived race" mean? are these crimes counting things like burglaries where most honkies are gonna blame a darkie?

I find topics on any prejudice pretty fascinating because no matter how unprejudiced I strive to be, I know that I have a shitton of prejudices and am sure that I act on them.

I also find it bizarre how people are generally afraid to own up to the fact that many stereotypes exist because there is some truth to them.

---

Something I dislike is the fact that people don't actually understand what racism really is. I'm not talking about an abstract definition, but the social construct of racism.

We put WAY too much focus on the superficial and too little on the profound. We're scared to death to say 'nigger', but we vote for Congresspeople who do their damnedest to make sure that the majority of black people are oppressed.

Reality is that speech is not what's truly racist, but action. While I understand that people can find racial slurs offensive, that doesn't mean that using the slurs is racist. Even if the slur reminds them of terrible actions of racism, it's still not itself racist. Now, if I oppressed an ethnicity based on their race then that would be racist.

I feel kind of awkward claiming this, but really it's because I see how we're so fucking sure to eradicate the appearance of racism that we tend to neglect actual racism.

Another thing is that a lot of people like to think that we live in a post-racial society or something. While that's kinda true, it's not. On the micro level, many of us are not racist, but on a macro level, society is still very racist. Check out the Southern Strategy, how it's a cornerstone of the Republican Party, and how it's completely and utterly about racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

On a side note, notice how we have a plethora of laws that deal with actions of racism, but nothing that deals with racial speech. There's a reason for that.

P.S. Please don't think that I'm making light of racial slurs. While I cannot empathize with anybody (because I'm white and born and raised in a more or less liberal community), I won't suggest that racial slurs are meaningless and unoffensive. There are many things you can say to me that would immensely piss me off, but because none of those things are racial slurs doesn't mean that for somebody else they aren't. The last thing I want to do is offend somebody with what I say. While I will contend that I don't mean anything racist by my words, I will not contest that somebody may find what I say offensive

If blacks are so superior, why haven't we had a black president yet?

Ohwait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucothefish

If blacks are so superior, why haven't we had a black president yet?

Ohwait...

---

http://www.lachschon.de/images/79289_combo_breaker.jpg

interesting point about selective breeding due to slavery, never thunk of that be4.

Question, rate my racism, if someone cuts me off on the road they're automatically a non-white female over 60 before I even see them.

Is this the right place to mention sickle cell anemia?

I had a sig about racism a little while ago. I think it was:

-Kill the racist!
--But he apologized
-Apologized?!
--Hey we're all racists. And we tried turning that off already by killing you all.
---And we apologized.

If there are 5 fish at a table and one Lukie, it's 5 times more likely that a Luke berates a fish for sucking out! This is unacceptable!

OK...this thread is derailing quickly. I'll guess I'll get it back on track...

That pie chart of "black on white" vs. "white on black" crimes is retarded. There are SO many factors that result in these crimes that the pie chart cannot encompass. You cannot simply say "blacks are more aggressive towards whites; this is inexcusable." What I DO find inexcusable is the fact that these pie charts are being created without all things being created equal. We should all agree that there is a difference in education, poverty, etc. between whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. Obviously there are going to be more crimes committed by blacks against whites. One reason (which was already pointed out) is the simple arithmatic of it. Another (again pointed out) was that there is no reason for whites (basically, those with the wealth in most countries) to look to rob/mug blacks (usually, those with little/no wealth). You rarely hear of a well-to-do black man robbing or stealing from a white person. So what's the variant in the black vs. white crimes (Hint: it isn't the color of their skin)?

Obviously, with this brought across, we must look into WHAT factors come into play when we see that non-whites are more likely to be at or under the poverty level than whites (and no, it's not because they're just lazy). This can spawn a 10-page essay...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucothefish

Is this the right place to mention sickle cell anemia?

---

why are you mentioning sickle cell anemia? It was a selective adaptation that helps protect people against malaria.

A racially selective adaptation against malaria.

Fair enough on the pie chart. Bad source, bad assumptions, lots of unclear stuff. My bad.

New subject-- Interracial rape.

Here's another subject where there are a lot of blurry numbers, bad sources, and unclear conclusions. Mainstream media won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. So you have to do a little digging.

From the US Department of Justice site: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm

Going to use the 2006 file because it's the most recent listed: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus06.pdf

Table 42: Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations,
based on race of victims, by type of crime
and perceived race of offender

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/5072/djstatsk.jpg

Analysis:

194,270 verified reports of rape/sexual assault against whites. Approximately half by whites, 1/6 by blacks, 1/6 by other, 1/6 not known. Bringing out my calculator, .167*194,270 gives us 32,443 black on white rapes.

17,920 verified reports of rape/sexual assualt against blacks. 0.0% listed by whites (*more on this in a bit), 43% by black, 32.3% other, 24.7% not known. *I'm pretty sure that the 0.0% number can mean up to 10 but I'm not immediately sure on this.

Still though, it paints a pretty ugly picture, 32,443 verified reports of black on white rape/sexual assault and between 0 and 10 verified reports of white on black rape/sexual assault.

It should be noted that rape and sexual assault should be more clearly defined. As in, I'm not really sure what would constitute sexual assault for these specific numbers. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and I'm sure from study to study.

The numbers are not wrong and it's a reoccurring trend you can check for yourself if you want.

What's the excuse for this?

Here's my commentary. Somehow this thread got derailed into genetic differences between the races that doesn't particularly interest me. I am *NOT*, in any way, shape, or form, suggesting that blacks are inherently more violent than whites due to any genetic reason or anything like that.

Realistically, there are very real problems with black america that tend to get swept under the rug and never talked about. The entire subject is far too complex for me to give a reasonable solution to it, but here's a start: Why can't a prominent member or members of the black community stand up and say, "This is wrong. This needs to stop, yesterday."

Remember the Duke Lacrosse case and how the players were HOUNDED by Jesse Jackson, NAACP, etc. Where are they when it (allegedly) happens the other way around? Of course it doesn't suit their own interests so obviously that's ridiculous. But think about how freely and openly minorities can talk about race, but as soon as whites even approach the subject, they are automatically labeled racist. It's a joke.

