Are Black People Racist

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html
What does IQ say, measure? Who wrote them? How, why?

 

Then offer proof. Your opinion is useless.

 

Black people where I live (If they are from here) are not much racist at all.
Just a county or so away they are to an extent.
It's not superbad.
Obama doesn't help much with that...what..40 years? and here this jerkwad comes along stoking racial hate.
His influence is not going to go that far.Definitely not as far as he plans.
His influence is not that great.
Trying to engineer a race war when only 14.4% of the population is black and way more than half see what is going on is just silly.
But yet he's a doin' it.
Hey:To All you God-fearing Americans out there:Beware:Obama is trying to engineer a race war.

As an outsider,Obama has no clue as to the actual solidarity that Black and White Americans have.Especially when you bring God into it.You know,the creator of the world?
He has no idea how so many of us are on the same page when it comes to that.
AND can see through his lies.

 

Your one study you actually cite shows low correlation between race and brain size, as opposed to none according to your spin. Brain volume and race is more highly correlated for the three racial groups: west African negroid, northeastern Asian , and northern European.

Brain volume data conclusively shows moderate brain volume and IQ correlation.

Brain volume and IQ studies are ongoing and therefore not outdated.

The black-white IQ gap from brain volume alone was near 3 IQ points.

Claiming a study is wrong because where it was published is a fallacy. You did not address the study poi t by point, and did not discuss the study other than to criticize where it was published. The study has actual results you ignored, and seem incapable of comprehending and addressing.

 

In your desperation to support your argument you deliberately misinterpreted the studies I cited which shows that race is not a biologically meaningful concept, brain size is more strongly correlated with latitude, brain size variation between populations is too small to account for any more than a small fraction of racial differences in IQ (a far cry from the 80% genetically determined claims of Rushton and Jensen) and the studies cited by the racist quacks you support are not controlled nor comparable.

Of course you would say it doesn't matter where a study was published because you don't care about credibility. If it supports your argument you will use it. And you are just lying now about my argument where I clearly addressed the problems with the conclusions of the study. You don't know how to address my argument which is why you ignored it and only focused on my statement about the Piffer studies not being credible because they were published in a pseudoscientific, racist journal.

 

simple answer, No.

 

Every race has some who are in fact racist.

 

The bottom line is you can't address the study showing actual gene frequencies between different races. What is your response to the study beyond attacking one journal it was published on?

 

Simplistic interpretations of statistics can lead to errors.

The propensity for violence you may have discovered belongs to someone, if it exists at all. Some people, possibly some group of people.

If you are not saying that propensity for violence relates to or belongs to all people of a particular race, the group you are speaking of is not defined by their race.



​

 

You've already seen my response. You can't draw conclusions about the overall frequency of intelligence genes based on a few candidate genes which is what that study did. You would have to show that the majority of intelligence genes are unevenly differentiated across geographic populations. One problem with this sort of methodology is that there currently isn't a representative sample of intelligence genes across the full spectrum of human populations. Most of the genes found to be related to intelligence have been sampled from Europe and Asia so it isn't surprising that the frequency of these genes would be more common in those regions than in Africa. They need more African samples. All of this was explained in the Graves article which I quoted in our previous discussion that showed that FST values of SNP's in 11 genes related to intelligence indicate that those genes do not show a racial association. Did you read it? That article addresses the argument that you are trying to make based on Piffer's studies.

 

Arguments based on probability are made all the time.

What would be the probability that 14 randomly selected 'intelligence' genes would be favorable for whites over blacks?

How could black Africans have greater frequencies of heretofore undiscovered 'intelligence' genes when you've long claimed there are no significant genetic differences between ethno-racial groups?

 

The number of genes related to intelligence is estimated to be in the thousands. Some of those genes are going to be more common in one population than another while the majority of the genes are going to show significant overlap between populations because we share a common evolutionary lineage. If you sample genes from one geographic population and then compare randomly selected genes to other populations then in all likelihood you're going to find a higher frequency of those genes in the population that you originally sampled. This is what Graves noted in his article. Most of the genes found to be related to intelligence were sampled from Europe and Asia instead of Africa. If we took a representative sample from all populations we would likely find that there is no significant differentiation in the genes that we discovered. The FST values for the SNP's in the 11 genes that Graves sampled which are related to intelligence shows that there is no basis for concluding that genes related to intelligence show a racial association in their distribution.

