Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by kidd rune at 6:08 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 Though I don't find one race, or any races, all-out "superior", I do find some races to be better off at certain things than others. 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. -- Posted by mo money17 at 6:09 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 RACIST.   -- Posted by kidd rune at 6:10 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 Quote: from mo money17 at 6:09 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 RACIST. I knew the 1st comment would be that. Doubt you read even 1/2 of it. -- Posted by Elite Taste at 6:10 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 GTFO Racist -- Posted by kidd rune at 6:10 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 Quote: from Elite Taste at 6:10 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 GTFO Racist -- Posted by Mister Perfect at 6:10 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 Time to watch people manipulate this factual information into racist "superiority" bullshit. -- Posted by Mister Perfect at 6:11 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 Quote: from Elite Taste at 6:10 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 GTFO Racist Uh? Look at it again. -- Posted by kidd rune at 6:12 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 Quote: from Mister Perfect at 6:10 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 Time to watch people manipulate this factual information into racist "superiority" bullshit. They read the title only. I made it nice and easy for them creating that first sentence, but what do you expect? Maybe it's fun to call everyone you see racist. I've never tried it, I wouldn't know. -- Posted by medjai at 6:16 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 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. -- Posted by stl man at 6:16 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 u have nothing better to do than to post this bullshit. lol it's funny -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 6:26 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 The fact that you ignore differing educational environments, as mentioned by medjai, or the tendency for IQ scores to rise in a population the longer IQ scores are administered (indicating that the population isn't getting smarter, but rather better at IQ tests), or the mere fact that an IQ test in question might be inherently biased toward people from a Eurasian background, probably doesn't indicate that you have an unseemly and unhealthy focus on issues of race. oh wait, haha. yes it does. -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 9:19 am on Sep. 30, 2008 The real answer is that an IQ test is an extremely poor method of quantifying intelligence in any culture, let alone cross-culture. -- Posted by kidd rune at 2:54 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 6:16 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 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. Education is offered through people of all races. Here are some good reads on the subject, all proving the frontal lobe differences: # Coon, Carleton S. The Origin of Races, 1962, Alfred A. Knopf # Simpson, William Gayley. Which Way Western Man? 1978, National Alliance Press, Box 3535, Washington, D. C. 20007 # Putnam, Carleton. Race and Reality, a Search for Solutions, 1967, Howard Allen, Box 76, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 # Putnam, Carleton. Race and Reason, 1961, Howard Allen Press, Cape Canaveral, FL Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 6:26 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 The fact that you ignore differing educational environments, as mentioned by medjai, or the tendency for IQ scores to rise in a population the longer IQ scores are administered (indicating that the population isn't getting smarter, but rather better at IQ tests), or the mere fact that an IQ test in question might be inherently biased toward people from a Eurasian background, probably doesn't indicate that you have an unseemly and unhealthy focus on issues of race. oh wait, haha. yes it does. Actually, scientists have taken these out of context. They have done hundreds of tests on intelligence, some not including IQ testing at all, and the same results usually always occur. Scientists have taken out the poverty factor, the location factor, and the language factor. They have also tested identical twins and proved that most intelligence is, also, hereditary. They have also tested Negro children that were adopted by White parents - their IQ scores may have improved, but they are still closer to their genetic parents. And your claim that IQ tests are biased - NOBODY, not the NAACP, the United Negro College Fund, nor NEA had been able to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally. And, of course, Amerinds live in conditions far worse than Negroes - yet consistently outscore them in IQ tests. Also, it has been proven that children of White-Black marriages tend to have lower IQs than the White parent. The real answer is that an IQ test is an extremely poor method of quantifying intelligence in any culture, let alone cross-culture. Tell the NAACP, United Negro College Fund, the NEA, or some other organization to make another test than. What else would you test intelligence with? Brain size and intelligence have proven to be connected - Brain size differences, of course, exist inside of races - the Negro brain being 8-12% lighter than that of the White. -- Posted by iconoclast at 3:15 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 The real answer, in short, is along the lines of what medjai said, BUT PUT MORE SIMPLY, IQ TESTS ARE TOTAL HORSESHIT. -- Posted by kidd rune at 3:26 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:15 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 The real answer, in short, is along the lines of what medjai said, BUT PUT MORE SIMPLY, IQ TESTS ARE TOTAL HORSESHIT. What alternative is there? IQ tests are NOT biased and are a good way to test intelligence. Nevertheless, it's not the ONLY way Eurasians stand out more than the rest of Earth - their brain itself is different. -- Posted by iconoclast at 3:27 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 6:26 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:15 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 The real answer, in short, is along the lines of what medjai said, BUT PUT MORE SIMPLY, IQ TESTS ARE TOTAL HORSESHIT. What alternative is there? IQ tests are NOT biased and are a good way to test intelligence.   Nevertheless, it's not the ONLY way Eurasians stand out more than the rest of Earth - their brain itself is different. What is the alternative? STOP TRYING TO JUDGE SOMETHING COMPLEX AND INTRICATE BASED ON SOME STUPID TEST -- Posted by kidd rune at 3:41 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:27 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 6:26 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:15 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 The real answer, in short, is along the lines of what medjai said, BUT PUT MORE SIMPLY, IQ TESTS ARE TOTAL HORSESHIT. What alternative is there?    