The blatantly false liberal mantra "Races differ ONLY in skin color"

I doubt that harsh environments can support both bodies that can take a beating and high intelligence , nature has to spread it's resources in a model that works and keep the energy efficient package .

I have a low IQ ( 102-111 scores in various tests ) yet i am able to compensate through constant reading and debating , i had several discussions with university professors and other smart people and i always had the ability to follow and be constructive in arguments ; what i want to say is that with enough training and knowledge intelligence isn't that important .

I understand some Americans have a different view , i was watching a TV series ( true blood ) and there was a black girl and a white girl that had grown up together and they had totally different accents , i talk about it with some friends from the states and they confirmed that this happens in reality . Accent is not a matter of intelligence of course but it shows that although those girls spent most of their time together they received different stimuli from the same sources and this not only shaped their personalities but also the way they understand things . I feel that positioning can affect the way you understand and respond to things , if black people are set in a different position than the white ones then they can not have the same responses or views . Sometimes what one race considers obvious other races consider dubious and it is not about brain capacity it is about where each stands.

 

The human race can be compared to the Galápagos tortoise. Fundamentally they are identical with only minor physical variations that developed over time based upon habitate. There are no differences in internal organs such as liver, heart or brain function but the shells are different as well as the length of the neck on these animals based upon different food sources.

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

What is offensive is that racists will use raw data from IQ test scores, which only measure a small element of human intelligence, and then attempt to establish that some "races" are intellectually inferior to other races. They do this because they are either highly ignorant or because they are intentionally deceptive with nefarious motives. IQ tests do not measure intelligence but instead measure a very small specific type of intelligence. It's like giving a driving test to someone. A person that grew up around cars and driving will do very well but someone that grew up in a society without cars will fail the test. Standard IQ tests only measure limited knowledge and reasoning skills related to technological knowledge which is a very small component of human intelligence.

Bottom line we always come back to the same question. Are racists really that ignorant or do they know better and are propagating myths solely for nefarious purposes? Those are the only two possibilities.

 

One thing that the racists fail to take into consideration is the fundamental requirement of "all things being equal" must always be met. When we look at African-Americans in the United States, for example, they have never been afforded equality in over 300 years. Even today they are subject to extensive discrimination and persecution in society.

There are examples where, due to necessity, equality was somewhat obtained predominately due to a national emergency and African-Americans have proven to be equal if not better than their "white" counterparts. A perfect example of this is the 332nd Fighter Group during WW II. While still facing discrimination in the US Army the "Tuskegee Airmen" had a stellar combat record and were often the choice of "white" bomber groups going into combat as the escort fighter group. These pilots where exceptional in all respects and they were all African-Americans. Today in the US Air Force the African-American pilots, while integrated into all squadrons, continue this reputation for being extremely skilled and dedicated pilots.

 

I am highly offended with you calling me a "racist" and insist you refrain from these personal attacks. The fact is that you have provided little evidence for your position. IQ is considered to be a valid predictor of achievement, and is found to be largely stable over a persons lifetime, and contrary to your assertions, not greatly amenable to training. Furthermore, studies have shown biological correlates. IQ is widely regarded as highly heritable (read genetic), at least within races, and there is no consensus as yet as to whether the racial IQ gap is due to genetics or environmental factors. In my opinion, genetics is by far the most parsimonious explanation for the consistent pattern.

 

No "all things being equal" must not be met. The environment is the independent variable according to you, and this variable has changed. So we should expect to see IQ changes. We don't. You claim the environment is responsible for the IQ disparity. Well the environment for African-Americans has changed greatly over time, and we see the same IQ scores. We see the same IQ scores in Britain and Canada where they were never discriminated against. Only genetics can explain this.

 

I refer to no specific person as a racist and would suggest re-reading what I've posted.

As for IQ tests themselves here is a rather good summary of the fact that they are specific and limited in what types of intelligence they measure:

Poor reading and math skills due to inferior education can dramatically reduce a person's results on either the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Many forms of intelligence, such as the reasoning skills required to survive in a hostile environment, aren't measured at all. IQ tests are so limited in scope that they have no relevance to overall individual intelligence at all. They measure specific traits that are important to industrialized Western society and it that regard they are very helpful but when it comes to measuring the overall intelligence a person might have they don't even attempt to do that and never have attempted to do that.