Many rapes go unreported for a plethora of reasons, it is possible that we could assume these reasons come into play more often with black women. Im not saying this is true, Im just saying its a possibility and therefore would easily skew the results. Also looking at our society you can easily see more of a reason for a white woman to faslely accuse a black man of rape than the other way around. Again this is just a possible reason for these numbers to be skewed, not a hard fact. Also again youre playing with numbers to make them look different then they actually are. Again there are more white targets than black targets.


And lastly, there are not problems with black america, there are problems with america. People washing their hands of the problem because they are not black only perpetuates the things that fuel the fire. It is very similar to iraq or afghanistan and our "nation building" efforts. Its really easy to say "omfg how can these towel heads not appreciate what we are trying to do for them? They are just savages, ect ect." But the truth really is that we had a huge roll in creating the climate in which these horrible things are happening. Yes they have responsibility too, but in the end its we as whole (planet) that have a responsibility to rise above and be civil.

[quote="wufwugy"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UG

Research shows that there are huge discrepancies in IQ based on race, but it also shows that to be just correlation, not causation. In the US, whites and Asians have the highest IQs while blacks and Hispanics have the lowest, but it's not due to any inherent capacity. It's due to poverty. Malnutrition and lack of education, to be more precise. Once those factors are equaled out, there is shown to be zero intellectual difference between ethnicities.

---

Somewhat. Mostly IQ tests are just culturally biased. They test what educated white middle/upper class people deem important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Here's my commentary. Somehow this thread got derailed into genetic differences between the races that doesn't particularly interest me. I am *NOT*, in any way, shape, or form, suggesting that blacks are inherently more violent than whites due to any genetic reason or anything like that.

---

What ARE you suggesting with these tables/graphs that depict blacks in a negative manner? Nothing positive obviously. There MUST be some reason you choose these tables and graphs to present in a thread that is supposed to be about race. Now that you have an open forum, do you feel the need to share "Hey, look, black people do a lot of bad things to whites"? I'm just not understanding the reasoning for all these things. Are you trying to say that blacks have some sort of grudge against whites? Please explain.

And reasoning for the small amount of rape of white vs. black? Maybe white males just don't like black females (yeah, yeah, I understand rape goes the other way around as well, but that's for a different thread). Maybe the police officers dismissed the police report a black female tried giving (easily possible). Again, a NUMBER of factors contribute to this. I don't think the color of their skin or genetic background has anything to do with their desire to rape [whites].

Why are most serial killers white? Something needs to be said about that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Realistically, there are very real problems with black america that tend to get swept under the rug and never talked about. The entire subject is far too complex for me to give a reasonable solution to it, but here's a start: Why can't a prominent member or members of the black community stand up and say, "This is wrong. This needs to stop, yesterday."

---

Yeah, you're right. I rarely ever hear about crimes committed by blacks on the news. It's usually filled with those crimes committed by whites. No wait, it's the other way around (this actually brings us to media bias and their role in race relations, I'll touch on that in my next paragraph). Ideally, the problems within black America can be stopped. However, having Reverend Al Sharpton speak up and telling blacks to "stop it," isn't going to work. The keyword two sentences ago was ideally...since the only way this will ever be fixed is if the playing field were somehow level. However, we all know this'll never happen and we have to live with that (that is, if that kind of thing bothers you at all. I'm sure some of you are OK with the fact that the playing field will never be level).

And yes, the media depicts blacks (and Hispanics in a lesser matter) in a shitty light. I'm sure I'm going to hear "Well, they bring it on themselves," but it just isn't fair to say that. A prime example is the coverage of Hurricane Katrina. I won't even explain myself; I will simply show a picture:
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9...tvssearch2.jpg
My argument of media bias ends there.

And speaking of Hurricane Katrina, would the rescue efforts have been any different if say, Boston, were to be hit by a natural disaster? I'm sure you all know what my answer would be...but I leave this discussion open with that question.

1. There is genetic difference between the races
there are some statistical factors that you can observe between races
as much as race is a "social" construct you can literally take measurements of the testosterone levels and see the differences between the averages
which is what explains athletic ability
also higher sexual drive
also propensity for violence

now before you call me sexist/racist you should consider that these things are scientific facts
each individual could have different levels of testosterone, and an individual with high levels of testosterone is not immediately a criminal

note that black females also commit less violent crime than white males, so it's more of a testosterone issue than race issue

2. IQ test are not culturally biased because everyone tried to make an IQ test that was "culturally-neutral" and they all failed or created IQ tests that have nothing to do with measuring g. Think about it, if such an IQ test existed, the government would surely have implemented it given the political pressure to do so. It might be nutrition/education or whatnot, but the fact is that on any IQ test whites score higher than blacks. I'm not going to try to explain why. It is just fact.

Because BooG, if the goal is equality (which is something that I honestly support), how can a MASSIVE inequality like this go unmentioned? And, it's people like you that don't allow the discussion to happen in the first place. No, you didn't explicitly say it, but I got your point loud and clear.

Attack my reasoning, facts, argument, or whatever, but not my character. I'm not even going to go down that road.

You can excuse robberies by bringing up socioeconomic differences, get around the rape issue by saying that many aren't reported, whatever. It's a clear and consistent trend over many decades with every single type of violent crime. If blacks ever want to achieve true equality, that *has to stop* one way or another.

It's many things, economic, cultural, etc etc.

Another point: I think it is GREAT that the US finally elected a black president (political views can go in another thread). However, I never thought it was right to vote for him BECAUSE he was black. I think this discussion came up in another thread. But it shows how far we've come on the whole race issue.

Anyway, I can already see that this thread is going to go in the wrong direction. It's sad because if we can't openly and honestly debate this type of subject on an online forum, it shows how far away it is from being discussed mainstream.

Oh well, just trying to stimulate good discussion, no malicious intent here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Because BooG, if the goal is equality (which is something that I honestly support), how can a MASSIVE inequality like this go unmentioned? And, it's people like you that don't allow the discussion to happen in the first place. No, you didn't explicitly say it, but I got your point loud and clear.

