Note: This applies, mostly, to ancient times when races evolved and came to exist.
In Africa, the ability to run with great speed is of more value than a greater intelligence. They have to escape predators, other tribesmen, and other circumstances. In this case: superiority is to run fast.
The case with East Mongoloids and Whites is that these races developed on the edge of the icecaps under harsh climates. The genetic response to this, for the East-Mongoloids, was to develop the epicanthic fold, which is commonly referred to as "Asian eyes".
he reason Europeans don't have this is because I the Europeans came ice sheets and the edge of the icecaps later than their Mongoloid relatives.
The other quality that developed was "delayed gratification". This is largely confined to the frontal lobe, as the other lobes are more or less concerned with relatively specific tasks visual lobe = vision parietal lobe = orientation in space temporal lobe = object oriented sound and language
Why, relatively? Well, the anterior part of the frontal lobe concerns movements of the human body (pre-motor cortex and motor cortex), while the frontal part of the parietal lobe is concerned with orientation of the body in space and the limbs.
Thus the expanded frontal part, the executive part of the brain, concerns this delayed gratification. In other words: planning for the future. greater intelligence concerns planning ahead, acting instead of reacting.
Thus, in the environments of Eurasia, the superior quality was intelligence. In Africa, the superior quality was whatever helped survive - it just happened to be physical attributes.
Quote: from Mister Perfect at 2:10 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 Time to watch people manipulate this factual information into racist "superiority" bullshit. He cites no reference to any information backing up his claims. So you're a fool for claiming his information as 'factural'.
Time to watch people manipulate this factual information into racist "superiority" bullshit.
He cites no reference to any information backing up his claims. So you're a fool for claiming his information as 'factural'.
What information do you want me to prove?
Most of this is common knowledge, many easily found on Google.
Let me do it for you:
In Africa, the ability to run with great speed is of more value than a greater intelligence. They have to escape predators, other tribesmen, and other circumstances. In this case: superiority is to run fast. Does a source need to be cited? No. This is common sense. As you know, sub-Saharan Africa didn't have much unity and wasn't a civilization - moreso a bunch of tribes constantly warring.
Sprinting from predators or other tribesmen was, of course, a worthy trait. They didn't live near the ocean which explains why almost no olympic swimmers are Negroes.
The case with East Mongoloids and Whites is that these races developed on the edge of the icecaps under harsh climates. The genetic response to this, for the East-Mongoloids, was to develop the epicanthic fold, which is commonly referred to as "Asian eyes". Do you doubt this? Look up "Epicanthic fold". It will explain it's correlations with Mongols (especially Eastern Mongols). Also look at the Out of Africa theory - explaining the icecap/harsh climate claim.
he reason Europeans don't have this is because I the Europeans came ice sheets and the edge of the icecaps later than their Mongoloid relatives. Again, check out the Out of Africa theory or just have some basic knowledge of human history.
The other quality that developed was "delayed gratification". This is largely confined to the frontal lobe, as the other lobes are more or less concerned with relatively specific tasks visual lobe = vision parietal lobe = orientation in space temporal lobe = object oriented sound and language You can go use your silly Wikipedia or any Encyclopedia and they will explain the usage for each of these brain lobes. The fact that this developed is easily provable with testing of brains, which has been done by Bean, Pearl, Vint, Tilney, Gordon, Todd, and others.
Why, relatively? Well, the anterior part of the frontal lobe concerns movements of the human body (pre-motor cortex and motor cortex), while the frontal part of the parietal lobe is concerned with orientation of the body in space and the limbs. Again, check an encyclopedia or something.
Thus the expanded frontal part, the executive part of the brain, concerns this delayed gratification. In other words: planning for the future. greater intelligence concerns planning ahead, acting instead of reacting. Easily distinguishable. If you knew anything of sub-Saharan civilization, you would know how much more advanced Eurasian civilization was.
Thus, in the environments of Eurasia, the superior quality was intelligence. In Africa, the superior quality was whatever helped survive - it just happened to be physical attributes. Do you want to try to argue with this? Go ahead!