IQ tests are NOT biased and are a good way to test intelligence.      Nevertheless, it's not the ONLY way Eurasians stand out more than the rest of Earth - their brain itself is different. What is the alternative? STOP TRYING TO JUDGE SOMETHING COMPLEX AND INTRICATE BASED ON SOME STUPID TEST It's NOT ONLY THE TEST. There are brain differences. The Negro brain has a lighter mass than Eurasians. The Negro brain grows less after puberty than Eurasians. The Negro brain brain and nervous system mature faster than Eurasian which limits further intellectual advancement. The thickness of the supragranular layer of the Negro brain is about 15% thinner than the White brain. The suparagranular layer convolutions are fewer, and more simple, than that of the White brain. And, as I've said, the frontal lobes are smaller relative to body weight, less fissured, and less complex than the brain of the Eurasian. 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 Whites. One-half Negroes scored an average of 81.2% as high as Whites. One-quarter Negroes scored an average of 91.8% as high as Whites. 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." -- Posted by iconoclast at 4:27 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 The Negro brain has a lighter mass than Eurasians. 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. . The thickness of the supragranular layer of the Negro brain is about 15% thinner than the White brain. 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. 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. Doesn't imply anything other than differing typical interests and social environments. 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. 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. 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. In Virginia? During segregation? Are you fucking kidding me? 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." 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 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. -- Posted by babygurl 2008 at 4:54 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 Quote: from Elite Taste at 9:10 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 GTFO Racist LMAO, QFT -- Posted by kidd rune at 6:01 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 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. 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. 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. http://preview.tinyurl.com/3k4r2y tends to think that supragranular layers tend to be thickest in the "smartest" animals. Doesn't imply anything other than differing typical interests and social environments. How many times does this need to occur? How many coincidences are there? Will intelligence testing only be perfect once everyone scores the same? 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. The brain develops at different times during your life. For the Negro - it develops faster, yet halts further development. In Virginia? During segregation? Are you fucking kidding me? Not this again... 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... 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." 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. 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. 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. -- Posted by iconoclast at 6:18 pm on Sep. 30, 2008 How come Amerinds, which live in far worse environments, consistently outscore them? 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'. 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. Doesn't matter. There are other differences besides CLASS that have nothing to do with 'genetics'. http://preview.tinyurl.com/3k4r2y tends to think that supragranular layers tend to be thickest in the "smartest" animals. Thanks for completely ignoring what I said and using a useless comparison, as humans have a very different, more malleable brain system than 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? 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... 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." 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. What's your point? Jews score highers than both too. I can see the proof and accept it. Look at your topic title... Whites also tend to have more geniuses than East Asians (as not all Asians fit with your claim). Of course, this suggests nothing about genetics. But, in turn, more retards Neither does this...higher income and more acceptance means that more whites keep children with disabilities than Asians do in their countries. 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. 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. -- Posted by kidd rune at 6:13 pm on Oct. 1, 2008 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'. 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. 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. Doesn't matter. There are other differences besides CLASS that have nothing to do with 'genetics'. 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. Thanks for completely ignoring what I said and using a useless comparison, as humans have a very different, more malleable brain system than animals. Is it really? Does our intelligence overpower all others THAT much? 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. 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. 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... 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. 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. 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. Look at your topic title... What about it? Do you know what Eurasia is? Here is a nice map to show you. The Middle East and portions of the world where Ashkenazi Jews and Semitic Jews are highlighted, as well as where East-Asians are. I didn't say "Why Whites score higher", but why "Eurasians" do. Neither does this...higher income and more acceptance means that more whites keep children with disabilities than Asians do in their countries. No, it doesn't. Retardation is an IQ of 70 or lower. THAT is the definition I went by. But, the average IQ of some parts of Africa is lower than 60, do they kill all of their children? What about the East-Asians in the USA, what do they do with their "disabled" children? 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. 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. But, oh, I guess that's because we're all so racist against them! 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. -- Posted by jakelong at 10:12 pm on Oct. 1, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 6:16 pm on Sep. 29, 2008 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. QFT As usual medjai pawns the idiots. -- Posted by iconoclast at 9:28 am on Oct. 2, 2008 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. 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 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. 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 Is it really? Does our intelligence overpower all others THAT much? animals? probably. maybe not at birth, but our potential does 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. 