This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
This whole black IQ malarkey..
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Pyramidologist
Genetics has closely matched the standard racial classification in anthropology. The proposed taxonomic system is not innumerable, it is strickly limited to three in practical forensic anthropology: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid (Blumenfield, 2000). However in specialised literature this figure expands, including Polynesid, Amerindid and Australoid (Gill, 1998). www.neiu.edu/~circill/F495Y.pdf
Most anthropologists however realise Polynesids and Amerindids are races of the Mongoloid subspecies. These discepancies are just semantics.
Most anthropologists however realise Polynesids and Amerindids are races of the Mongoloid subspecies. These discepancies are just semantics.
Definition of 'forensics': "relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems." Identify any developed state that doesn't use 'race' in legal matters. They could use any system of categorisation and forensic anthropologists will be able to categorise people effectively to that degree of accuracy using specific, selectively correlated variables. Stop relying on forensic anthropology sources that do not investigate biological variation neutrally.
"[...] [W]hen an index not designed to accentuate differences between groups is used, the contrast in skull shape between three major regions of the globe (Europe, Asia, and Africa) becomes ephemeral" (Strauss and Hubbe, 2010)
Forensic anthropologists arbitrarily correlate various variables to categorise somebody to whatever level of detail the law requests. Biologically, there is no reason to have three and not two, four, five, etc.
Note the following from Lynn (2006):
See bold. Modern genetics has validated the races proposed by anthropologists since the 19th and early 20th century. *If* there weren't minor discrepancies then something would be fishy. But what we have is solid data on race, closely matching eachother in independant scientific fields. So for example genetic clusters correspond to the races of physical anthropology, while blood groups also closely correspond (Boyd, 1950).
See bold. Modern genetics has validated the races proposed by anthropologists since the 19th and early 20th century. *If* there weren't minor discrepancies then something would be fishy. But what we have is solid data on race, closely matching eachother in independant scientific fields. So for example genetic clusters correspond to the races of physical anthropology, while blood groups also closely correspond (Boyd, 1950).
The notion of there being six clusters has already been refuted:
"So why has so much emphasis been placed on the results of the analysis using K = 6? Despite the fact that Rosenberg et al. (2002) presented no evidence that K = 6 represented the most likely number of genetic clusters in their data set, virtually all references to this study in both the scientific literature and the popular press mention the identification of either 5 or 6 genetic clusters. […] I would suggest that these particular results have been emphasized simply because they fit the general notion in our society that continental groupings are biologically significant. This notion is a legacy of traditional racial thought and seems to persist even when not clearly supported by biological data." (Bolnick, 2008: 77).
It's interesting that you have gone from three to five and now six—what is this telling you?
"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).
Its a diagnostic singular trait only found in Australian Aborigines. The percent of its appearance is not relevant, it is diagnostic because it doesn't appear in other populations at all.
It is therefore a racial marker. An aborigine who doesn't have it, can give birth to a child who does. It is encoded in their genepool, but no other racial group.
If we're going to start discussing genetics, I'm going to need some evidence for the existence of a gene/allele that is exclusive to indigenous Australians that moderates the prominence of the supraorbital ridge.
It doesn't have to be uniformly present to be exclusive, however there are plenty uniform exclusive or uniform diagnostic traits, especially in the crania. Only Caucasoids for example have a nasal sill. Brues (1990) was asked what diagnostic traits appear in all Caucasoids, she responds a prominant nasal spine (p. 27). Only Caucasoid crania have a prominant anterior nasal spine + sill.
I find it funny that you are now relying on completely subjective non-metric traits that are only as geographically precise as the researcher's experience with a variety of skulls. Are you familiar with the scientific method and the crucial condition that something must be reproducible? A subjective claim to something being 'prominent' relative to the researcher's idiosyncratic experience with other skulls is not reproducible. Although this may suffice for forensic investigations where only a general understanding of the specimen is necessary, for issues of biological variation it is fundamentally flawed in its methodology and fails multiple criteria of the scientific method.