What the fuck is a quadroon? And again, that proves nothing. The environment often varies between races, and even subraces. You neglect that certain races tend to live in different countries, also, which might cause confusion in 'studies' and also presents a different environment.
Simply put, the test showed that 1/4 Negroes scored better than 1/2 Negroes which scored better than full Negroes.
I'm calling bullshit. The bulk of the world'si thought that would solve the conquering problem, and you could just go after mansa musaquote oil isn't in Africa. I doubt that, and if it were true, it would likely be because the continent is horribly underdeveloped. And that doesn't make a difference in what I said, because it has nothing to do with PAST development...you have to reach good levels of industrialization before developing hydro power substantially. All require a huge amount of industrialization to develop, and also, you ignored what I said about land.
No, their land was less suitable for development of civilization, they had tons of disease compared to less tropical areas, and European colonization/imperialism hindered them from a long time. Not only Europeans, but also Muslims, actually.
You're just making that up.
Humans are so different that only a fool could say race doesn't exist.
I already described why the 'twins reared apart' studies are primarily bullshit.
No, it's your point of view. "Genetics determines intelligence, therefore, because of this, geniuses can't be born from idiots". What 'intelligence' is inherited is likely extremely complex in ways, dependent on many factors, and not just a 'direct' inheritance. After all, it IS far more complicated than something like 'body type' or 'muscle mass' or even 'basic personality'.
"Genetics determines intelligence, therefore, because of this, geniuses can't be born from idiots".
What 'intelligence' is inherited is likely extremely complex in ways, dependent on many factors, and not just a 'direct' inheritance. After all, it IS far more complicated than something like 'body type' or 'muscle mass' or even 'basic personality'.
The above are all classified as mental retardation and are 100% genetic. The sad thing is that many more of these harmful mutations exist, each causing a burden on the brain of the carrier.
In no way was I implying any 'political correctness' or bullshit 'egalitarianism'. I was saying that this shit has been going on, without proof, since before 1900, leading to a huge house of cards and massive confirmation bias.
Unfortunately, modern lifestyles don't even allow for the full scope of intelligence to be accurately expressed, so I'd say they should just stop trying, because they do more damage than good by pigeonholing people.
If it's not enough to be detected at birth or a young age, it's probably not enough to really have a substantial impact in the long run. As long as the basics are relatively intact, the long term impact is likely minimal. Truth is, I don't know if such 'minor malfunctions' that are undetectable from a young age even exist, because an actual flaw in the basic mental processing would probably be pretty obvious from birth. BUT, to say that someone's state of being 'slightly less smart than average' is because of a 'slight malfunction' is pretty fucking stupid.
Truth is, I don't know if such 'minor malfunctions' that are undetectable from a young age even exist, because an actual flaw in the basic mental processing would probably be pretty obvious from birth. BUT, to say that someone's state of being 'slightly less smart than average' is because of a 'slight malfunction' is pretty fucking stupid.
Very, very basic things like puberty are genetic, but a large part of the way the brain develops is due to the environment. See brain plasticity. People who engage in sports intensely, intellectual activities a lot, etc, often have been shown to have enlarged portions of the brain. And I don't mean people who are just 'smart', people who do a particular thing that exercises that uses that portion a lot. I believe this has been shown to change over time, as well.
Which doesn't mean less intelligent, which you tried to imply.
Few other things like what? Reaction times have little, if anything to do with intelligence. Learning of extremely basic math at a young age also has a lot to do with the parents.
There are some general differences between individuals native to different parts of the world, but there is no 'separating line' that makes that individual a member of a specific 'race'. It's more blurry.
Maybe the boundaries between race aren't so definite because populations have mixed, but you can assure yourself that most humans are diverse enough to be separated from other humans.
What about quadroons scoring better than mulattoes which score better than full Negroes?
Actually, Africa has more natural resources than anywhere else. The continent has enough natural resources to take care of the whole world
the DRC is capable of generating enough hydro electricity to power the whole continent.
The continent has reserves of gold, platinum, diamond, natural gas, oil, water, coal, asbestos, uranium, and more.
