[4RealBlud]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
I'm more inclined to believe in what peer-reviewed academic research has validated, rather than what some random Joe Blogs has written on an internet forum, if thats what you mean.

Well then i suggest that you read some more peer-reviewed academic research then. FYI that isn't peer-reviewed research, it's a theory. It MAY be true or not, at the end of the day there's no solid proof of what a single academic thinks. It is generally agreed upon the most well-established academics that there is no significant proof that any race is significantly more intelligent than each other. I'm basing this opinion on facts.

[419]

How can this be determined when intelligence is a very subjective terminology itself?

[funkydee]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)

Black people are less intelligent than white people.

White people are less intelligent than East Asian people.

Why is the first statement difficult to stomach but not so the second statement?

Well imo they're both difficult to stomach because it should be on average blah...

do you not think there's variance at all between races?

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by funkydee)
Well imo they're both difficult to stomach because it should be on average blah...

do you not think there's variance at all between races?

yes of course there is. It seems blatantly obvious to me that some races are on average smarter than others. What I'm not sure about is the variance in the distribution of IQ.

It would be really interesting to see who (other than Jews) dominates the 150+ band. Not sure if it would be East Asians, could be whites.

[Newerfield]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
Black people are less intelligent than white people.

White people are less intelligent than East Asian people.

Why is the first statement difficult to stomach but not so the second statement?

Because, as we all know, that is not the end to the argument.

So it goes that asian people, on average, may possess more raw intelligence than white people, but, *apparently*, white people posssess an intellectual creativity and ingenuity unmatched by asians.

I think someone said in another post: asian people were capable of creating inventions and technology to overcome problems with their environments, but they never took the theories behind those inventions and ran with them to expand upon their knowledge of the world.

So, why aren't people, specifically white people, perturbed by the idea that asians, on average, are more intelligent? Because the trade-off, as race theory suggests, for that higher intelligence was a lack of rigidity with that intelligence, and a greater level of creativity. Basically white people are the perfect blend of intelligence, creativity and physicality. They're not so dumb that they lack the intelligence to create advanced, highly successful societies, and invent incredible technology, but they're not bound by the rigidity of thought that asians are, even though they possess a higher intelligence.

It's all *******s, basically. And anyone who feigns ignorance of the consequences of a belief in areas of thought associated with race theory are either immensely naive or incredibly perfidious.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

This thread sounds no different to the thousands of others. All the time, it is "socioeconomic" reasons. All the time, it has nothing to do with race.

Do you not see how stupid that argument is? Obviously there will be differences between race. We are not created equal! How about telling me that dark chocolate and milk chocolate are the same? You can't, because they're not. So, if something as simple as chocolate can be inherently different, why can't humans?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
This thread sounds no different to the thousands of others. All the time, it is "socioeconomic" reasons. All the time, it has nothing to do with race.

Do you not see how stupid that argument is? Obviously there will be differences between race. We are not created equal! How about telling me that dark chocolate and milk chocolate are the same? You can't, because they're not. So, if something as simple as chocolate can be inherently different, why can't humans?

Is there no such thing as an intelligent 'black' person?

[NB_ide]

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Is there no such thing as an intelligent 'black' person?

Did I make a point to the contrary?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Did I make a point to the contrary?

In your chocolate analogy, yes.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Did I make a point to the contrary?

whyumadtho's purpose on TSR is to derail threads about "sensitive" topics with absurd and reductive questions such as that.

[Zürich]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Is there no such thing as an intelligent 'black' person?

We are discussing averages are we not?
Again, on an individual basis, race is irrelevant, you are either intelligent or not but collectively one race may have a lower intelligence. This shouldn't be controversial at all.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Zürich)
We are discussing averages are we not?
Again, on an individual basis, race is irrelevant, you are either intelligent or not but collectively one race may have a lower intelligence. This shouldn't be controversial at all.

Individuals are not collectives, they are individuals who have autonomy over what they choose to learn.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by NB_ide)
whyumadtho's purpose on TSR is to derail threads about "sensitive" topics with absurd and reductive questions such as that.

I didn't make the analogy.

[Zürich]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Individuals are not collectives, they are individuals who have autonomy over what they choose to learn.

This is what I just said.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Zürich)
This is what I just said.

Then what is the value of formulating an average when the individuals who comprise the average are completely psychologically unrelated and have autonomy over what they choose to learn?

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
In your chocolate analogy, yes.

I'm confused. I prefer dark chocolate - it's nicer and more pure. See my thread from yesterday.

My chocolate comparison was about how differences can occur in very simple matters - so, why not humans? Genetically, races have differences. White British males don't resemble black Nigerian males at all, do they? Why not? Why can't the same be true for intelligence? Or sport? Or anything?

[Zürich]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Then what is the value of formulating an average when the individuals who comprise the average are completely psychologically unrelated and have autonomy over what they choose to learn?

The purpose of science is truth. It need not have any use.
Intelligence is the ability to learn, not the result of learning.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
I'm confused. I prefer dark chocolate - it's nicer and more pure. See my thread from yesterday.

My chocolate comparison was about how differences can occur in very simple matters - so, why not humans?

So your analogy was tangential to the discussion? I interpreted it as the name being 'race' and the cocoa content being intelligence.

Even when comparing it to biology, 'race' is an invalid system of categorisation that has no objectively grouped parameters.

Genetically, races have differences.

It is well documented that there is more genetic variance within 'racial groups' than between them.

White British males don't resemble black Nigerian males at all, do they? Why not? Why can't the same be true for intelligence? Or sport? Or anything?

Intelligence is clearly subject to whether or not one chooses to learn something. How is it possible for somebody to be psychologically incapable of acquiring and storing information?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Zürich)
The purpose of science is truth. It need not have any use.

When it attempts to group what is clearly not naturally grouped (are you influenced by what somebody on the other side of the continent does?), there appears to be a fundamental categorical flaw.

Intelligence is the ability to learn, not the result of learning.

How is it possible for somebody (assuming they are functioning normally) to be incapable of learning something?