The index ranges are uniform. No Negroids for example have thin noses, as your own map shows. The data you are posting confirms racial reality.
There is a manifest absence of continental uniformity and exclusivity of the nasal 'types'. Even when using the arbitrary categories, it is patently clear that none of the nasal types are exclusive to or uniform across an entire continent. Notwithstanding the arbitrary division of the nasal index range, you cannot claim 'Caucasoids' exist because they have a 'small' nasal index (even though you are wrong about the apparent uniformity and exclusivity, as demonstrated in that map), then deny an 'Assa race' (Australasia and sub-Saharan Africa) do not collectively exist because they have a 'wide' nasal index. The map demonstrated indigenous Australians' noses are as wide as most (but not all) of the people in sub-Saharan Africa, so I fail to understand how this demonstrates the existence of a 'Negroid race' when there is clear variance within sub-Saharan Africa and a lack of exclusivity.Furthermore, why do you only acknowledge a single side of the coin in your argument and (il)logic? If I took, for a moment, your claim about the exclusivity of 'Caucasoid' nasal sills to be true, an opposing single 'race' would be formed on the basis of an absence of the nasal sill, yet I don't see you claiming there is a Nasassaoea (North America, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, East Asia) 'race'. You cannot claim the 'Caucasoid race' exists because they possess one variable, but claim an opposing 'Nasassaoea race' does not exist because they don't possess that variable; (taking your incorrect claim regarding the exclusivity of the supraorbital ridge to be true for a moment) you cannot then claim the 'Australoid race' exists because of the presence of the supraorbital ridge, but not claim the Nasaaea (North America, South America, Africa, Eurasia) 'race' does not exist due to an absence of the supraorbital ridge. They are two completely different variables, and you cannot pretermit the opposing sides of the coin (which in itself is not delineated by the boundaries you claim exist). Your argument is devoid of consistency or logic.
The nasal index ranges were founded upon data including the two extremes (wide to thin). Then a simple medium index range was calculated. It is no different for example than saying something is ''hot'' ''cold'' with ''warm'' in the middle of those two extremes. They are not arbitrary.
Hence metrics is based on multiple variables, identical with sex. But according to your logic men and women must be identical just because they are similar in one metric variable... you obviously haven't thought this through.
See above.
See above.
You have not addressed the fact that extremities exist across the world in different locations. Notwithstanding the problem of the arbitrary separation points, why aren't those in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and 3% of indigenous Australia a 'race' because 'broad' noses can only be found in these locations?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by ebam_uk
Still I am black, still i just graduated from cambridge :P meh lol
Last time I checked, this whole IQ malarkey wasn't stating that blacks weren't intelligent.
Original post by vedderfan94
Last time I checked, this whole IQ malarkey wasn't stating that blacks weren't intelligent.
What exactly are they stating then when it says that the average sub-saharan African has an IQ lower than 70?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by hajinator
I'm black and my IQ is 148 
4, 2, 5, 2, 6, 0, 3, ?
I expect the answer in my inbox in 3 days. You should be able to solve it in less than half an hour while watching TV.
Original post by Pyramidologist
Very wrong. Eurasian races (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) have higher IQ's than Negroids because they evolved in a climate that demanded higher intelligence. Cold climates acted as a selection pressure for increased intelligence.
Professor Richard Lynn has written heavily on this topic -
Professor Richard Lynn has written heavily on this topic -
Lynn isn't a biologist, he's a psychologist. Making up adaptationist explanations in your armchair for something which hasn't been shown to exist is really stupid.