Well, in reality, that's not because of their resources.
And races are extremely different which is what separates us.
Most of it is, actually, in your genetics. Testing of twins in radically different environment leads them to believe it's over 3:1.
That's not a point of view, but pretty much a fact.
Read about "political correctness". It's a bunch of morals and more bullshit trying to make everyone seem equal.
That's why people are trying so hard to create a test that DOES.
But what if it's a small malfunction that makes you only a little bit worse than the average human? That's not hard to believe as many mutations make people almost incapable of adding 2 and 2.
Then what causes the brain to develop?
Scientists are currently developing a "thinking cap" that stimulates the brain with electro-magnets in order to spark bursts of creativity...these pulses have shown to generate brief bursts (around an hour) of increased artistic and perceptual abilities. Some of the subjects were able to draw more natural looking images of animals and faces from memory after wearing the cap for fifteen minutes. Other volunteers were able to spot errors in written transcripts that they had previously passed over and were better able to estimate the number of dots displayed on a screen. Would it be a stretch to say that some people have a mutation that does this for them? Biologically, it wouldn't.
Small skull = Small brain. It's not saying that people are "dumber" but that the brain is differently constructed.
They test the reaction times, learning of math, and a few other things.
But you agree that there are numerous differences among race that can be easily seen - and not easily seen?
Yes. The way even wealthier blacks grow up in school is typically different than whites. The degree depends on the locale, of course.
No it isn't, it has tons of desert, jungle, and extreme temperatures that would hinder a lot of development of civilization. And of course it doesn't, but Imperialism made them even worse off in modern times.
You probably got this info because Africa is less than 10% of World trade. Well, in reality, that's not because of their resources.
Mentally, they are extremely different. In basic function, perhaps not, but that's not what separates us from others species.
Of course everything has a technical genetic basis, but I meant that most of the variation in intelligence is probably not due to genetics, and can be explained by social and environmental factors.
That's just your unfounded point of view.
behavioral researchers, especially the early ones, had a tendency to dramatize similarities even when the number of twin pairs with these similarities was minimal, and when they were far outweighed by differences. Read 'the gene illusion'. They have been assuming that meaningless crap is genetic since well before modern 'research' began since it's an easy way to be an elitist dick.
IQ tests don't accurately represent intelligence or potential intelligence...
IQ tests aren't the ONLY tests that show this gap, it's just considered the most accurate and best developed.
I wasn't ignoring that there are those who are not 'full blown', but even non 'full blown' retardation is often easily detectable at a very young age.
Brain development at a later age proves NOTHING about 'genetics' being involved.
Look at this: http://www.switched.com/2008/09/30/thinking-cap-could-make-everyone-a-genius/
Scientists are currently developing a "thinking cap" that stimulates the brain with electro-magnets in order to spark bursts of creativity...these pulses have shown to generate brief bursts (around an hour) of increased artistic and perceptual abilities. Some of the subjects were able to draw more natural looking images of animals and faces from memory after wearing the cap for fifteen minutes. Other volunteers were able to spot errors in written transcripts that they had previously passed over and were better able to estimate the number of dots displayed on a screen.
People with 'small skulls' aren't necessarily dumber than people with 'big skulls', which has been shown between individuals...
How exactly would you accurately measure the 'intelligence' of an infant?
No, I'm saying the establishment doesn't want to admit that by their own methods, what you're saying is completely true, because it'd make them lose credibility.
Sort of. Since there's no real defining 'line' anywhere.
Even for the adopted Blacks? Can it really result in a 15 point difference? I don't think so.
Africa is Earths richest land, Europe and America are less fertile and arable than Africa.
Humans aren't as different from other species' as you may think.
. That's a load of bullshit. We get our genetics from our parents, our genetics holds our brain data, and that's how we have our intelligence.
When two mentally retarded people have a child, there is no chance for a little Einstein to emerge.
I've also read about twins being separated at birth and sharing odd characteristics, such as both of them being afraid of certain things and a lot more. The conclusion that it 'was' genetic, without taking into account other variables.