Standardized IQ tests do not neasure self-awareness or emotional knowledge at all and even when addressing abstract thought. reasoning and problem solving they are limited in scope to "Western" atributes that we consider to be important. When was the last time anyone was asked a question of tracking game or avoiding violence in a hostile environment? These are critical intellectual skills needed by many but not considered important in "Western" culture and are not addressed by IQ tests.

We don't even have an actual definition of "intelligence" that is accepted as the following indicates:

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

Basically we have something (intelligence) that there isn't even a consensus on what it is and then we have standardized IQ tests that only test specific attributes of intelligence as it relates to Western technological culture and people draw really ignorant conclusions from these tests.

As I previously stated either racists are ignorant or intentionally deceptive when they attempt to conclude that IQ test scores reflect a difference in the actual intelligence of different people based upon invidious racial criteria. Either they've done no research on "intelligence" and "IQ tests" and simply don't know that these comparisons are invalid or they have done the research and are hoping that others haven't by spreading lies about "racial" differences in intelligence for nefarious puposes. There is no middle ground between knowing the facts and not knowing the facts so only one of those two possibilities exist.

 

I think you're right. However aren't you referring more towards the mantra that people shouldn't be treated differently because of their, colour, heritage, features and so on?

And I wonder what liberal really thinks this, in a literal sense?

 

OK, so you're copy pasting wikipedia, involving out of context 1995 quotes.

The same paper continues:

And concludes:

Forgive me, but you are far beneath debate with me. I'll leave you with an image of the Cattell–Horn–Carroll model.

 

I, of course, use Wikipedia because it provides well documented and universally accepted information.

This is a nice chart which highlights the specifics of why IQ tests can easily fail to accurately measure intelligence because of cultural differences.

Based upon this chart what are the specifics? For example, on the visual matching do the tests use animal tracks that a hunter/gatherer in Africa might do very well with or do they use images unique to Western culture? Or are the "memory of sentences" related to culturally influenced grammatical sentences or are they related to the specific usage of language of the individual? Were the stories told that test story recall common to the cultural background of the individual or were they completely foreign in content and/or relevancy?

Each of these carries with it a highly important element that will obviously change the test score of the individual. What we might easily recognize from a Western cultural standpoint can be completely foreign to another individual from a different culture.

 

If you had any knowledge of psychology, other than quickly googling "intelligence", you would know the answers to these questions. Good luck with that!

 

Psychology doesn't much exist in the wilderness

Intelligence is magical imo, it shouldn't be quantified too much. There's more to it than binary. Indigenous tribes-men are in tune with the jungle, they are intelligent hunters, not much good at maths. But throw a geeky mathematician into the jungle and they'll have some major problems. I'm just saying intelligence is not just maths and science and saying so is fairly arrogant imo. But don't take it from me Ken Robinson can put it much better than I can, I implore you to watch this... http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ken...reativity.html


I don't think we can sit around comparing everyone in the world to the same tests, I.E IQ - at least unless they have lived similar lives. Don't you think this IQ thing is more to do with a poor education system than anything genetic?

There's some common sense without any wiki stuff.

 

Most African cultures keep oral histories stretching back centuries. Do your standardized tests reflect that ability? If not, toss them. They're worthless for the purpose of gauging comparative intelligence between races.

Spatial relationships? Sorry, dude, black people stomp most of us into the mud there.

Every non-cultural difference I can think of, there is evidence that there is no big difference between races.

 

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

IQ testing is based upon "socially valued outcomes" and is therefore inherently culturally biased. IQ tests need to be culturally biased to be a valuable tool for society. If they were not then they wouldn't have much value at all. We don't measure IQ solely for research but instead we measure IQ as a tool for making decisions related to the individual and those are cultural decisions and evaluations that are being made. IQ tests are biased because that's what makes them valuable.