---

How in the hell? What didn't I explicitly say? I just think it's funny how when a thread about race is brought up...this is somehow what is to be brought up (the genetic differences was boring, right?). You're supplying statistics, numbers, tables, and pie charts and saying, "Look, there's a problem with black America." I actually agree, there IS a problem with black America. However, this problem isn't rooted in black America...it's rooted deep into America in general.

And I love discussions on race relations. I'm not calling you a racist Lukie. I have friends that (I perceive) to be just like you (again, perceive since I don't really know you). I just hate to see numbers & stats being thrown up on a thread and seeing these numbers being looked at in the wrong light. These numbers are simply the surface; the cause is much deeper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Many rapes go unreported for a plethora of reasons, it is possible that we could assume these reasons come into play more often with black women. Im not saying this is true, Im just saying its a possibility and therefore would easily skew the results. Also looking at our society you can easily see more of a reason for a white woman to faslely accuse a black man of rape than the other way around. Again this is just a possible reason for these numbers to be skewed, not a hard fact. Also again youre playing with numbers to make them look different then they actually are. Again there are more white targets than black targets.


And lastly, there are not problems with black america, there are problems with america. People washing their hands of the problem because they are not black only perpetuates the things that fuel the fire. It is very similar to iraq or afghanistan and our "nation building" efforts. Its really easy to say "omfg how can these towel heads not appreciate what we are trying to do for them? They are just savages, ect ect." But the truth really is that we had a huge roll in creating the climate in which these horrible things are happening. Yes they have responsibility too, but in the end its we as whole (planet) that have a responsibility to rise above and be civil.

---

You can't dispute lukie on every point. Because every sucessful defense will be met with a "alright, but how about the numbers of aggressive drug abusers put in jail?!" or "alright, but let's consider the number of armed convenience store robbers according to race." It's useless because his substance is the same substance of every political belief. No one knowing anything, but someone has some numbers to back them up!

Lukie, really? Really? You really think there's solid ground to build blacks > whites based on criminal statistics?

[quote="KoRnholio"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UG

Research shows that there are huge discrepancies in IQ based on race, but it also shows that to be just correlation, not causation. In the US, whites and Asians have the highest IQs while blacks and Hispanics have the lowest, but it's not due to any inherent capacity. It's due to poverty. Malnutrition and lack of education, to be more precise. Once those factors are equaled out, there is shown to be zero intellectual difference between ethnicities.

---

Somewhat. Mostly IQ tests are just culturally biased. They test what educated white middle/upper class people deem important.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Anyway, I can already see that this thread is going to go in the wrong direction. It's sad because if we can't openly and honestly debate this type of subject on an online forum, it shows how far away it is from being discussed mainstream.

---

I like how I somehow ruined this discussion. How are we not debating honestly and openly? Understand that there ARE going to be people that disagree with you (one obviously being me). I HONESTLY and OPENLY think using numbers and statistics to convey a supposed problem in black America to be wrong. Again, the problem is much, MUCH deeper than this.

Alright, I'm close to having a stroke.

Get this. The world is unfair. In nature, an ally is valuable, an enemy is death. If someone is like you in every way, they'd be you're best friend. Unlike you in all ways, your worst enemy.

There is no discussion for racism. It exists. In some cases, it's as bad as people claim. In others, it's people trying to make their own gains by tossing the phrase around.

Get over it. Racism is a relic of evolution that no longer serves our best interests. But it'll be around as long as humans are. So we just have to fucking deal with it.

edit and its not hard to overcome racism. Racism is instinct. Just let the calmer side of your brain remind you that you're a dirty racist, and you'll only shroud that fact from the world if you try to.

edit edit im not so close to having a stroke afterall. I think I assumed a lot of the conversation and it wasn't there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

1. There is genetic difference between the races
there are some statistical factors that you can observe between races
as much as race is a "social" construct you can literally take measurements of the testosterone levels and see the differences between the averages
which is what explains athletic ability
also higher sexual drive
also propensity for violence

now before you call me sexist/racist you should consider that these things are scientific facts
each individual could have different levels of testosterone, and an individual with high levels of testosterone is not immediately a criminal

note that black females also commit less violent crime than white males, so it's more of a testosterone issue than race issue

2. IQ test are not culturally biased because everyone tried to make an IQ test that was "culturally-neutral" and they all failed or created IQ tests that have nothing to do with measuring g. Think about it, if such an IQ test existed, the government would surely have implemented it given the political pressure to do so. It might be nutrition/education or whatnot, but the fact is that on any IQ test whites score higher than blacks. I'm not going to try to explain why. It is just fact.

---

Show me the data

[quote="KoRnholio"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UG

Research shows that there are huge discrepancies in IQ based on race, but it also shows that to be just correlation, not causation. In the US, whites and Asians have the highest IQs while blacks and Hispanics have the lowest, but it's not due to any inherent capacity. It's due to poverty. Malnutrition and lack of education, to be more precise. Once those factors are equaled out, there is shown to be zero intellectual difference between ethnicities.

---

Somewhat. Mostly IQ tests are just culturally biased. They test what educated white middle/upper class people deem important.

---

Sorta

It's not so much that they're culturally biased because the skills are truly fundamental intellectual skills that show a strong correlation with intellectual capacity, but that they are affected to a degree by education. Things like recognizing shapes and patterns are not culturally biased

This is one reason why it's about a range, not a specific number. You scoring 120 and me scoring 115 doesn't mean that you're smarter than I am because we are within the same range that allows us to compensate for margin of error.

Having said that, IQ tests haven't been changed for like 100 years because intelligence is simply that difficult to figure out, and they're only considered one aspect of what intelligence really is. They are, however, still extremely valuable measures of somebody's capacity to perform complex tasks.

As for the black white rape thing

I suspect that white guys actually don't want to rape black women. Seriously. Find me one white dude who, in the back of his mind, isn't thinking that her homeboys gonna hunt him down. This is a huge stereotype in our society, and it plays. There are many, many other factors that skew results as well, but really there's only one that matters.

