[419]

(Original post by Zürich)
This seems natural. You are comparing the variance of groups (average ) to the variances of much large populations. This is a basic statistical operation that is neither surprising nor informative.

Did you know that there is more differences in IQ between students at the University of Cambridge than between students at all UK universities as a whole?
What does this mean? nothing, except that variance is dependent on the sample size.

You're talking about the IQ as if it is a good measure of intelligence.
Who created the IQ test by the way?

[419]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
You obviously are incapable of reading something and accepting that the words mean what they are meant to. My point was that there are differences in everything, so why should humans be different? Sorry, I assumed that the users of this website would be more intelligent.

Side note: why do people say 'try again'? Is this a liberal slogan on something? Makes little sense.

Wehay and there we have it ladies and gentlemen, the condescending comment from a bigot. That didn't take too long.

Comparing humans to chocolate and yet I'm lacking inteligence. Seriously think about yourself.

Try again. Its a satirical comment inviting you to make another attempt at your point.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by 419)
Wehay and there we have it ladies and gentlemen, the condescending comment from a bigot. That didn't take too long.

Comparing humans to chocolate and yet I'm lacking inteligence. Seriously think about yourself.

Try again. Its a satirical comment inviting you to make another attempt at your point.

Where to start? You're a walking hypocrite.

Condescending? Because your initial response wasn't hostile and offensive? Of course not. However, when I respond in kind, it's the worst thing ever.

Bigot? You don't even understand my point and you're making judgements. In any case, bigot equals firm belief. What's wrong with that? I'd rather people stand behind their points than change depending on the direction of the wind.

Does your mind prohibit you from seeing beyond 'chocolate' and 'humans'? Are you unable to understand finesse? Do I need to spell it out for you, because you obviously didn't understand my response?


For the remedial

Spoiler:

Show

Comparable to everything else on the planet, including chocolate, humans are not the same. Humans have genetic differences. If you still don't understand, then I pity you.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by Reformed2010)
The problem is one, you don't know what the difference is. Second, you fail to grasp how pathetically insignificant the difference is. Comparing human genetic variation to white and milk chocolate is retarded. The vast majority of scientists have concluded race is a social construct and bears little to no resemblance to the genetic variation found in humans. This social construct is continued because people like yourself can't be bothered to do some research, latch onto the word 'difference' and seriously over blow how different black and white people really are. There is no race apart from the Human race. Deal with it.

Another person who needs to read the remedial section provided in my latest post. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just replacing the text with the word "liberal". As far as I can see, it's the same bunch of crap.

Aww, the human race, how cute. You deal with it! If I want to treat people differently, I will do. Who the hell are you to tell me otherwise? You're nobody to me.

[Reformed2010]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Another person who needs to read the remedial section provided in my latest post. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just replacing the text with the word "liberal". As far as I can see, it's the same bunch of crap.

Aww, the human race, how cute. You deal with it! If I want to treat people differently, I will do. Who the hell are you to tell me otherwise? You're nobody to me.

Oh please, you are welcome to treat people differently by all means. But you'd be limited in doing so in your life. Because the law and those around you will whip your backside. Even on this forum, your limited to how much you can discriminate humans. So good luck with that.

[Zürich]

(Original post by Reformed2010)
Yes because what the scientist did in their ground breaking research was compare a small population of white Caucasians in Britain and the entire Black Africa. Seriously, are you trying to be this silly?
.

Nothing to do with sample size. The standard deviation of {2,5,8} is 3. The standard deviation of {3,6,10} is ~3.5. The s.d of {3,3.5} is ~0.35.

Do you see what I'm getting at?
Saying that there are more differences within different groups than between them is just a simple manipulation of statistics. It sounds very awe-inspiring but it conceals more than it reveals.

By the way, I have no idea whether black people are less intelligent than white people, or indeed the other way round. As I've said before it shouldn't matter as we are all individuals and one's intelligence is independent from everyone else, except one's parents. I am just arguing that intelligence matters and that people shouldn't get so defensive if confronted with facts that they don't like. All that counts is the truth, not whether you like the truth.