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 But, hey, sub-Saharan Africa without any influence from other races hasn't done much more than these Chimps. 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 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. 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 What makes Humans so much different? What separates Humans from every other species and animal on Earth? Potential for complex intelligence, low amount of overall differences between races, huge environmental differences, etc. 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. 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. Humans follow the same laws as animals, we just have, in some ways, more "advanced" brains. Which means that we are far more susceptible to the environment. This isn't ONLY for humans, as other extinct hominids buried their dead, might have believed in an afterlife, and may have had language. Weren't these just the progenitors of humanity anyway? I don't see why not... ]Segregation, of course, had an impact, but the MAJORITY of our intelligence is inherited. Intelligence is not really meaningfully inherited.. This has been proven with twins that have been raised in very different environments, yet being close to each other intelligence-wise. 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. 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. 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. ]No, it doesn't. Retardation is an IQ of 70 or lower. 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). But, the average IQ of some parts of Africa is lower than 60, do they kill all of their children? 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.   Here we go again. What separates human intelligence from other animals? High functioning mental processes, advanced perception, symbolic thinking, potential for huge amounts of development not seen in animals...I could go on and on. We are treated better or we have different brains? The latter seems to be the ACCEPTED reason. While I'm sure some of the most intelligent animals could develop even further in the right circumstances, primarily, we are built differently. It's proven that the brains of Eurasians are larger, more complex, and continue to grow for longer periods of time. Again, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with genetics, unless it were present at birth across a broad spectrum. 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. 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. 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. 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' -- Posted by kidd rune at 5:02 pm on Oct. 2, 2008 why do you keep ignoring the cultural factors i mention...income isnt really relevant So a Negro adopted by Whites has a different culture? A White adopted by Blacks is the same way too? 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. I have to ask - do you think race is a social construct or what? -- Posted by iconoclast at 9:03 pm on Oct. 2, 2008 Even for the adopted Blacks? Can it really result in a 15 point difference? I don't think so. Yes. The way even wealthier blacks grow up in school is typically different than whites. The degree depends on the locale, of course. Africa is Earths richest land, Europe and America are less fertile and arable than Africa. 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. Humans aren't as different from other species' as you may think. Mentally, they are extremely different. In basic function, perhaps not, but that's not what separates us from others species. . 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. 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. When two mentally retarded people have a child, there is no chance for a little Einstein to emerge. That's just your unfounded point of view. 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. 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. Trust me, once a test shows equal intelligence towards all humans, it will be WELL known. IQ tests don't accurately represent intelligence or potential intelligence... The thought that such an extreme is the only intelligence factor to exist is blasphemy. 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. And EVERYONE has this equal. EVERYONE, no matter their genetic makeup, has the SAME amounts of these, yet everything else can differ greatly. No. Our primary basis for 'genetics' is likely the areas that helped us survive, which are very, very basic, with potential for developing complex mental functioning, which also helped us survive in the wild. However, because of the complexity of our environment, the sheer amount of information we are fed over the course of our lifetimes, and many other things which snowball over time, the 'basic' intelligences and potential likely play a small role in determining final outcome, aside from perhaps in a few extreme cases. It's also likely extremely dominant genetically, because of it's success long ago. While this is obviously not experimentally verified, and while it'd probably be many, many years before it can be accurately, the 'IQ geneticists' don't have much going for them. Brain growth doesn't have to do with genetics? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA! Brain development at a later age proves NOTHING about 'genetics' being involved. 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). People with 'small skulls' aren't necessarily dumber than people with 'big skulls', which has been shown between individuals... What about the testing of infants? How exactly would you accurately measure the 'intelligence' of an infant? What I'm saying is the EXACT OPPOSITE of political correctness. 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.   I have to ask - do you think race is a social construct or what? Sort of. Since there's no real defining 'line' anywhere. -- Posted by kidd rune at 3:30 pm on Oct. 3, 2008 Yes. The way even wealthier blacks grow up in school is typically different than whites. The degree depends on the locale, of course. What about quadroons scoring better than mulattoes which score better than full Negroes? 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. 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. 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. And races are extremely different which is what separates us. 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. 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 just your unfounded point of view. That's not a point of view, but pretty much a fact. 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. Read about "political correctness". It's a bunch of morals and more bullshit trying to make everyone seem equal. IQ tests don't accurately represent intelligence or potential intelligence... That's why people are trying so hard to create a test that DOES. 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. 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. Brain development at a later age proves NOTHING about 'genetics' being involved. Then what causes the brain to develop? I bet everything different about my body is due to my culture. Wait, is it me or do I look like a mix of my parents? Oh, it is. You get 1/2 of your DNA from your mom and the other from your dad. If they have some mutation to heighten brain power and YOU get it, you will have a stronger brain. 