I didn't say that Blacks Africans have greater frequencies of intelligence genes than other populations. I said that the current sampling of such genes has been more from Europe and Asia instead of Africa. Again if we took samples that represented the full spectrum of human populations there is no reason why we wouldn't find that most genes related to intelligence are found in similar frequencies for each population. For your theory to be correct you would have to assume that natural selection has operated in a way to cause differences in gene frequencies all across the genome so that literally thousands of genes related to intelligence have been affected which is simply absurd. Based on population genetic theory we would expect that within a species whose populations share a single evolutionary lineage most of the genes related to intelligence would be shared between populations because a shared evolutionary history means that human brains evolved and function in the same way. The only real differences on might expect are at the individual level where certain people have a greater quantity of genes related to intelligence and because intelligence is highly heritable you can also expect genes related to intelligence to run in families. This goes for beneficial and deleterious genes. Genes related to genius are just as heritable as genes related to mental illness. Human populations have a general cognitive capacity while major differences in mental characteristics occur between individuals.

 

I can't find anything that the intelligence genes were sampled for whites and Asians only. Care to show whites and Asians were the only ones sampled?

Interestingly enough, the author also found that genes related to height are more frequent in Africans than East Asians.

 

Ok.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs

It's about gun control but he goes on to show that indeed there are groups more prone to violence.

 

A 25 minute video? Of what?
Got something real?
Any nut case can post a youtube video. It means nothing.

 

You didn't refute any of his statements.

 

Why would I? I didn't watch it. 25 minutes of BS? You didn't even state what and where to look for pertinent information.
And what makes what he says worth a shiny penny?
I asked if you have some evidence and you give someones personal opinion. Ya gots nuttin.

 

He gives the statistics proving my point. If you won't listen to the other side then I can't help you.

 

Do you have any white friends?

Do you have any white friends you know are racist?

Do you do illegal drugs?

Do you have friends that use illegal drugs?

Do you have any friends that do something in their lifestyle and they are your friends anyway?

 

Statistics from what?
Why would I waste 25 minutes of time. You offered nothing as to what the 25 minutes is suppose to get me.

If you have no proof, fine. But don't give some persons personal opinion. Its useless.

 

The best thing to do at this point is give more power to blacks that hate whites.
I'll wait......Seriously, We have all the time in the world.

 

I have said it before, I will say it again, want to kick Whitey in the teeth ?

Black Folks should stop smoking and reduce the revenue White folks and Government gain from Tobacco sales and Tax revenues.

 

Yes. Black people can be racist, and many, if not most, are racist, imo.

Many blacks hate white people with a passion. And whites who don’t believe that are fooling themselves. I know blacks who would slice the throat of any available white person, if they believed they could get away with it.

Some whites, in these forums, talk about blacks as if they are these innocent, harmless, little babies, who want nothing more out of life than to be close, loving, pals with white folks. What a freaking crock. I’m not saying it’s good, or bad, it just is.

There are also blacks who are good, reasonable, people. Who are warm, decent, educated, and caring. They can be great friends, just like people of any other race. But to believe all black people are harmless and want to be whiteys’ friends, is beyond foolish and delusional. It’s dangerous, as well.

 

Not all black men treat white women well.
The interracial couples I’ve known seem to go to two extremes (these are black men with white women):

In the first group, the couple works hard, they educate themselves and develop careers. They raise their families, buy a nice home, and treat each other with respect. Their families are strong and loving.

The second group, is highly dysfunctional: the black men treat the white women like sh!t. Literally. Like slaves. Sadly, the women put up with this stupidity, sometimes for years. The mistreatment often extends to beatings, as well as verbal abuse. I’ve often thought the black men involved, were highly insecure and immature, as well as being plain nasty, and disgusting cowards. None of the men involved had any success in life. So maybe they just take out all of their hostilities on the most non-threatening target, their white mate. This is the type of black - white relationship I've seen most often. It really is pathetic.

 

There are many more White men abusing White women than Black men abusing White women. You might say that there are more White people in America but there's no basis for saying that the average Black man married to a White woman is abusing her. That might be your experience and perception. It's not mine.