[Presenttime]

Its silly. We are all individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses

[hannah60000]

So if whites are more Intelligent than blacks what does that mean then?
What impact does that have?
Give specifics please?
I personally feel, intelligence should be based on individual case not on race otherwise that would mean every white person in the world is more intelligent than every black person, which is not the cause, (although I'm aware, it is based on generalised average of a race).

To me it is a way of propping white superiority by say "statistically whites have higher IQ than blacks" (considering other racially groups have higher IQ than whites but people rarely refer to this)

Lastly, what were the conditions that these test were conducted in; I mean if you really are going to test IQ all participate should have at least the same basic understanding, use and application of numeracy and literacy for it to be fair?? If you use mix abilities you are sure to get varied results? (correct me if I'm wrong)

Again, what is the purpose of IQ what is it suppose to prove and achieve by comparing? (IQ supporter who believe it marks intelligence). I asks this because I actually do not know it's value it holds society, rather than for aptitude testing, please share.

[hannah60000]

(Original post by maxthepax)
I go to a private college and the black people who go have parents who work investment banks, and run huge corporations in Africa. The jews have middle class parents (like myself) and upper class parents but on average its the black students who are wealthier.

Just an interesting fact for everyone on this thread saying the IQ is not an adequate measure of intelligence, I think we can all agree that Nobel prize winners are significantly more intelligent than your average joe. Why dont you search Black nobel prize winners and then search Jewish nobel prize winners. The difference speaks for itself.

Ummm how old is the Nobel prize award. Also black in the resent History has been oppressed and lack of educational access to even try and compete on such an international stage, also racism.

Search Ancient African and Arab nations who were more intellectual advance that the European world. "Whites" maybe leading at the moment intellectually at the time but it has not always been that way.

PS TSR is clearly not the place to discuss this since it is apparently majority White Middle class bias is expected.

[419]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Where to start? You're a walking hypocrite.

Condescending? Because your initial response wasn't hostile and offensive? Of course not. However, when I respond in kind, it's the worst thing ever.

Bigot? You don't even understand my point and you're making judgements. In any case, bigot equals firm belief. What's wrong with that? I'd rather people stand behind their points than change depending on the direction of the wind.

Does your mind prohibit you from seeing beyond 'chocolate' and 'humans'? Are you unable to understand finesse? Do I need to spell it out for you, because you obviously didn't understand my response?


For the remedial

Spoiler:

Show

Comparable to everything else on the planet, including chocolate, humans are not the same. Humans have genetic differences. If you still don't understand, then I pity you.

You still don't get how absurd and how far fetch using chocolate to compare human is don't you? I pity you.

[TheHansa]

Nothing should be not looked into for fear of hurting someone's feelings, but firstly, why would differences exist? White people more the most part have been a mixture of hunter-gathers then pastoral and agricultrual farmers and in fact selected against intelligence when they banned the most learned people in medieval society having children and this is a similar situation with many African civilisations. Secondly, 'black IQ' which tribe? Most human biological diversity is in black Africa so even if group differences of any sort were to exist exactly which tribe are you reffering to? Thirdly to prove that black people are naturally less intelligent you must work out exactly how much of intelligence (which can be accurately measured using IQ tests sorry to say) is due to genes in the first place. Lastly see the Eyferth study conducted in Germany which showed no differences in IQ between the the children of black american G.I.s and white german women, and white german men and white german women.

(Original post by Reformed2010)




Did you know that on average, there is more genetic differences within a 'race' than between different so-called 'races'? the pathetically insignificantly small genetic differences between human 'races' cannot account for what you believe, that different 'races' are intellectually superior or inferior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Huma...entific_paper)

Don't just repeat what it's fashionable to believe because once you're proven wrong it weakens your position.