And that is that there needs to actually be evidence that genes are what cause these statistics. So far we have zippo. It's our species' inherent irrationality and bigotry that makes us assume that it's because of genes.

And I understand what Lukie is doing. You gotta ask questions to get answers, sometimes it's called playing Devil's Advocate.

rilla I think you make a strong point. I think we all are racist to some extent. Its not a clear cut line where one side is racism and the other is little black children and little white children holding hands and playing in harmony. If you cannot accept that you are to some extent racist, you are just that much more likely to subconsciously act on racist prejudices you hold. If you are able to admit to it, it is that much easier to catch yourself in the act and get away from these [often small but none the less] negative actions.

wuf, reading your last post just set off a lightbulb for me....

look back on our countries history.. white women have long been portrayed as the victim.. as the damsel in distress. Especially in a racist way, white men have openly feared black men "taking their women." Black women on the other hand are often shown in a different light. They are seen as strong and independent. It would only be natural that a rapist would target someone he sees as a victim. It is a domination thing. Obv on an individual level I am not making an excuse for any rapist, but I am saying that this trend actually makes sense and it would seem to be started by the "dont put your filthy negro hands on my white woman" attitude of whites..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

rilla I think you make a strong point. I think we all are racist to some extent. Its not a clear cut line where one side is racism and the other is little black children and little white children holding hands and playing in harmony. If you cannot accept that you are to some extent racist, you are just that much more likely to subconsciously act on racist prejudices you hold. If you are able to admit to it, it is that much easier to catch yourself in the act and get away from these [often small but none the less] negative actions.

---

You and I, half-black and white, should make a PSA together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

wuf, reading your last post just set off a lightbulb for me....

look back on our countries history.. white women have long been portrayed as the victim.. as the damsel in distress. Especially in a racist way, white men have openly feared black men "taking their women." Black women on the other hand are often shown in a different light. They are seen as strong and independent. It would only be natural that a rapist would target someone he sees as a victim. It is a domination thing. Obv on an individual level I am not making an excuse for any rapist, but I am saying that this trend actually makes sense and it would seem to be started by the "dont put your filthy negro hands on my white woman" attitude of whites..

---

In all my rape fantasies, I'm never smothering a black girl.


Is what I would say if I had no soul!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

It's a clear and consistent trend over many decades with every single type of violent crime. If blacks ever want to achieve true equality, that *has to stop* one way or another.

---

True, but it's not so much 'they'.

Slavery ended 150 years ago, segregation ended 50 years ago, blacks are still a massive minority but an even greater economic minority and an EVEN greater political minority (1% of Senators are black), and there is an entire fucking political party and wealthy special interests (which has driven the country for 40 years) which is based in oppressing blacks (all minorities, actually)

African Americans have little fault here. They live in a country that perpetuates their minority status in nearly every aspect. It may be American to think that somebody can pull himself up with his own bootstraps, but it's reality to think that doesn't work on the level of populations and it's rather silly.

If people stopped being idiots and stopped voting for corporate America, we would then be able to stop giving all the money to the richies, and instead put the money into education and infrastructure in poor districts (not to mention de-privatizing health insurance and prisons). We would then see dramatic shift in all this black crime because reality is that it's not black crime, but oppressed crime.

Lots of people never got over the Civil War (and they pass it to their children), and even though desegregation is on the law books, the vast majority of blacks are still largely segregated into their own communities. This is one reason that I really don't like political correctness. IMO, considering racial slurs offensive only aids in further perpetuating inequality. When only black people are 'allowed' to say 'nigger' without some kind of backlash, we unwittingly contribute to the concept of 'us and them' instead of just 'us'

This last bit is kind of a rant

I absolutely hate bigotry. I mean I fucking hate it so much. Not even a single ounce of me cares if somebody thinks I'm gay (even though I'm very not gay and actually quite physically homophobic). That's how much I hate bigotry. When I see somebody who is different than I am, I think that they're flesh and blood just like I'm flesh and blood, and I despise the fact that it's possible for others to not look at it that way

Here's what I think the black community needs (at least one of the things): Better Leadership.

I'm reminded of President Obama's excellent speech at that school recently, where he basically said "shut up, work hard, stay in school, go to college, etc." That's directed at the entirety of the youth in America.

There are some really bad role-models that black youth look up to. Kids being raised without a father, in crappy schools, looking up to hip hop artists that glorify drugs, violence, murder, and the degradation of women, professional athletes with a brain the size of a pea who would be flipping burgers but for the fact that they have exceptional athletic ability, the NAACP and Jesse Jackson who will make every excuse in the book, etc.

Fixing the schools and having prominent members of the black community step up and be leaders, Obama for example (not that I agree with everything he's doing, but on this he's exceptional), would go a long way to helping the situation.

Also wuf is right, I'm partly playing devil's advocate here, but partly bringing up legit points as well so don't completely write them off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

wuf, reading your last post just set off a lightbulb for me....

look back on our countries history.. white women have long been portrayed as the victim.. as the damsel in distress. Especially in a racist way, white men have openly feared black men "taking their women." Black women on the other hand are often shown in a different light. They are seen as strong and independent. It would only be natural that a rapist would target someone he sees as a victim. It is a domination thing. Obv on an individual level I am not making an excuse for any rapist, but I am saying that this trend actually makes sense and it would seem to be started by the "dont put your filthy negro hands on my white woman" attitude of whites..

---

Reminds me of Blazing Saddles.

Mel Brooks is a prophet

Leadership definitely is an important aspect, but it's also one of those chicken vs egg things.

What sells more: gangsta rap or Blackalicious? Blackalicious is a phenomenal example of excellent role models (at least lyrically), yet they're not nearly as popular gangsta rap.

It took a great leader in MLK to rally his community and shift opinion, but it also took a whole lot of white folk with a whole lot of power to shift policy. The thing is that it's not done yet. We need another MLK, more protests, and a whole lot of white people with a whole lot of power putting the money where it matters

eric I have to admit that I feel kind of slighted by you completely ignoring any points I, or for that matter anyone else makes.