Here is a useful little bit of advice from Gould and Lewontin (1978):
We would not object so strenuously to the adaptationist programme if its invocation, in any particular case, could lead in principle to its rejection for want of evidence. We might still view it as restrictive and object to its status as an argument of first choice. But if it could be dismissed after failing some explicit test, then alternatives would get their chance. Unfortunately, a common procedure among evolutionists does not allow such definable rejection for two reasons. First, the rejection of one adaptive story usually leads to its replacement by another, rather than to a suspicion that a different kind of explanation might be required. Since the range of adaptive stories is as wide as our minds are fertile, new stones can always be postulated. And if a story is not immediately available, one can always plead temporary ignorance and trust that it will be forthcoming .... Secondly, the criteria for acceptance of a story are so loose that many pass without proper confirmation. Often, evolutionists use consistency with natural selection as the sole criterion and consider their work done when they concoct a plausible story. But plausible stories can always be told. The key to historical research lies in devising criteria to identify proper explanations among the substantial set of plausible pathways to any modern result.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/how-did-zebra-get-its-stripes.html
Notice that they are critical of these sorts of explanations even when the thing they were created to explain were actually things. Bringing in one of these explanations as evidence that difference in IQ scores between Races is due to genes, is insanity. And that is why biologists laugh at Lynn.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by superfoggy
Did you even read anything I wrote... Why do i bother...
I was extending the discussion.
You accepted small differences exist, claiming they are not significant.
I explained why small differences might be significant for the minority at the top end, on the assumption small differences exist, which you just accepted...
You then write this rubbish about no evidence for significant differences, spewing nonsense about timelords and fish, seemingly believing i had just written a paragraph about why everyone of one race is hugely superior to another.
It appears I entered this thread in the hopes of a critical discussion. It seems you entered it with a 'I'm right, you're wrong, stfu' attitude. Perhaps I waste my time.
I was extending the discussion.
You accepted small differences exist, claiming they are not significant.
I explained why small differences might be significant for the minority at the top end, on the assumption small differences exist, which you just accepted...
You then write this rubbish about no evidence for significant differences, spewing nonsense about timelords and fish, seemingly believing i had just written a paragraph about why everyone of one race is hugely superior to another.
It appears I entered this thread in the hopes of a critical discussion. It seems you entered it with a 'I'm right, you're wrong, stfu' attitude. Perhaps I waste my time.
No sir, it seems that you haven't read what i have posted in my last post or much of my other posts either, because i keep having to repeat myself, yet you completely disregard it and ramble on.
There is no solid scientific evidence to suggest that any one race is significantly more or less intelligent than the other. The Aboriginals are the only race that have been documented to have had unequal intelligence to anyone else, because they have better visual memory
What does this mean? It means that you can sit here till morning rambling on about how different races are significantly more intelligent than each for whatever reason, be it theories or individual scientific observations that can be deemed as relevant and i can ramble on the same arguing that most races have very similar intelligence, so similar it's negligible. We will never come to an agreement like this. Based on the scientific evidence there is no reason to suggest that anyone is more intelligent than the other, therefore your explanations as to why there are significant differences are useless, because there is no observable scientific evidence to suggest it.
It's like arguing that weed is more harmful to your body than alcohol, when it is well documented that alcohol is more harmful than weed. Do you finally get my drift? The evidence is not on your side. Until science can prove your claim, you are fighting a lost battle. And before you get all smart-ass on me, it's well accepted that the Aboriginals are an exceptional case.
Original post by dgeorge
Still waiting for your response to a clearly ridiculous remark
I actually LOLed at what he said. Classic face-palm answer!
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by DorianGrayism
What exactly are they stating then when it says that the average sub-saharan African has an IQ lower than 70?
Indeed, average. The average IQ in Einstein's hometown may have been 100, his was higher of course.
Original post by hajinator
I'm black and my IQ is 148
And? What is your point?
Original post by 4RealBlud
Based on the scientific evidence there is no reason to suggest that anyone is more intelligent than the other, therefore your explanations as to why there are significant differences are useless, because there is no observable scientific evidence to suggest it.
Original post by 4RealBlud
The only solid evidence there is of anyone being smarter than any else, is the study done that shows that aboriginals have a better visual memory than other people on average
The only solid evidence there is of anyone being smarter than any else, is the study done that shows that aboriginals have a better visual memory than other people on average
Original post by 4RealBlud
No-ones denying that there probably differences
No-ones denying that there probably differences
... My argument was based on your own words. I was explaining how it may be significant. I am done with this thread.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by 4RealBlud
LOL, yes they would!
