Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwynLordOfCinder)
    Fixed
    The awkward moment when you say you've fixed someone's mistake, but you're wrong as well.

    Its "yours", not "your's"
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwynLordOfCinder)
    Fixed
    The "fix" is incorrect.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I can't even believe that you are all sat here 'debating' this. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. If somebody is qualified and well-educated, they get the job. The end. Race does not come into it. How the OP can sit here and ask 'is this racist' - newsflash! Calling people uneducated and unintelligent PURELY on account of their race is racist, by definition. To sit here debating differences in IQ and cranial capacities and differences in intelligence across races etc. is disgusting and reeks of eugenics. I thought better of people on the Student Room.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    That is based on your rejection of IQ as a valid benchmark. A rejection which I do not accept. I recommend you go read race differences in intelligence by Richard Lynn. You'll find some extensive statistics to correct your knowledge. IQ is the best predictor of academia and job performance.

    If you are so certain you want to reject it then I challenge you to find a highly developed society boasting a low average IQ of its residents. As this thread heavily discussed employers judging potential applicants, I'd say that would be a pretty damn good thing to look at. PC science is not science.
    You think by being politically incorrect you have come across as compelling and ground breaking but it isnt. I see no solid science behind the disreputed "science" in question. None of which takes into account socioeconomic factors at all and a full discussion was done and finished with when i argued with your fellow racist hansololuck.

    You have no reputable evidence, they're all "estimates", use discontinuous data as a measure and cherry picks which factors it uses as a measure to simply back up the stereotype you believe.

    When all reputable scientists have concluded that intelligence and race has very little connection largely linked to 2 genotypes, i think i'd rather believe this than a 10 year old book that has been largely not accepted. A full explanation of why it isnt scientifically conclusive is on the first page. you clearly have no knowledge of scientific methodology and you have been blinded by the tentative conclusions made by disreputable scientists.

    You have no real basis for your argument, apart from the fact that you are prompting me to read books that would obviously be twisted to support an agenda (an i highly doubt you've read it yourself, i can also tell you to go read a book)

    When IQ itself is inherently unreliable and can easily be manipulated (why some of the graphs plucked out are "estimates") and conclusions are made from loose assumptions, there is only one conclusion. You are wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Not at all. There is no "rule". Sickle cells are somewhat beneficial against malaria for example. When humanity moved north that was no longer needed so a change happened. One. For a specific thing. What does this have to do with intelligence? Are you somehow suggesting that in order to survive in Europe (with its better climate) humans had to become more "intelligent"? Lol'd.

    There are a finite number of differences. In fact, as another poster pointed out, many scientists have tried and failed to classify "race". There are simply not enough genetic differences to do so.

    So it is up to you to prove that "intelligence" is one of these differences.
    A few points.

    You would have to admit though, that it's at least possible that blacks could be more or less intelligent than whites. Not saying they are, but it's conceivable. Take two groups of whites, one group with higher IQs than the other, separate them reproductively, in a few hundred years one group would be, by and large, smarter than the other right? Now, for the sake of argument, you could say that Europe is a more complex environment. More variation, more trees (requiring the need to hunt with the mind rather than running your prey down down as some African tribes do), the ability for agriculture to develop, requiring human intellect, that possibly, an IQ difference could have developed. I don't think one did though.

    Next is more interesting. The impossibility of defining race seems to me not to be a problem of biology but of logic and the philosophy of language.

    Take the vague set "this heap". It is impossible to define the borderline case whereby if you take X amount of grains away, it ceases to be a heap. SO how can we distinguish between the property of being a heap and not being a heap? By looking at it ofc. Same i think applies to race. You'll never find one number of phenotypes of a certain kind to act as a gateway case between blackness and non blackness. However, black people are not biologically the same as white people, and we need a name for that.

    Finally, with regards to possible IQ variation; I agree that it is impossible for one race to inherently be smarter than another by virtue of being in that race.

    Suppose I culled all the lower intelligent black people and then bred them. I would expect that group to eventually have an IQ correlate to their race greater than that of other races.

    But that is a cluster of genes which CORRELATES with a set of black people. I do not link their blackness to their increased intellect.

    Similarly, if it does turn out that races are smarter than another, i put this down to clusters of genes which occur together due to environmental factors (ie, the dumb ones died). And so "whites are smarter than blacks" would be a misnomer, what I would mean by saying that would be "there is a correlation between white biological traits and intellect in a given population".