You pretty much have a tag line and its "blacks need to be responsible and have better leadership." And you have repeated it time and again. Im not saying that this is not true, but what I am, and many others are saying is that the root of the problem is not in the black community but it really goes all the way back to slavery. Denying that is like playing in a tournament where all the left handed people start with 500 chips and all the right handed people start with 10,000 chips; towards the end of the tournament the righties say "man, I folded aces to a lefty preflop just to help him out but the all still complain, and I mean look at that lefty over there with a big stack, he did just fine!" [sorry but poker analogies come easy..]

you guys are ignoring one concept: white men can get black women easily if they want to because they have money + higher social status

but black men can't always get white women because they are poorer + lower status

it works like this: women can get men of higher status more easily than men can get women of higher status in our culture


As far as IQ: if IQ tests are biased and developed for the European culture, how come East Asians score higher on average? World average for Asians is 106, Whites 100, Blacks in the US 85, Blacks in Africa, 75.

Also, we know that heritability in IQ is high due to twin studies because twins raised by different parents have very similar IQs. In fact, if you compare two unrelated children raised by the same parents their IQs diverge with age. So as children raised in the same environment their IQs will be similar, but by adulthood they will have almost 0 correlation.

Also correlation of IQ and brain size. There is 0.4 positive correlation. East Asians and Whites have bigger brains than blacks on average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

As far as IQ: if IQ tests are biased and developed for the European culture, how come East Asians score higher on average? World average for Asians is 106, Whites 100, Blacks in the US 85, Blacks in Africa, 75.

Also correlation of IQ and brain size. There is 0.4 positive correlation. East Asians and Whites have bigger brains than blacks on average.

---

I'm well aware of some studies that suggest this, but do you have any evidence of this in studies that have equalized known relevant factors like nutrition and education?

Here's one example of the nurture aspect of intelligence that I keep talking about

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_children.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

eric I have to admit that I feel kind of slighted by you completely ignoring any points I, or for that matter anyone else makes.


You pretty much have a tag line and its "blacks need to be responsible and have better leadership." And you have repeated it time and again. Im not saying that this is not true, but what I am, and many others are saying is that the root of the problem is not in the black community but it really goes all the way back to slavery. Denying that is like playing in a tournament where all the left handed people start with 500 chips and all the right handed people start with 10,000 chips; towards the end of the tournament the righties say "man, I folded aces to a lefty preflop just to help him out but the all still complain, and I mean look at that lefty over there with a big stack, he did just fine!" [sorry but poker analogies come easy..]

---

Please please please please please please don't use analogies like this. It's so stupid. I understand the point you are trying to get across. I'm not going to debate american history through some metaphorical example of a poker tournament though. Period.

I wish I never posted in this thread because it's such a slippery slope. I hope to see true equality in the future, and by that I mean true equality of opportunity. It reminds me a bit of what wuf talked about earlier in the thread, white people are so terrified of saying n***** but will do other things with more substance to keep black people down. Read his post on it. Is it really so bad that I bring up my perceived issues with black america and then brainstorm ways to help it? I.e. fix schools, stay in school, have better leaders in the black community, etc.

What do you think of this? http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Newsle...Journalist.htm

Written by Juan Williams: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams

Quote:

---

Why not just go ahead and call me an Uncle Tom and a sellout? Why bother with trying to put a new coat of paint on the same old personal attacks by saying that I am "demeaning black people," that I'm the "black Ann Coulter" and a turncoat against the cause of racial progress for black people in the United States?

That's a sampling of the nastiness flying at me since I wrote a book that holds today's civil rights leaders accountable for serious problems inside black America. I've suggested that many poor people are capable of helping themselves by graduating high school, keeping a job and having children when they're married and ready to be parents.

One hard, unforgiving fact is that 70% of black children are born today to single mothers. This is at the heart of the breakdown of the black family, the cornerstone of black life for generations. Some of these children without two parents may turn out just fine, but most add stress to the lives of their grandparents, neighbors, police and teachers who have to take up the slack for absent or bad parents.

It is easier to attack me than to deal with the hard fact of a dropout rate now at about 50% nationwide for black and Latino students. The average black student who gets a high school diploma today is reading and doing math at an eighth-grade level. Even with a diploma, that young person is ill-prepared to compete for entry-level jobs or for a college degree.’

And what about the tragic fact of a 25% poverty rate among black Americans? That's more than twice the 12% national poverty rate and more than triple the poverty rate among whites.

My critics are busy blaming racism for all this poverty. But that tactic is losing its punch because so many people of color, including black people from Africa and the Caribbean, arrive in this country and outperform native-born black people in educational achievement and income. And it is hard to make the old "racism is the whole problem" argument when the other 75% of black America is taking advantage of 50 years of new opportunities — since Brown vs. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act — to create the largest black middle class in history, with unprecedented wealth and political power.

The core group of black people trapped in poverty today is not defined by lack of opportunity as much as by bad choices. Black youth culture is boiling over with nihilism. It embraces failure and frustration, including random crime and jail time, as the authentic expression of black life. "Keeping it real" and "street cred" in that destructive world require gunshot victims, the "N-word" and treating women as "bitches" and "hos." There is no arguing that this is a sick mind-set.

---

eric, youre being extremely defensive and its extremely hard to have a discussion with someone that takes that stance. There is nothing wrong with what youve said, but several people have taken what youve said and thoughtfully responded, but you just repeat the same thing again.

As for the quoted writing, its not wrong, but I think its narrow minded. I agree that individuals that constantly scapegoat racism for every specific problem in their life need to shut up and work to make their life better. However I think the root of the problem still lies in the past and we cannot ignore that. And we certainly cannot treat a whole race of people like a single person. By this I mean we cant just write the entire race off, we cant say "Well, you had your chance, now fuck off." Yet I feel like that is exactly the kind of thinking that the ideas you have presented lead to.

**To be clear, I am not putting thoughts in your head or words in your mouth. I am not saying that the ideas you presented have lead you to such actions or thoughts, I am saying I think in general it is what they lead to.