[419]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Nothing should be not looked into for fear of hurting someone's feelings, but firstly, why would differences exist? Secondly, 'black IQ' which tribe? Most human biological diversity is in black Africa so even if group differences of any sort were to exist exactly which tribe are you reffering to? Thirdly to prove that black people are naturally less intelligent you must work out exactly how much of intelligence (which can be accurately measured using IQ tests sorry to say) is due to genes in the first place. Lastly see the Eyferth study conducted in Germany which showed no differences in IQ between the the children of black american G.I.s and white german women, and white german men and white german women.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Huma...entific_paper)

Don't just repeat what it's fashionable to believe because once you're proven wrong it weakens your position.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Whilst you're at it, define intelligence please.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by 419)
How did you come to that conclusion?

Whilst you're at it, define intelligence please.

'Intelligence tests are widely used in educational, business, and military settings due to their efficacy in predicting behavior. IQ and g (discussed in the next section) are correlated with many important social outcomes—individuals with low IQs are more likely to be divorced, have a child out of marriage, be incarcerated, and need long-term welfare support, while individuals with high IQs are associated with more years of education, higher status jobs and higher income.Intelligence is significantly correlated with successful training and performance outcomes, and IQ/g is the single best predictor of successful job performance.'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelli...n_intelligence

That last bit, was referenced from Sage journals which is a worldwide publisher of academic papers, journals.

There are different types of intelligence but the sort IQ tests look at Gf, is defined as the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures. The whole point is that it is not testing aquired knowledge or skills learned at school or through other exposures. The problem is that this is linked to the physical brain, not necessarily size I might add, and how a person's brain grows is linked to nutrition during childhood, chemical exposure which is a a particular problem in the urban areas of developed and developing countries as well as rural parts of pre-industrialised nations (first world nations have been known to dump their toxic waste in such places), mental stimulation while the brain is still developing, infectious disease during infancy, physical trauma...

I just realised from your username, are you Nigerian?

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by hannah60000)
So if whites are more Intelligent than blacks what does that mean then?
What impact does that have?
Give specifics please?

Higher IQ, obviously relates to progession. It is confirmed by the historical record, for example all ancient civilizations were created by Caucasoids (Rome, Sumeria, Egypt) and Mongoloids (China). Negroids never created one. 97% of major figures in science between 800 BC and 1950 AD were European Caucasoid (Murray, 2003). The other 3% West Asian Caucasoid or East Asian Mongoloid.

[Freier._.lance]

(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? 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?

Ofcourse there could be genetic causes for differences in intelligence in different races, but there has never been a scientific study into it. We simply don't have the technology or scientific knowledge yet to be able to study such a thing. So anyone who says that differences in intelligence between races has been linked to certain genetic causes is a liar and likely to be a bigot. If anyone disagrees, show me a scientific study backing up your point. Also IQ is not a good measure of intelligence.

[419]

(Original post by TheHansa)
'Intelligence tests are widely used in educational, business, and military settings due to their efficacy in predicting behavior. IQ and g (discussed in the next section) are correlated with many important social outcomes—individuals with low IQs are more likely to be divorced, have a child out of marriage, be incarcerated, and need long-term welfare support, while individuals with high IQs are associated with more years of education, higher status jobs and higher income.Intelligence is significantly correlated with successful training and performance outcomes, and IQ/g is the single best predictor of successful job performance.'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelli...n_intelligence

That last bit, was referenced from Sage journals which is a worldwide publisher of academic papers, journals.

There are different types of intelligence but the sort IQ tests look at Gf, is defined as the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures. The whole point is that it is not testing aquired knowledge or skills learned at school or through other exposures. The problem is that this is linked to the physical brain, not necessarily size I might add, and how a person's brain grows is linked to nutrition during childhood, chemical exposure which is a a particular problem in the urban areas of developed and developing countries as well as rural parts of pre-industrialised nations (first world nations have been known to dump their toxic waste in such places), mental stimulation while the brain is still developing, infectious disease during infancy, physical trauma...

I just realised from your username, are you Nigerian?

The first paragraph is quite interesting as it suggests that ENVIRONMENTAL factors are the biggest determinant of how one does in an IQ test. And if 'Intelligence is significantly correlated with successful training and performance outcomes, and IQ/g is the single best predictor of successful job performance.' then race argument should be dismissed.

