"Scientist" claiming that the average Australian aborigine is only capable of...

Particular physical differences are used in the construction of 'race'; i.e., by having physical trait X, Y and Z, you are a member of 'race' A. By not having those qualities, you are not part of that 'race'. They are the same thing.

On the other hand, intelligence is individualised and is not used in the construction of a 'race'. Having a particular level of intelligence does not permit or preclude someone from being seen as a member of a 'race'. There is no such thing as a "racial difference in intelligence" because a 'race' is not an entity with a measurable intelligence that can be compared to another equivalent entity. Whatever causes intellectual differences is not concordant with physical qualities used in the construction of 'race', which is why intelligent and unintelligent people exist globally.

Intelligent and unintelligent people exist globally. It is not impossible for everyone in a population of a continent or large region to be less/more intelligent than everyone in a population of another continent or large region (presuming that this can be associated with physical differences between all the members of the two populations), but this is not the case in reality; therefore, "racial differences in intelligence" do not exist, but individualised differences do. Being the progeny of two members of a particular 'race' or being a member of a particular 'race' does not guarantee a certain level of intelligence.

Intelligent and unintelligent people exist globally. It is not impossible for everyone in a population of a continent or large region to be less/more intelligent than everyone in a population of another continent or large region (presuming that this can be associated with physical differences between all the members of the two populations), but this is not the case in reality; therefore, "racial differences in intelligence" do not exist, but individualised differences do. Being the progeny of two members of a particular 'race' or being a member of a particular 'race' does not guarantee a certain level of intelligence.

Excuse me? Physical characteristics in isolation are not used for classification of race, though they tend to have a high degree of conformity. Genetic testing and clustering/distance metric methods are what are actually used for classification.

I recall that you believe that even these genetic tests are subjective in application.

However, you cannot deny this fact: if I were to take a sample population of the world, and cluster genetically into (say) 4 groups, then these clusters would have statistically significant IQ levels. This would not be the case if I were to cluster randomly instead.

tall and short people also exist everywhere. but if your parents are dutch then you are much, much more likely to be taller than if they are japanese.

This is inconsequential. Regardless of whether or not the construction is based on physical (including genetics) or distance, the point is that having that quality includes/excludes someone from being classified as belonging to a particular 'race'.

For some tests the application or results can be changed according to the researcher's specifications or the samples used, respectively.

On average, probably. This has not undermined anything I've said. The incidence of intelligence and unintelligence does not correspond with membership into those four clusters. The fact that sickle cell is more likely to be present in a sample of sub-Saharan Africans than it is in a sample of Europeans does not mean it is related to membership within these 'groups'. There are SS Africans with sickle cell and there are Europeans with sickle cell.

That's simply because there are currently more tall people in the Dutch population than there are in the current Japanese population. This is unrelated to someone being Dutch or Japanese in itself, however; it is related to the parents' heights and what is transmitted to the progeny.

Similarly, you are more likely to find someone with sickle cell in Ghana than you are in Finland because there are currently more people with the condition in Ghana than there are in Finland. This does not lead to the conclusion that the condition is related to the incidence of being Ghanaian or Finnish.

I cannot really understand what you mean by agreeing that there are statistically significant differences in IQ/sickle cell levels but that they do not 'correspond' or are 'unrelated' to group membership.

If you mean to imply there is no statistically significant difference between the prevalence of sickle cell/IQ in these groups, this is incorrect.

Apart from semantics, we seem to be in agreement.

I think you are attempting some serious mental gymnastics rather than come to terms with reality but you just keep falling on your head.

Yes there are more Finnish people in Finland and more Ghanaians in Ghana. Finnish people inherit their genes from their Finnish parents and Ghanaians do from their Ghanaian parents. Over millennia they end up selecting genes that are best suited to their environment. That's why Ghanaians have dark skin and Finnish have white skin. It so happens that intelligence is more useful in cold Finland than in warm Ghana, so Finnish people have self-selected for higher intelligence compared to Ghanaians (and the rest of sub-saharan africans).

Maybe you should go back to primary school and catch up on biology.

If intelligence is governed by being Ghanaian or Finnish (or having dark or light skin), why are there Ghanaians who are more intelligent than Finnish people?

Men are on average shorter than women, the fact that some men are shorter than some women doesn't change the fact that there is a relationship between sex and height. Likewise if there is a difference in average intelligence between racial groups then race will influence IQ , despite there being overlap.

Hmmmm - if he was racist surely he would have whites Britians/Europeans as the highest IQs not the chinese/japanese.

I can believe that this research did indeed find that in IQ tests aborigone tribesmen did come in quite low. But not necessarily because they lack intelligence. More to do with fact that they have no need of knowing about stuff in IQ tests, thier brains are not programmed to respond to maths and logic questions. They are wired to survival in a harsh enviroment.

Flip it round take your IQ test and make it about survival, where t find food, how to make fire, how not to freeze at night, how to hunt and forage and id bet that Europeans would be at the level of a cabbage wheras the Aborigines would come in very high scores

Particular physical differences are used in the construction of 'race'; i.e., by having physical trait X, Y and Z, you are a member of 'race' A. By not having those qualities, you are not part of that 'race'. They are the same thing.

On the other hand, intelligence is individualised and is not used in the construction of a 'race'. Having a particular level of intelligence does not permit or preclude someone from being seen as a member of a 'race'. There is no such thing as a "racial difference in intelligence" because a 'race' is not an entity with a measurable intelligence that can be compared to another equivalent entity. Whatever causes intellectual differences is not concordant with physical qualities used in the construction of 'race', which is why intelligent and unintelligent people exist globally.

Please link me these studies, I am genuinely interested. Every single adoption study I've come across comes to the same conclusion: that black, white, and Asian children adopted into middle class white households display disparities in their IQ levels.

As for your comic. Jews have been an oppressed people throughout much of history. East Asians such as the Chinese went through enormous sociopolitical upheavals and brutal repression in the 20th Century (think Mao's Cultural Revolution). Both these groups do rather well in tests designed by White Gentiles.

The size of your brain is a physical trait and there different races have different brain masses. As I've said, I have no idea if brain size affect intelligence, but it is intuitively appealing to think that it would.

The size of your brain is a physical trait and there different races have different brain masses. As I've said, I have no idea if brain size affect intelligence, but it is intuitively appealing to think that it would.

Which study has shown there is a universal disparity between all the members of one continental/regional population and all the members of another continental/regional population in respect to brain size?

Based on the studies I've seen your argument relies on there being a correlation between skull size and brain size, a correlation between both of these with whatever traits are used in the construction of 'race' and then a correlation between brain size and intelligence. That is, none of these studies have demonstrated that one necessitates the existence of the other. With all of this correlation there will be a large number of exceptions, so the claim that there is a "racial difference in intelligence" is still without foundation.

There isn't a causal one, else all men would be taller than all women. Something else (that may be more prevalent amongst a particular sex but not universal) is responsible for height.

As I said to ClickItBack, does the fact that gay people, on average, are more likely to have HIV/AIDS than straight people, on average, mean HIV/AIDS is related to the incidence of being gay? If so, why are there gay people who don't have HIV/AIDS and straight people who have HIV/AIDS? You seem to be suggesting that, rather than there being something different between those with HIV/AIDS and those without HIV/AIDS (regardless of orientation), there is something between gay people with HIV/AIDS and gay people without HIV/AIDS, and straight people with HIV/AIDS and straight people without HIV/AIDS. What is this unspecified distinction that means sexual orientation still has a bearing on the incidence of HIV/AIDS?