Juan Williams seems mostly clued in, but makes some mistakes

One possible mistake being obviously referencing the 25% poverty rate among blacks by stating that 75% of non-poor blacks make the best of it. This could be true, but he didn't quantify his assertion, and since economics is not a dichotomy nor linear, the statement could be simply false

Here's how: it's possible to be above the poverty line but below the median line. In fact, I fully expect that if I looked for the data I would find that a larger percentage of non-impoverished blacks than whites are below the median.

He is somewhat right about black youth culture boiling with nihilism, but again this is a chicken and egg thing. I'm not trying to brush it aside, just saying that it takes two to tango.

OTOH, his understanding of racism is simply uncomprehensive. More precisely, he's not acknowledging the massive amount of economic racism. The majority of our political policies are focused around sapping wealth and power from the poor and the populous and putting it into the hands of the wealthy. This is done in numerous seemingly unrelated ways, and it is by far our biggest racial issue of the day.

While the actions themselves are not explicitly racist, their outcomes are. Take affirmative action for example. Not having something like affirmative action is not itself racist, but it's outcome is.

Here's what I mean by income inequality

http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/i...ity_2007_2.jpg

The results are obvious, the effects should not be underplayed, and the reasons for why this exists is an entirely different subject*

*In a nutshell, politicians being bought by lobbyists, using rhetoric to fool the populous, and perpetuating cycles of privatizing everything, deregulating everything, decreasing financial 'burden' on wealthy, and increasing corporate power. This was mainly the cornerstone of the Republican Party for ~40 years, became popular with Reagan, but has seeped into the conservative end of the Democratic Party as well. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts is currently gung ho about hearing a case that would effectively turn the US political system into nothing but a giant pool of corporate money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

eric, youre being extremely defensive and its extremely hard to have a discussion with someone that takes that stance. There is nothing wrong with what youve said, but several people have taken what youve said and thoughtfully responded, but you just repeat the same thing again.

As for the quoted writing, its not wrong, but I think its narrow minded. I agree that individuals that constantly scapegoat racism for every specific problem in their life need to shut up and work to make their life better. However I think the root of the problem still lies in the past and we cannot ignore that. And we certainly cannot treat a whole race of people like a single person. By this I mean we cant just write the entire race off, we cant say "Well, you had your chance, now fuck off." Yet I feel like that is exactly the kind of thinking that the ideas you have presented lead to.

---

No, I think we agree actually.

Quote:

---

**To be clear, I am not putting thoughts in your head or words in your mouth. I am not saying that the ideas you presented have lead you to such actions or thoughts, I am saying I think in general it is what they lead to.

---

... what?

wuf, you never cease to amaze me. I'm going to start calling you the guru. Seriously, how do you know so much about such a huge array of topics?

Not trying to derail the thread. I'm just fascinated by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

In a nutshell, politicians being bought by lobbyists, using rhetoric to fool the populous, and perpetuating cycles of privatizing everything, deregulating everything, decreasing financial 'burden' on wealthy, and increasing corporate power. This was mainly the cornerstone of the Republican Party for ~40 years, became popular with Reagan, but has seeped into the conservative end of the Democratic Party as well. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts is currently gung ho about hearing a case that would effectively turn the US political system into nothing but a giant pool of corporate money.

---

Can we start a topic bashing corporate scum? They're part of the reason I want to gtfo of this country (though it seems more and more countries are becoming westernized nowadays.

/derail

hahaha thanks Lukie

I'm an analyst at heart. For some reason, I love knowing things, analyzing them, and being able to correctly predict outcomes or act on the results. I love to read (I average at least several hours everyday), and I have a great memory. I also get bored easily, and this provokes me to learn new subjects. I'm pretty much the quintessential intellectual. There's just something great about learning and figuring shit out

I know some of this has to do with my genes (my father loves trivia type of thing), but I speculate that a lot of has to do with believing in things that really screwed my life up. I was raised super fundamentalist, and I believed the dumbest shit possible. It wasn't until I had easy access to data and rational discussion (internet) that I began to learn how stupidly wrong I was on so many things. I then began to research critical thinking, and understanding basics about logical principles and how to research subjects makes one sound smarter than they actually are IMO

Also, people hate being wrong. We all know this; we all absolutely hate it when we're wrong, but most of us are pros at engaging in things like cognitive and confirmation biases, and we then unwittingly brush our wrongness aside. But personally, I'm really bad at that. I definitely do it in certain areas, but for the most part, I KNOW when I'm wrong, and I HATE it because it's always sitting int he back of my mind saying YOURE WRONG STOP LYING TO YOURSELF YOURE WRONG STOP LYING TO YOURSELF. And so I tend to espouse a certain degree of personal candor that drives me to be intellectually honest with myself, and this then makes it difficult for me to espouse positions that I know to be wrong. This, overall, drives me to try to understand things

I'm probably sounding really pompous right now but so what that's how u get the gurls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

---

**To be clear, I am not putting thoughts in your head or words in your mouth. I am not saying that the ideas you presented have lead you to such actions or thoughts, I am saying I think in general it is what they lead to.

---

... what?

---

I was refering to my last sentence or two in which I said what I thought the ideas you were presenting lead to certain actions/thoughts that only serve to continue the cycle. But I wanted to make clear that I wasnt saying that because you presented these thoughts that you are perpetuating the cycle. If that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

This is one reason why it's about a range, not a specific number. You scoring 120 and me scoring 115 doesn't mean that you're smarter than I am because we are within the same range that allows us to compensate for margin of error.

Having said that, IQ tests haven't been changed for like 100 years because intelligence is simply that difficult to figure out, and they're only considered one aspect of what intelligence really is. They are, however, still extremely valuable measures of somebody's capacity to perform complex tasks.

---

Ha, agree fully.

Whether there IS a bias on nutrition, lead, or anything in the environment, it is also known that intelligence is highly inheritable. Adopted black kids that grow up in white families have lower IQs than adopted white kids who grow up in black families.

There's some bias there, though, like black kids are usually adopted later in life.

