POLL: Is it racist to assert that blacks have a low average IQ?

Why is it Blacks have a significantly lower IQ than Whites everywhere in the world regardless of environment and culture?

Why is it the East Asian IQ range is around equal or slightly higher than Whites regardless of environment and culture?

 

FOS troll.

 

IQ is something that's very hard to determine. It is a measurement based on performance, and performance is affected by a lot of things.

Also, it is tricky to correlate race to intelligence. I noticed you said "we Jews" so, respectfully, I'd have to ask you what have you invented? What contribution have you made to sceince? What acheivement have you accomplished that is as noteworthy as the examples you submit? The reason I ask this is because when you answer, it is likely that it is not the "race" that is intelligent, just a very small group within that race.

 

I'm going to check back for his answer. I'd like to know what he has invented.

 

The environment is different all around the world.

 

So why is Black IQ universally clustered below the White IQ average and East Asian IQ clustered with or above White IQ, regardless of country, region or upbringing?

Explain how the environment(s) side(s) with East Asians over Whites over Blacks no matter the culture or region in which East Asians and Blacks are brought up?

This must be quite an elaborate explanation for this to work.

 

What you're saying isn't even factual. Many East Asian countries have lower average IQ than European countries as do the people from those countries who live in Western nations. It is really Northeast Asian including Japanese, Chinese and Koreans who have the higher IQs (vs. Vietnam, The Philippines or Thailand for example). The simple explanation for high Northeast Asian IQ is that their cultural background and high standards for education determine their high academic achievement and high IQ. If there is an evolutionary/genetic explanation then how do you explain lower average Native American IQ? Native Americans are the closest derivative population of Northeast Asians so surely any evolutionary pressure that affected Northeast Asians would also effect Native Americans.

 

Do you not remember us going over this?

 

We've been over all of this stuff. That doesn't mean that I agree.

 

Hysterical. I am a race denier because there is NO such thing.

I would refer you to the post by "Egalitarianjay02" on page 8 of this discussion. I will further add that I don't see how an adoption study alone could give complete insight in to this matter.

Can you please explain scientifically HOW an adoption study can prove your point wholly and fully?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE. You would call me white, but I would not call me white nor do I consider myself to be white because I don't believe I am part of a larger group of lighter skinned people. I have unique genetics and ancestry and have nothing to do with some other light skinned person just based on that similarity.

Please, if you are not a race denier, explain to me exactly what race is, exactly what are the standards for determining race and exactly how many races there are?

I'll stop you there because there is absolutely NO way you can do this and any attempt would actually be impossible.

What "fallacies" am I cycling through? Please tell me what fallacy I am misunderstanding as logic and proof?

You sir are perpetuating the fallacy.

How about unicorns? I'm also a unicorn denier. Big foot, Nessy, Dragons? I do deny them all. You got me.

 

Yes it is racist, I see you avoided having that as a choice, meaning: your poll is BOGUS.

 

I would suggest there can be NO scientific study based on "race" because "race" is not a scientific construct and has no use or place in actual science.

 

Adoption studies undercut your cultural upbringing claim. That is all.

Race is defined by shared ancestry established by genetic similarity. Color terms are just metaphors for clusters. I said this already. Put down the stick and step away from the strawman.

https://right.orain.org/wiki/Argume...ence_of_races#Impossibility_of_counting_races

 

Adoption studies only undercut cultural upbringing claims if you accept the adoption study as telling the whole story of such claims, which I do not think it does at all. If race is defined as such then how can you possibly include African Americans as a "race" when that population is made up of a multitude of ancestry and a wide range of genetics?

For the adoption study to tell the whole story or have more meaning, the adoption study would have to subgroup all the adopted children into ethnic origin and haplogroup and not "race" as again, while the "race" may have a social definition it still does not have a true scientific one and there really are no standards or guidelines set to definitively determine ones "race" as racial terms are currently being used.

Now if you want to tell me that an adoption study was done taking the individual genetics of each child in to account and diversifying them with specific ancestry and haplogroups I would be far more interested to hear the results than a study breaking children down in to the unscientific concept of "race".

 

I'm not sure why you're going on about haplogroups. Self identified race correlates extremely well with genetic cluster. African Americans are mixed race but mainly black.

 

no, they are mixed sub-race.

there is only one human race.

 

You don't agree that Native Americans have a different evolutionary history to North East Asians?

 

Humans are a subspecies. "There is only one organism, the organism". Fail.

 

Please show me the proof of such a statement. And again you are defining black as a metaphor for those of sub-Saharan African descent, correct? While I think that is the most common use of the term, I don't think African Americans are mainly "black". Where are those statistics? Where are the genetic studies? You do realize African American means any American from Africa correct? And Africa is much larger than just the sub-Saharan area. Also, within the sub-Saharan area there are different and individual clusters, so I don't see how this could be.

You are making a very general and broad statement that seemingly goes against what actual genetics tells us. Without proof of these statements, of the statements "African Americans are a mixed race but mainly black", and with the specific definition of that meaning how could it be of use to this conversation? Further, what evidence is there of the correlation between self identified race and genetic clusters?

 

Of course they do but Native Americans don't all have the same evolutionary history do they? Just as all North East Asians don't have the same evolutionary history do they?

 

Try James J Lee 2010, Tang 2005, and look at any modern PCA of global genetics. And by African American in this context is meant predominately black American.

 

But they are relatively similar and can be clustered.

 

This James J Lee? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090103911.html

I really hope not lol.

And on Tang, as far as I can tell there are some glaring errors in that study, some of which are exposed here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=O...tic structure of self identified race&f=false

Again, we know there are genetic similarities between groups of people. But that does not tell the of the effect of the differences.

There's also this which I think stresses the importance of admixtures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837693/

 

Relative similarity does not make something the same obviously. Many groups can be clustered based on different criteria. Just because something is clustered does not make it necessarily insightful. Also, in forming these clusters based on "relativity" I think you have all ready made a great research error. In my opinion at least.

 

I never said they were the same obviously. My opponent claimed Native Americans were the same as North East Asians. Clustering is based on similarity, not being "the same". Genetic similarity is informative for genes, and thus entirely scientific. You do understand the definition of "informative"?