Trust me, once a test shows equal intelligence towards all humans, it will be WELL known.
The thought that such an extreme is the only intelligence factor to exist is blasphemy.
And EVERYONE has this equal. EVERYONE, no matter their genetic makeup, has the SAME amounts of these, yet everything else can differ greatly.
Brain growth doesn't have to do with genetics? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
Also, the skull of the Negro has thicker cranial bones than the White and a differently shaped skull (with a smaller space for the brain).
What about the testing of infants?
What I'm saying is the EXACT OPPOSITE of political correctness.
I have to ask - do you think race is a social construct or what?
really id like to see something reliable that says that
and thats not proof of that, amongst blacks, theres still a lot more cultural anti-intellectualism than amongst whites You should check out The Bell Curve.
It's a nice book explaining this.
cultural anti-intellectualism would be one of them. for blacks, theres much more of a 'ghetto' mindset typically where being 'smart' is being a dumbass, somehow Even for the college grads? Even for the adopted Blacks? Can it really result in a 15 point difference? I don't think so.
animals? probably. maybe not at birth, but our potential does Not really.
1. typically, the 'animals' in the studies you refer to about the brain are much inferior to chimps
2) while chimps are capable of basic levels of some of those things, they dont have the complex understanding of detail and broad concepts that we do, and dont have the potential to develop nearly as far. at least its unlikely Here we go again. Just because Humans are smarter than other animals doesn't mean we are all at the same level of intelligence with only cultural differences among us.
if you've ever played the game 'civilization', you would also realize that the land quality of these areas set them back pretty severely. its pretty interesting how the fertile grassland of europe and america helped their development immensely. then again thats no guarantee, it just helped
also, imperialism Africa is Earths richest land, Europe and America are less fertile and arable than Africa.
And Imperialism? That doesn't change the fact that Europe may have had the first ever writing system and many other marvels.
Why didn't sub-Saharan Africans create any real civilizations by themselves?
Dogs tend to vary quite a bit more than humans (more than just color....there are a huge range of sizes, shapes, etc. also, intelligence is far more basic in dogs, and dogs are routinely 'bred', so its very different They still represent different varieties under one species. And humans come in a range of sizes and shapes too.
Potential for complex intelligence, low amount of overall differences between races, huge environmental differences, etc. Humans aren't as different from other species' as you may think.
I understand this. However, I don't think this is entirely a sound process when concerning matters of higher intelligence. I've read about this a lot, and a lot of generalized, unfounded conclusions are drawn this way based on worthless correlations. I'm telling you, we aren't that much more intelligent than others. The Australoids barely emerged from the Stone Age, Africa was at a large disadvantage also when the Europeans arrived (even when much of Africa had an Arabic influence).
Weren't these just the progenitors of humanity anyway? I don't see why not... They branched off into a few other species' and lived at the same time as humans.
Intelligence is not really meaningfully inherited.. That's a load of bullshit. We get our genetics from our parents, our genetics holds our brain data, and that's how we have our intelligence. When two mentally retarded people have a child, there is no chance for a little Einstein to emerge.
Oh trust me, I've read up on most of these studies a lot, and they suffer from a lot of major flaws. Like....in many cases, the twins actually had some contact, confirmation bias, low sample size, etc. One thing that they might have found, however, is that basic personality, which is presumably at least somewhat genetic, (extroverted/introverted) could be linked to IQ scores. Extroverted kids would probably be more involved in the task and do better at a young age. So I guess in some cases you could have an actual correlation between genetics and IQ scores, but it would be meaningless, because IQ tests don't really signify intelligence. So it doesn't really prove anything.I've also read about twins being separated at birth and sharing odd characteristics, such as both of them being afraid of certain things and a lot more.
The conclusion that it 'was' genetic, without taking into account other variables. You can't say that segregation and culture didn't play a role, yet they pretend that the 'ordinary negro' back then had an equal education, awareness and mental development of the average white. Especially given how poor those tests were (even in relation to today's shitty tests), it's laughable.