I find it interesting how everyone loves theories about selection among the Jews (having to learn Hebrew for religious purposes and studying religious texts) has led them to have higher intelligence. But when it comes to race it's such a politicized discussion, that everyone wants to prove there is no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Whether there IS a bias on nutrition, lead, or anything in the environment, it is also known that intelligence is highly inheritable. Adopted black kids that grow up in white families have lower IQs than adopted white kids who grow up in black families.

---

This is the third time I've asked you for evidence. Do you know what I mean?

Quote:

---

There's some bias there, though, like black kids are usually adopted later in life.

---

Way to contradict your preceding paragraph

Quote:

---

I find it interesting how everyone loves theories about selection among the Jews (having to learn Hebrew for religious purposes and studying religious texts) has led them to have higher intelligence. But when it comes to race it's such a politicized discussion, that everyone wants to prove there is no difference.

---

You would be talking about lay people because there isn't a credible scientist on the planet who likes that notion about Jews. Unless you're not referring to genetic changes. Also, science discussion is not politicized.


Look, I'm aware that there is actually a wide variety of hypotheses in science involving race and intelligence, but the fact of the matter remains that there is zero genetic or neuronal evidences on this subject, and thus concluding that it's innate is an assumption. While claiming that it's not genetic is also an assumption, the data strongly backs this up. Just look at the Flynn effect from wiki

Quote:

---

The secular, international increase in test scores, commonly called the Flynn effect, is seen by Flynn and others as reason to expect the eventual convergence of average black and white IQ scores. Flynn argues that the average IQ scores in several countries have increased about 3 points per decade during the 20th century, which he and others attribute predominantly to environmental causes.[110] This means, given the same test, the mean performance of African Americans today could be higher than the mean for white Americans in 1920, though the gains causing this appear to have occurred predominantly in the lower half of the IQ distribution.

---

^^^ This is HUGE evidence against heredity because it suggests that in order for blacks to be genetically less intelligent than whites this difference would have to be new in the last 100 years. Evolution doesn't work even remotely that quickly.

Also, from an evolutionary perspective, it makes little sense that there's racial differences. For example, we would see that more closely related ethnicities would be more closely related in IQ, but the opposite is true. The difference between East and SE Asians is among the largest on the globe. Instead, the results correlate with environment just fine.

Not to mention that big differences in environments between the races is very new. Agriculture is only 10k years old (which was the beginning of modernization), and estimates on the most recent common ancestor is that he could have been as early as 3k years ago (not to be confused with Mitochondrial Eve which was 150k-250k years ago). If this was race based then we would expect to see those of European decent substantially higher than anybody else (because they engaged in modern complexities much more often), as well as I suspect massive gene flow from the rapid stages of punctuated equilibrium which would likely result in humans having split into several different species. But still, the amount of time we've had to diversify is just not enough to get a whole lot of gene flow, and this is represented by the differences between the ethnicities being more superficial and isolated.

In fact, there is more evidence to suggest that differences in IQ and race are more based in the inefficiency of IQ testing. For example: a US citizen scoring 70 is considered functionally retarded, but an African scoring 70 is not.

well if blacks get better nutrition now today than whites did a hundred years ago, then it wouldn't prove anything, it would just prove that good nutrition = higher intelligence than bad nutrition
I'm not denying there are environmental factors
I am only claiming that there is evidence there are genetic factors

there are many genes that affect intelligence, like these:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0427161424.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html
http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/c...elligence.html
each gene affects IQ by 2-4 points and there are about 50-100 genes that affect intelligence

and of course different people have different versions of these genes
the more intelligent ones have the better versions, the less intelligent ones have the worse versions

just read this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

The first three links are about genes and intelligence, and have nothing to do with ethnicity.

The fourth article does not provide any evidence for racial IQ genetics. It's spends half its time on the head size thing which in no way determines genetics and is not presented as causative. What I want is evidence that shows that the differences in IQ and race are based in genes. Environmentally uncontrolled studies do not show that. This article itself claims it does not know, and the next article is a rebuttal to the genetic hypothesis

Also, there isn't even any theory which describes how the known differences could have come about. But this is expected since IQ correlates more with environment than with heredity. Seriously, if heredity was a big enough factor, we would see an entirely different networking of IQ gaps.

also about the Jew thing:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ne-for-intelli

you're wrong about most recent common ancestor, it's ridiculous to think that it was 3K years ago when some populations have never reproduced with Europeans yet and have been isolated for thousands of years
of course you're right if no such population exists but if some tribe on some island never got their women fucked by a white guy it pushes it way back

and it's not even relevant because that's just mixture of genes
for example, blacks are all part white in America anyway, their most recent common ancestor lived like a 1000 years in Western Europe

HOWEVER, since only one half of genes are carried from one parent, over like 40 generations they have 1 / 1099511627776 of the genes of their most recent common ancestor and what's more relevant is what the majority of the genes are

maybe in Africa natural selection favored high muscular strength (high testosterone in males) and in Europe it favored high intelligence
we don't really know if that's the case, but that could be a possibility

despite most common recent ancestor and whatever, there are genes that exist in the human genome that go back 100K years ago that some people have and some people don't because not everyone has the same genetic makeup despite being related (we're all Nth cousins)

My point is: what are the chances that blacks and whites have EXACTLY the same frequencies of EVERY gene related to intelligence? Like the genes I posted above. Twins raised in different environments have very similar IQs, it is estimated IQ upon adulthood is 50% genetic. Even if there are environmental factors, why can't the black-white IQ gap be 10% genetic? Saying it is exactly 0% genetic is being dogmatic and not looking at all the facts. I am conceding we don't know how much it is genetic and how much it is environmental. I'm just saying it's both in part.

The study on Jews you linked says something different than what you said. What you said is representative of a long time debunked theory of evolution called Lamarkism. The article claims a correlation between genes that cause both disease and neuronal growth with IQ, that's all.

You also seem to be confusing the most recent common ancestor with Mitochondrial Eve. The MRCA only needs to be father to all humans alive, Mitochondrial Eve is the *mother* of all humans alive. This doesn't look like it's much of a difference, but it's actually a huge difference. The MRCA would be some dude who made babies with a bunch of chicks over large regions and his children did the same thing over other regions, and soon enough the MRCA is the great great great grandfather to everybody. Mitochondrial Eve is the ONLY woman of her time to have passed on her genes to every human alive today.