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. Would it be a stretch to say that some people have a mutation that does this for them? Biologically, it wouldn't. People with 'small skulls' aren't necessarily dumber than people with 'big skulls', which has been shown between individuals... Small skull = Small brain. It's not saying that people are "dumber" but that the brain is differently constructed. How exactly would you accurately measure the 'intelligence' of an infant? They test the reaction times, learning of math, and a few other things. 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. Sure. Sort of. Since there's no real defining 'line' anywhere. But you agree that there are numerous differences among race that can be easily seen - and not easily seen? -- Posted by iconoclast at 10:20 pm on Oct. 4, 2008 What about quadroons scoring better than mulattoes which score better than full Negroes? 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. Actually, Africa has more natural resources than anywhere else. The continent has enough natural resources to take care of the whole world 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. the DRC is capable of generating enough hydro electricity to power the whole continent. 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. The continent has reserves of gold, platinum, diamond, natural gas, oil, water, coal, asbestos, uranium, and more. All require a huge amount of industrialization to develop, and also, you ignored what I said about land. Well, in reality, that's not because of their resources. 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. And races are extremely different which is what separates us. You're just making that up.   Most of it is, actually, in your genetics. Testing of twins in radically different environment leads them to believe it's over 3:1. I already described why the 'twins reared apart' studies are primarily bullshit. That's not a point of view, but pretty much a fact. 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'. Read about "political correctness". It's a bunch of morals and more bullshit trying to make everyone seem equal. 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.   That's why people are trying so hard to create a test that DOES. 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.   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. 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. Then what causes the brain to develop? 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. 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. Completely irrelevant to genetics, and this is nothing new. What it does is stimulates the brain temporarily, most probably providing extra motivation/energy which in turn spurs creativity and focus. Kind of like caffeine. There was something like this being used to 'curb' severe depression in a similar way, but it really was nothing more than artificial, blanket stimulation.   Small skull = Small brain. It's not saying that people are "dumber" but that the brain is differently constructed. Which doesn't mean less intelligent, which you tried to imply.   They test the reaction times, learning of math, and a few other things. 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. But you agree that there are numerous differences among race that can be easily seen - and not easily seen? 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. -- Posted by kidd rune at 7:59 am on Oct. 5, 2008 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. A quadroon is someone with 3/4 White ancestry and 1/4 Negro ancestry. 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. It doesn't matter how "developed" they are. They HAVE the nutrients, they just choose not to use them (or don't have the ability to do so). And there is nothing that "hinders development" or some bullshit like that. South Africa was a nice, prosperous country while under White rule. Now it's under Negro rule and the Whites are all immigrating out due to poor conditions and genocide against them. South Africa WAS great, but a change in population created a change in the country. 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. I've never heard this one before. You see, people have moved into regions that were previously inhabited by Negroes, created a civilization, left their mark, and mixed out/died/left. Keep in mind this was the SAME land in the SAME Africa. You're just making that up. No, I'm not. Many anthropologists claim that if Humans weren't the dominant species on the planet, the races would be classified as different species'. 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. Not really. 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'. Mental retardation is due to genetics or some sort of injury to the brain (I wasn't including this). Downs syndrome is caused by the presence of all or part of an extra 21st chromosome. Phelan-McDermid Syndrome is caused by a microdeletion on chromosome 22. Fragile X syndrome is associated with the expansion of a single trinucleotide gene sequence on the X chromosome. Mowat-Wilson syndrome is an autosomal dominant disorder resulting from new mutations or deletions of the ZFHX1B (SMADIP1) gene on chromosome 2q22. Phenylketonuria is due to a mutation on chromosome 12. 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. You're the one claiming that growing up thinking you're a negro will lower your IQ 15 points... 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. How else will we test our intelligence than! 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. You obviously don't know how much our genes impact our brain. One slight mutation could cause a small change which could cause Jimmy to be at the bottom of his class for a long time. But, no, that's not genetic! Jimmy is just culturally different from everyone else he has grown up with that tend to outshine him in school! 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. That's a factor aswell, but you're still saying genetics doesn't influence our brain, yet genetics is why Humans are not Chimps, Gorillas, or anything else. We are genetically different from Chimps which is why our brains are different. Or is it that Chimps are segregated against and have different cultures? Which doesn't mean less intelligent, which you tried to imply. No, I was simply telling you about the differences in our brains. Your brain leads to your intelligence y'know. 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. The infants were tested before having any real contact with their parents. They tested understanding of simple laws such as gravity, colors, putting the shapes in the hole that corresponds, ect. 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. Regardless, people are VERY different. The average Jap is 0.15% different than the average Negro. 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. -- Posted by Hoop Jargon at 7:10 am on Oct. 6, 2008 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'.   Pages: 1 2  Next