And 'Eurasia' includes Europe too, it's not just China, but yeah sure, my bad. And the tests still hold true. Trust me, once a test shows equal intelligence towards all humans, it will be WELL known. This includes reaction times with infants and basic testing of the understanding of physics.
No, I meant ACTUAL 'retards' that have some kind of brain deficiency from birth.. IQ or not, this is probably differentiated very easily from a normal child at a young age (I've read about this, and this seems to be the case). Mental retardation that you see with the children in wheelchairs drooling over themselves isn't the ONLY genetic defect that effects intelligence. The thought that such an extreme is the only intelligence factor to exist is blasphemy. Of course mutations will have arisen to lower intelligence and heighten it.
I didn't even talk about Africa, but again, there's a difference between people who are completely illiterate and ignorant, and actually neurologically impaired. But Africa is home to the purest Negroes, the US Negro gene pool is about 30% White.
High functioning mental processes, advanced perception, symbolic thinking, potential for huge amounts of development not seen in animals...I could go on and on. And EVERYONE has this equal. EVERYONE, no matter their genetic makeup, has the SAME amounts of these, yet everything else can differ greatly.
Makes SO MUCH sense.
While I'm sure some of the most intelligent animals could develop even further in the right circumstances, primarily, we are built differently. As each group of humans is built differently.
Again, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with genetics, unless it were present at birth across a broad spectrum. Brain growth doesn't have to do with genetics? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA! And, of course, it's present at birth - except the growth factor... Also, the skull of the Negro has thicker cranial bones than the White and a differently shaped skull (with a smaller space for the brain).
There are still cultural factors in play here, as the environment in a black parent white child household is different than with a black parent/black child household. Also, the socialization in school is quite different for blacks and whit es.What about the testing of infants?
I'm not 'politically correct'. I just think behavioral genetics is primarily a bullshit field and abused to come to misguided conclusions. My main beef is with psychiatry, I actually don't care about racism too much.
what youre saying has a lot of merit if you actually believe in the field, so the average person who is stupid enough to buy into psychiatry's horseshit actually should agree with you, but doesnt becuase they're too 'politically correct' What I'm saying is the EXACT OPPOSITE of political correctness. It's not racism and it's merely pointing out differences in race.
Why do you constantly do this? Every time you claim it's the poor, uneducated Negroes that influence the score. I've told you about people testing the Negro while using Whites and Blacks that are middle classed - the IQ gap GROWS.
why do you keep ignoring the cultural factors i mention...income isnt really relevant
And this is still the same. Amerinds have an average IQ of 87-93. The American Negro has an IQ, on average, of 80-85. Yet, the Amerinds had a higher level of poverty, had a smaller population, and were more isolated. These IQ's haven't changed much from the early 1900's to the present - more proof that "segregation" didn't influence intelligence as much as people think.
and thats not proof of that, amongst blacks, theres still a lot more cultural anti-intellectualism than amongst whites
Such as? The poverty claim gets thrown out the window, the segregation claim is also outdated to this study, and the same test was given to everyone - name all of your other reasons why Negroes are brought down so much in virtually every intelligence test.
Is it really? Does our intelligence overpower all others THAT much?
Chimps display a remarkable range of behavior and talent. They make and use simple tools, hunt in groups and engage in aggressive, violent acts. They are social creatures that appear to be capable of empathy, altruism, self-awareness, cooperation in problem solving and learning through example and experience. Chimps even outperform humans in some memory tasks.
2) while chimps are capable of basic levels of some of those things, they dont have the complex understanding of detail and broad concepts that we do, and dont have the potential to develop nearly as far. at least its unlikely
But, hey, sub-Saharan Africa without any influence from other races hasn't done much more than these Chimps.
also, imperialism
Animals aren't so different from us - Some dogs are smarter than other breeds, faster than other breeds, have stronger senses (especially smelling and hearing) than other breeds, yet they are all the same species.
What makes Humans so much different? What separates Humans from every other species and animal on Earth?
The answer: The average Human. Biologists will test other animals to find information on humans because, they know, we're not some incredibly different life-form to them.