Estimates are that our earliest MRCA could be 3k years, it's really likely that he's 5-6k years, and it's super unlikely that he's 10k+ years out. Shit, I could be the MRCA in like a thousand years if I made babies in every region of the world

But you are right that the amount of genes we carry from the MRCA is super small. The point is that on evolutionary scales, human ethnicities are not that far apart.

You're misunderstanding my position (and the position of most scientists). It's not that there is no heredity in IQ, and not that all lineages are the same; but that there is no concrete evidence for there being a difference in IQ based on genes along social racial lines. Just give me ten generations of selective breeding and I'll breed a lineage that has the highest IQ of all human lineages. There could be African lineages that out perform the white average. This really skews the broad brush race idea.

There are likely cognitive function of ethnicities that could be different, but we have not determined that, and even if we identified all the genes we thought were responsible, we would still have a very flawed way of fully testing said cognitive function

I think racism is more interesting than race, if that makes any sense.

What if we just all decided to be all hateful against people with blue eyes. It would be like HAHA YOU GODDAMN BLUE EYES HAVING PORCH MONKEY or whatever terms would come up.

Gotta watch them sumbitches with blue eyes, they're after our brown-eyed women! And they are violent criminals too!

I'm just wondering if historians are going to say if Obama isn't the first black president because he is only half black the second a president with two black parents get innaugurated.

That could happen among a small sect of the populous, but not by historians. The simple fact that he is currently considered the first black president is enough for future historians to claim that he was the first black president.

Also, I suspect that Obama has always self-identified as African American since it's his dad that is black

What I'm looking forward to is the first gay atheist president. Xtians will aspolde

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What I'm looking forward to is the first gay atheist president. Xtians will aspolde

---

How about female, gay, asian, jewish, wheelchair-bound, blind president?

...

May as well get all of the "firsts" out of the way so we can go back to electing people who actually know wtf they are doing. :twisted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That could happen among a small sect of the populous, but not by historians. The simple fact that he is currently considered the first black president is enough for future historians to claim that he was the first black president.

Also, I suspect that Obama has always self-identified as African American since it's his dad that is black

What I'm looking forward to is the first gay atheist president. Xtians will aspolde

---

An openly gay or openly atheist president is a LONG way away. Of course I would have said the same thing about a black president a few years ago, but that's been 50 years in the making. I'd expect at least an equal amount of time for an openly gay or atheist president though.

Of course predicting the political climate 50 years down the road is a hilariously futile endeavor so I could easily be wrong.

Yeah the entire political climate would have to be very different for that. I doubt we'll even be close to a gay or atheist president by 2100

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StillDeadMoney

How about...wheelchair-bound...president?

---

You had one of those there, sparky.

http://heroworkshop.files.wordpress....ltfranklin.jpg

WTF is that on his arm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

My point is: what are the chances that blacks and whites have EXACTLY the same frequencies of EVERY gene related to intelligence? Like the genes I posted above. Twins raised in different environments have very similar IQs, it is estimated IQ upon adulthood is 50% genetic. Even if there are environmental factors, why can't the black-white IQ gap be 10% genetic? Saying it is exactly 0% genetic is being dogmatic and not looking at all the facts.

---

Hey iopq:

Quote:

---

In a recent editorial in the New York Times entitled, “All Brains Are the Same Color“, Dr. Nisbett argues against the hypothesis that IQ differences between blacks and whites are genetic. He notes that decades of research have not supported the assertion that one of the races in the United States is biologically inferior in terms of innate intelligence. Rather, he argues, “Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to recognize similarities and better facility with analogies — when solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more likely to be known to whites than to blacks.(an example would be an analogy using the word "yacht instead of boat") But when these kinds of reasoning were tested with words and concepts known equally well to blacks and whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior knowledge predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it was prior knowledge only that differed.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

I am conceding we don't know how much it is genetic and how much it is environmental. I'm just saying it's both in part.

---

I have seen both smart and dumb people in every race, color, place or subgenre imaginable. That is not mentioning that "IQ Tests" as a measure of general intelligence is pretty limited. The concept of trying to put numbers on something as relative as "intelligence" is pretty whack imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

WTF is that on his arm?

---

A black man?

And no one was around to lynch it for him? How barbaric!

To lighten the mood.........

Everyone's a little bit Racist (Audio only but good quality)

Everyone's a little bit Racist (AV but not great quality)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Also, I suspect that Obama has always self-identified as African American since it's his dad that is black

---

silly assumption imo.

What's the criteria by which people decide what to sign on those forms?

there isnt any, any institution is definitely afraid of implying the "one drop" policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

I have seen both smart and dumb people in every race, color, place or subgenre imaginable. That is not mentioning that "IQ Tests" as a measure of general intelligence is pretty limited. The concept of trying to put numbers on something as relative as "intelligence" is pretty whack imo.

---

straw man much?

I never said there were no dumb white people and there were no smart black people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

I never said there were no dumb white people ...

---

good thing, cuz if you had, we wouldnt have to look far to find an example to prove you wrong. ducwidt?

Quote:

---

In a recent editorial in the New York Times entitled, “All Brains Are the Same Color“, Dr. Nisbett argues against the hypothesis that IQ differences between blacks and whites are genetic. He notes that decades of research have not supported the assertion that one of the races in the United States is biologically inferior in terms of innate intelligence. Rather, he argues, “Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to recognize similarities and better facility with analogies — when solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more likely to be known to whites than to blacks.(an example would be an analogy using the word "yacht instead of boat") But when these kinds of reasoning were tested with words and concepts known equally well to blacks and whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior knowledge predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it was prior knowledge only that differed.”

---

so actually those tests that have equal black and white scores have 0% correlation with g
the tests that are the most g loaded have the highest black-white IQ gap

you have right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdan

you have right

---

You stupid motherfuckers never figure it out, do you?

may I note that it's impossible to make a test that uses "black" concepts/words whatever they are, to make blacks score higher? Make an IQ test about living in the hood and blacks still won't score higher