Original post by 4RealBlud
I actually LOLed at what he said. Classic face-palm answer!
I actually LOLed at what he said. Classic face-palm answer!
I'm still waiting for his response. It's obvious that his only purpose on TSR is to downlplay the achievements of an entire race, by using dubious and outdated reasearch to "prove" his point.
I'll keep pointing out to him the stupidity of his remark until he answers
Original post by HermesTrismegistus
4, 2, 5, 2, 6, 0, 3, ?
I expect the answer in my inbox in 3 days. You should be able to solve it in less than half an hour while watching TV.
I expect the answer in my inbox in 3 days. You should be able to solve it in less than half an hour while watching TV.
+5, -6, +7, -10, +9
So next in the series is -11.
Original post by vedderfan94
Indeed, average. The average IQ in Einstein's hometown may have been 100, his was higher of course.
Ahh .... that is a great point .... a black person that graduated from Cambridge is comparable to the Einstein.
Actually, I think a black person with an IQ of 148 is even rarer than having a white person with the IQ of Einstein since the average black person is be considered to be moderately retarded according to the Lynn Study.
We are really blessed here on TSR.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by DorianGrayism
Ahh .... that is a great point .... a black person that graduated from Cambridge is comparable to the Einstein.
Actually, I think a black person with an IQ of 148 is even rarer than having a white person with the IQ of Einstein since the average black person would be considered to be moderately retarded.
We are really blessed here on TSR.
Actually, I think a black person with an IQ of 148 is even rarer than having a white person with the IQ of Einstein since the average black person would be considered to be moderately retarded.
We are really blessed here on TSR.
Where did I compare that student with Einstein? I didn't. The whole malarkey is over the stats that black people have a lower average IQ than caucasians. I'm sorry you don't realise there are outliers in all groups.
Original post by DorianGrayism
Actually, I think a black person with an IQ of 148 is even rarer than having a white person with the IQ of Einstein since the average black person would be considered to be moderately retarded.
We are really blessed here on TSR.
Actually, I think a black person with an IQ of 148 is even rarer than having a white person with the IQ of Einstein since the average black person would be considered to be moderately retarded.
We are really blessed here on TSR.
Are you stupid?This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by DorianGrayism
Ahh .... that is a great point .... a black person that graduated from Cambridge is comparable to the Einstein.
Actually, I think a black person with an IQ of 148 is even rarer than having a white person with the IQ of Einstein since the average black person would be considered to be moderately retarded.
We are really blessed here on TSR.
Actually, I think a black person with an IQ of 148 is even rarer than having a white person with the IQ of Einstein since the average black person would be considered to be moderately retarded.
We are really blessed here on TSR.
I suppose you're referring to the 2006 Lynn study? Which was widely acknowledged to be deeply flawed?
But I suppose you're not smart enough to know that are you?
Original post by vedderfan94
Where did I compare that student with Einstein? I didn't. The whole malarkey is over the stats that black people have a lower average IQ than caucasians. I'm sorry you don't realise there are outliers in all groups.
Sure you did. A black person that goes to Cambridge is like Einstein....An Outlier.
Original post by dgeorge
I suppose you're referring to the 2006 Lynn study? Which was widely acknowledged to be deeply flawed?
But I suppose you're not smart enough to know that are you?
But I suppose you're not smart enough to know that are you?
Original post by R4INBOW Are you stupid?
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Are you stupid?This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Yeh...I know...That is why I wrote that black people according to the study are moderately retarded, which is obviously nonsensical.
I didn't realise I would have to state the latter lol.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by DorianGrayism
Yeh...I know...That is why I wrote that black people according to the study are moderately retarded, which is obviously nonsensical.
I didn't realise I would have to state the latter lol.
I didn't realise I would have to state the latter lol.
My bad, I didn't pick up the sarcasm from your post.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