Humans follow the same laws as animals, we just have, in some ways, more "advanced" brains.
This isn't ONLY for humans, as other extinct hominids buried their dead, might have believed in an afterlife, and may have had language.
]Segregation, of course, had an impact, but the MAJORITY of our intelligence is inherited.
This has been proven with twins that have been raised in very different environments, yet being close to each other intelligence-wise.
Who said they jumped to conclusions? They simply gave a test, tried to take all other invalidating variables out, and reported the scores. It's possible many of them were trying to disprove the genetic link to intelligence, yet failed and disproved their own hypothesis.
And 'Eurasia' includes Europe too, it's not just China, but yeah sure, my bad.
]No, it doesn't. Retardation is an IQ of 70 or lower.
But, the average IQ of some parts of Africa is lower than 60, do they kill all of their children?
Here we go again. What separates human intelligence from other animals?
We are treated better or we have different brains? The latter seems to be the ACCEPTED reason.
It's proven that the brains of Eurasians are larger, more complex, and continue to grow for longer periods of time.
I guess the Whites being raised in Black families and Blacks being raised in Whites families doesn't count either because those have proven to show that the child's intelligence is closer to their biological parents.
Now, please, give me a study on Whites and Blacks scoring equally. Give me any scientific proof apart from your politically correct claims and moral input. I'm waiting.
what youre saying has a lot of merit if you actually believe in the field, so the average person who is stupid enough to buy into psychiatry's horseshit actually should agree with you, but doesnt becuase they're too 'politically correct'
Unless you can show that African populations have less developed frontal lobes than we do this evolutionary argument is nothing but blind speculation and we are in fact physiologically identical intellectually whereas educational practices in eurasia come into play as the real cause for higher IQ averages.
As usual medjai pawns the idiots.
Amerinds where, in the US? Elsewhere? When? Today? Back then? That all matters a lot. Especially the exact methodology used in this 'study'. While they often live in poorer conditions, during Jim Crow, they were more distant from the direct segregation and now are probably more distant from the cultural anti-intellectualism that tends to embody 'ghetto blacks'.
Doesn't matter. There are other differences besides CLASS that have nothing to do with 'genetics'.
Thanks for completely ignoring what I said and using a useless comparison, as humans have a very different, more malleable brain system than animals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/science/17chimp.html
Chimps display a remarkable range of behavior and talent. They make and use simple tools, hunt in groups and engage in aggressive, violent acts. They are social creatures that appear to be capable of empathy, altruism, self-awareness, cooperation in problem solving and learning through example and experience. Chimps even outperform humans in some memory tasks. "Fifty years ago, we knew next to nothing about chimpanzees," said Andrew Whiten.
There you go. A non-human species, with 1.23-1.6% genetic difference (as opposed to up to 0.18% differences with Humans and race), can "out preform" us in some tasks. They are capable of many things, yet, I agree, have never contributed as much as some humans. But, hey, sub-Saharan Africa without any influence from other races hasn't done much more than these Chimps.
What makes Humans so much different? What separates Humans from every other species and animal on Earth? The answer: The average Human. Biologists will test other animals to find information on humans because, they know, we're not some incredibly different life-form to them.
Humans follow the same laws as animals, we just have, in some ways, more "advanced" brains. This isn't ONLY for humans, as other extinct hominids buried their dead, might have believed in an afterlife, and may have had language.
No, you cited a vague study, and I described why it was meaningless. And don't tell me you're going to say that segregation had no impact on that shit...
And don't tell me you're going to say that segregation had no impact on that shit...
The fact that they jumped to conclusions without strong evidence to 'prove a (stupid) point', especially in segregationist states, probably suggests that they were racist.
Look at your topic title...
Neither does this...higher income and more acceptance means that more whites keep children with disabilities than Asians do in their countries.
See, you're just spouting dogmatic bullshit out of your ass now. The whole 'they're this way because their genetics are lesser' crap. Overall, intelligence is probably not primarily genetic given how crappy most of these 'studies' are. Also, all the stuff you've posted really has little value.