    I hope these distinctions satisfy both sides of this argument, which i havent really paid attention to tbh.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    That is based on your rejection of IQ as a valid benchmark. A rejection which I do not accept. I recommend you go read race differences in intelligence by Richard Lynn. You'll find some extensive statistics to correct your knowledge. IQ is the best predictor of academia and job performance.

    If you are so certain you want to reject it then I challenge you to find a highly developed society boasting a low average IQ of its residents. As this thread heavily discussed employers judging potential applicants, I'd say that would be a pretty damn good thing to look at. PC science is not science.
    Hey mate. Interesting stuff.
    You know of any reputable and fairly recent psychological/neuroscience studies in support of differences in intelligence between ethnic groups - possibly controlling (or attempting to control) for confounding factors?
    Without the evidence, the whole thread is simply educated conjecture. Not many have time or the resources to grab the book.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The real cringe here is the 'banker' thinking you need to be exceptionally smart to get into banking....LOL.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Not misleading at all, as I clearly stated "African immigrants" as opposed to Blacks in general. My point is that if Blacks are naturally stupid, those Africans would not have been able to achieve everything they have, despite being from more privileged backgrounds than African Americans. Their lack of intelligence would not have allowed it.
    The guy's point was that blacks are on average less intelligent, not that they're all stupid. So yes, statistics about the educational attainment of a small subset of the black population are misleading (or just irrelevant, if you prefer).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    The awkward moment when you say you've fixed someone's mistake, but you're wrong as well.

    Its "yours", not "your's"
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    The "fix" is incorrect.
    Apostrophe of possession, he's referring to a characteristic that he possess.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwynLordOfCinder)
    Apostrophe of possession, he's referring to a characteristic that he possess.
    yours is an exception to the rule
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    Yeah, minorities shouldn't have to work !!

    That guy is such a racist.
    I meant why should have to work harder than others to gain respect.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pizzaprincess)
    I can't even believe that you are all sat here 'debating' this. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. If somebody is qualified and well-educated, they get the job. The end. Race does not come into it. How the OP can sit here and ask 'is this racist' - newsflash! Calling people uneducated and unintelligent PURELY on account of their race is racist, by definition. To sit here debating differences in IQ and cranial capacities and differences in intelligence across races etc. is disgusting and reeks of eugenics. I thought better of people on the Student Room.
    You do understand that well educated people do sit down and debate these things? That is, instead of just using insults and self righteousness.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwynLordOfCinder)
    Apostrophe of possession, he's referring to a characteristic that he possess.
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    x.

    Lol, so first your fix is incorrect, and then your explanation for why the fix is correct is incorrect :lol:

    http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com...istakes/yours/

    There is no such thing as "your's".

    Your fix was just an honest mistake, but then we called you out on it and you still maintained that you're correct. Lol, now you just look like a moron.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lolatmaths)
    standard closet racist, there's many of them particularly in the upper class who try to veil it with silly logic.
    The irony is strong in this one...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    well of course it is racist.
    saying black people = the whole black population, why generalize like that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George VI)
    The irony is strong in this one...
    how is it ironic?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    how is it ironic?
    'You can't generalise a whole group'
    'The upper class are a bunch of racists'
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oueoue)
    well of course it is racist.
    saying black people = the whole black population, why generalize like that?
    It looks like he means the urban gang cultures tbh, as he says he wouldn't mind having a meeting with Obama. I don't blame him, not on account on them being black, but because they are very rude.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    IQ is a poor measure of intelligence. The fact that IQ differs depending on which test is used proves this.

    Where are your sources anyway? Most studies I have seen put Asians around 2-3 points ahead of Whites, and Whites 6-7 points ahead of Black people. Its not a significant difference, and much less significant than the effect of studying for the test beforehand.

    While genetics obviously has a significant role to play, more significant roles are played by culture, education, and upbringing. Test result differences between the average middle class white and middle class black would, I assume, be a lot smaller, and probably even smaller between children of scientists of any race.

    Damn. The truth in this is powerful. Was just going to type this.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Lol I've worked in banking and could surpass him at his stupid job within half a decade if I decided to stay in the financial services industry.

    My whole family (I have a big family) are either at university or are qualified professionals with degrees. My mum is one of the cleverest women I have ever met.

    In America the most highly educated group is the African immigrants. So yeah, that banker hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

    My spelling and grammar is also heaps better than yours. It is unlikely that you will be in a position in which you would need to consider whether or not to hire Black people.
    Touche but what do you mean by the boldface part?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gwagon)
    The real cringe here is the 'banker' thinking you need to be exceptionally smart to get into banking....LOL.
    Wait...you mean you don't have to be clever to get into banking?! Did i pick the wrong career...or is this academic snobbery I'm smelling?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.