Personally, intelligence is one of those things that can't be defined or determined. No matter how hard one does to create a fair way to determine it, it will include element of biased to suit the creator(s). What is intelligence to some is core of stupidity to others. Hence why I think this thread/ debate is extemely moot.

I am, and I have a win-win-win (notice the extra win) business proposition for you. If you're intelligent, you'll take it

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by Reformed2010)
The vast majority of scientists have concluded race is a social construct and bears little to no resemblance to the genetic variation found in humans. This social construct is continued because people like yourself can't be bothered to do some research, latch onto the word 'difference' and seriously over blow how different black and white people really are.

Like whyumadtho you continue to post ignorance. The vast majority of scientists except the biological reality of race. Take a look at surveys.

''The reality of race is widely accepted by most scientists and the rest of society'' (Lynn, 2006)

''[...]a survey of Polish anthropologists carried out in 2001 found that 75 percent agreed with the proposition "There are biological races within the species Homo sapiens" (Kaszycka and Strzalko, 2003).

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Like whyumadtho you continue to post ignorance. The vast majority of scientists except the biological reality of race. Take a look at surveys.

''The reality of race is widely accepted by most scientists and the rest of society'' (Lynn, 2006)

''[...]a survey of Polish anthropologists carried out in 2001 found that 75 percent agreed with the proposition "There are biological races within the species Homo sapiens" (Kaszycka and Strzalko, 2003).

"The myth of major genetic differences across “races” is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence." (Owens & King, 1999).

"Although conventional ‘racial’ categories as typically understood may not be defined by particular genetic markers, ‘pockets of populations’ living in particular geographical locales could be so defined." (McCann-Mortimer et al., 2004).

"We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group." (Lee et al., 2008).

"Because of a history of extensive migration and gene flow, however, human genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous fashion and seldom has marked geographic discontinuities. Thus, populations are never “pure” in a genetic sense, and definite boundaries between individuals or populations (e.g. “races”) will be necessarily somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary." (Jorde & Wooding, 2004).

"In short, while human biological variation certainly seems to be real, the ways that we cut it up, name and describe it are the product of our scientific imagination." (Morning, 2005).

"[...] The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). 20th and 21st Century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people." (Ossorio & Duster, 2006).

"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).

"To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." (Templeton, 1998).

"Race is an accepted socio-cultural concept that lacks supportive genetic evidence." (Kittles et al., 2007).

"Biologists also disagree about the meaning of ‘race’, and whether it is applicable to human infraspecific (within-species) variation." (Keita et al., 2004).

"It has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics." (Keita et al., 2004).

"Studies of human population genetics and evolution have generated the strongest proof that there is no scientific basis for racism, with the demonstration that human genetic diversity between populations is small, and perhaps entirely the result of climatic adaptation and random drift." (Cavalli-Sforza, 2005).

"The points of agreement in the following articles reflect a shared evolutionary perspective that focuses on describing and interpreting the apportionment of biological variation between individuals both within and among groups (see also Lee et al., 2008). We agreed that:

• There is substantial variation among individuals within populations.
• Some biological variation is apportioned between individuals in different populations and among larger population groupings.
• Patterns of within- and among-group variation have been substantially shaped by culture, language, ecology, and geography.
• Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation.
• Human variation research has important social, biomedical, and forensic implications."

"There was really only one fundamental difference of opinion among the symposium participants, which was about the precise nature of the geographic patterning of human biological variation" (Edgar and Hunley, 2009; Caspari, 2009; Edgar, 2009; Gravlee, 2009; Hunley et al., 2009; Konigsberg et al., 2009; Long et al., 2009; Ousley et al., 2009; Relethford, 2009; Wolpoff, 2009).

[Pyramidologist]

Race denialism is just the loon quack fringe, its equivilant in science to young earth creationism...

[Zürich]

Races clearly exist. To pretend otherwise is ignorant, deceitful or both and is not constructive to any kind of reasonable debate.