It's proven that the brains of Eurasians are larger, more complex, and continue to grow for longer periods of time. But, oh, I guess that's because we're all so racist against them!
How come Amerinds, which live in far worse environments, consistently outscore them?
Also, these poverty factors have been taken out of tests. Extensive research by DR. G.J. McGurk, associate Professor of Psychology at Villanove University, reveals that the gap in intelligence between Blacks and Whites INCREASES where socio-economic levels of both races are raised to the middle classes.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3k4r2y tends to think that supragranular layers tend to be thickest in the "smartest" animals.
How many times does this need to occur? How many coincidences are there? Will intelligence testing only be perfect once everyone scores the same?
There you go! You claimed they're racist not knowing ANYTHING about them. They tried as hard as they could to prove a point, that race and intelligence are connected. But, of course, you yell "racism."
What's your point? Jews score highers than both too. I can see the proof and accept it.
Whites also tend to have more geniuses than East Asians (as not all Asians fit with your claim).
But, in turn, more retards
This fits with the theory that Whites were split into two parts - the high and low class. The low class was less intelligent, hence them being more impoverished. The high class was more intelligent, hence being richer and more famous.
Correlation =/= causation. Whether this has a definite impact on lower intelligence isn't really given. And also, if you understand the concept of brain plasticity, it wouldn't even matter if it had a direct relevance. The poorer environments black people grow up in could account for lack of mental development, which would translate to less biological manifestation.
Again, this doesn't prove fucking shit, as correlation =/= causation and this doesn't suggest that it is a cause like you say, instead of an effect.
Doesn't imply anything other than differing typical interests and social environments.
Because the brain develops in proportion to the environment, and because IQ tests often depend on understanding of typical areas of the mainstream world, this doesn't really imply anything other than different socialization.
In Virginia? During segregation? Are you fucking kidding me?
Let's put aside the fact that ancient tests given by racist twats with flawed methods don't mean much for a second. Again, even if your 'sources' were completely legitimate, it wouldn't matter, because this really doesn't suggest any genetic inferiority. That is, unless you're stupid enough to see these things in the one-dimensional bionutjob way...
And never did I say it suggested inferiority, only intelligence differences.
And actually, from what I recall, even your bullshit point is 'wrong' within its own narrow realm. Asians typically score higher on IQ tests than whites.
Whites also tend to have more geniuses than East Asians (as not all Asians fit with your claim). But, in turn, more retards. This fits with the theory that Whites were split into two parts - the high and low class. The low class was less intelligent, hence them being more impoverished. The high class was more intelligent, hence being richer and more famous. That's why many people think the bell curve for Whites is so wide, yet it's thinner for Blacks and East-Asians. A bit of European historical knowledge also plays a part in this.
GTFO Racist
LMAO, QFT
The Negro brain has a lighter mass than Eurasians.
. The thickness of the supragranular layer of the Negro brain is about 15% thinner than the White brain.
The U.S. government's PACE examination is given to 100,000 university graduates who are prospective professional or administrative civil-service employees each year. An exceptional score is about 70 or above. Around 50-50% of the whites who take it get 70+ but by only 10-20% of the Negroes that take it do.
Back in 1915, Dr. G.W. Ferfuson took 1000 school children in Virginia, tested them for mental aptitude without the use of IQ testing while divided into 5 racial categories. Full-blooded Negroes scored an average of 69.2% as high as Whites.
Three-quarter Negroes scored about 73% as high as All of these Blacks lived as and considered themselves "Negroes." Their environments and "advantages" or "disadvantages" were exactly the same.
Given by the U.S. Army to over 386,000 illiterate soldiers in WWI, the Army Beta test showed Negro draftees to be "inferior to the Whites on all types of tests used in the Army." Additionally, tests were conducted upon pure Negroes, Mulattoes, and Quadroons (one forth Negro). They doscpvered that "the lighter groups made better scores."
718 users online 
222937 members 1239 active today Advertise Here
718 users online 222937 members 1239 active today Advertise Here
burn the banks
You have 1 new message.