 

Race can be scientifically defined by DNA tests nowadays and anthropological theories on race belong to the 19th century. A person’s maternal ancestry is traced by mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA for short. Both men and women possess mtDNA, but only women pass it on to their children. In the case of African ancestry tests, for example, approximately 25-30 percent of those tested will learn that their paternal line is European in origin. This is the legacy of plantation society coming down to us in our genes.

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/content/view/35/55/

 

This returns us to the "all things being equal" requirement to make valid comparisons but which doesn't exist in reality.

 

Perhaps this part of the link was missed:

As noted, if we go back far enough we're all the decendents of one woman that lived in Africa about 150,000-200,000 years ago. There is only one race and it is the Human Race and we're all related to each other as we have a common ancestor. That history is recorded in our mitochondrial DNA.

 

You can trace common ancestors all over the world. We have a squirrel common ancestor, a fish common ancestor. Africans do not have a European hominid common ancestor since they diverged from the rest of the human species, or rather the rest of the human species diverged from them, about 100,000 years ago. All other races show European admixture.

And once again humans are not a race. They are a species. Please try to remember that.

 

Really? I know there is data showing Jews score 98-105 and East Asians 110 for spatial reasoning. I didn't see the African or Caucasian score. Can you reference it? Considering African IQ is consistently around 70, and sub-tests correlate, I find it very hard to believe. Are you sure you aren't confusing spatial reasoning tests with basketball skills?

Are you just making this up? How do you know the IQ difference is cultural?

 

At the other hand races may not be only skin colour .
Our parent species are the Rhodesian people ( Homo Rhodesiensis ) , a group of them immigrated from Africa into Europe and developed different racial characteristics , this group is named the man of Heidelberg ( Homo Heidelbergensis ) .
Rhodesian man evolved into us while Heidelberg man evolved into the Neanderthals , given that Africans dominated wherever they went including Asia (land of the Homo Erectus & Homo Floresiensis ) and forced other species into extinction be glad that they are still moving around spreading their genes among us otherwise it will be a very bad bet .

 

A highly educated Black man tells it like it is:
http://torontonews.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/racial-differences-are-real/

 

This is true, we're all the same species and there are no fundamental differences between any of us. "Race" is an invidious invention by those that fail to understand this simple fact. They attempt to differentiate between Human Beings based upon cosmetic differences because they are fundamentally ignorant and afraid of any differences between different people.

It's like trying to say that two identical Camero's are different because one is painted black and the other is painted white. Continuing the analogy they like to say there is a difference in performance because one can do the quarter mile in 12 seconds and the other takes 16 seconds but fail to recognize that the first car is on a paved drag strip and the other is on a bumpy dirt road.

 

If there is no such thing as race for people to use in making distictions between people, then we must in turn eliminate the 'racist' and 'racial' terms from our vocabulary. You do realize that by canning those two terms the liberals will lose perhaps the greatest political weapon they had to use against we Conservatives in recent memory. Liberals in general will find it offensive and a sign of weakness if we or you were to shove those terms into the dustbin of history.

I do disagree with you over your belief that there is no difference between various groups of people. Keep it in mind that all I.Q. tests came up with the same results that Asians score highest, with WHITES just below them and with blacks pulling up the rear end far below the others.

 

IQ tests only measure one type of intelligence.

For example, Australian Aborigines score far below white Aussies in IQ tests. However, if I drop them both off in the Outback, the white Aussie is more likely to be dead in a matter of days than the Aborigine.

 

Good point, I already tried that one. It seems the "IQ" form of intelligence is the only noteworthy intelligence to some people. So nothing with regards to body movement, poetry, hunting skills, art, music, creativity, intuition, even spirituality - I mean I'm sure ancient civilisations wouldn't fair too well on IQ tests, does that negate their intelligence? If Buckminster fuller is commencing a sermon alongside various spiritual gurus, people go see shamans and gurus because there's more to human existence than stats and figures. But people hide behind them as if that's the only truth in the world. Look and the African Kingdoms, all built by lesser humans I assume?

 

See, the problem with your example of dropping them both off in the outback is that the WHITE man is too intelligent to have put himself in that type of uncompromising position in the first place. The WHITE man would probably avoid sparring with dingos in the outback by sitting in a tavern in downtown Sydney sipping on a mitty.