Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Sep '10 23:45
    Is this a racist organization? I ask because it makes some pretty racist claims that bothers some people on this site.
  2. 07 Sep '10 00:12
    i'm not convinced of their competence to judge genetic IQ.
  3. 07 Sep '10 00:23 / 3 edits
    So do you think that the IQ tests were rigged or that the IQ tests aren't valid for judging academic ability?

    Btw, they are not judging genetics IQ. They simply say that there is an IQ gap between whites and blacks. Do you deny the existance of such a gap?
  4. 07 Sep '10 08:17
    Originally posted by Eladar
    So do you think that the IQ tests were rigged or that the IQ tests aren't valid for judging academic ability?

    Btw, they are not judging genetics IQ. They simply say that there is an IQ gap between whites and blacks. Do you deny the existance of such a gap?
    they are statistics. they got some "representative" individuals, tested them and then they grouped them based on the shade of their skin. that is it. they are not racist. you are. you are then one that read between the lines of some statistic and drew your own conclusions.


    now would you let it go?
  5. 07 Sep '10 09:48
    Finding a correlation between arbitrary data is not racist. However, getting so worked up about this does make you appear like one.
  6. 07 Sep '10 09:59
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Finding a correlation between arbitrary data is not racist. However, getting so worked up about this does make you appear like one.
    yes, humans see patterns all the time. i can say that the majority of prison population is black for example and that is not racist. if i say that the majority of prison population is black because blacks are violent as a race, that makes me racist.
  7. 07 Sep '10 10:14
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    yes, humans see patterns all the time. i can say that the majority of prison population is black for example and that is not racist. if i say that the majority of prison population is black because blacks are violent as a race, that makes me racist.
    People are very selective about the kind of patterns, too. For example, in the Netherlands people with dark hair commit more crimes per capita than blondes, but no one is discriminating against people with dark hair. And frankly, I have little urge to go out and commit crimes because my hair is dark.
  8. 07 Sep '10 14:17
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    People are very selective about the kind of patterns, too. For example, in the Netherlands people with dark hair commit more crimes per capita than blondes, but no one is discriminating against people with dark hair. And frankly, I have little urge to go out and commit crimes because my hair is dark.
    (zb edges away from KzN)
  9. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    07 Sep '10 14:20
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    And frankly, I have little urge to go out and commit crimes because my hair is dark.
    So what's the reason then?
  10. 07 Sep '10 14:31
    look at the criminal neurologist who found all these serial killers in his family tree and who found that of all his family, only his own genes contained the genetic markers matching those in serial killers and only his brain matched the electrical activity profile of serial killers. but he himself was a big sweetheart according to his family and kids, due to a nurturing family environment. never got angry.

    IQ tests don't measure genetic IQ and don't count study time and quality of education.

    saying Africans' genetic IQ is lower is saying that their capacity is lower. their cups are smaller and you can't fill them up as much as for Asians and whites no matter how hard you try.
  11. 07 Sep '10 14:48
    Originally posted by Palynka
    So what's the reason then?
    It's because my parents violated the sanctity of marriage and divorced.
  12. 07 Sep '10 15:50
    the generation after Free Love supposedly was more conservative.
  13. 07 Sep '10 16:19
    you've got cohorts of relatively highly trained students (Asians and whites) competing with cohorts of relatively lowly trained students (blacks and hispanics). genetic effects if present at all are likely to be very low contributors in this scenario.

    there's also the effect of stigmatization of high achievers in low-achieving communities. maybe ATY or some of the other inner-city schoolteachers on Debates could comment more on that.

    given the stigmatization and other similar effects, by our cream-of-the-crop theory anyone who makes it out of the barrio is likely to be MORE capable than those on the outside who didn't have those challenges. a la natural selection.
  14. 08 Sep '10 02:11 / 3 edits
    With this statement found in the wiki link :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence


    In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. By the mid-1930s most psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role.[9] In 1969 the Harvard Educational Review published a 125-page invited article by the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen reviving the hereditarian point of view, postulating: "The preponderance of the evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis, which, of course, does not exclude the influence of environment or its interaction with genetic factors".[10]:82 Jensen's work, publicized by the Nobel laureate William Shockley, sparked controversy amongst the academic community and even led to student unrest.[11][12] A similar debate amongst academics followed publication in 1994 of The Bell Curve, a book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray that argued in favor of the hereditarian viewpoint. It not only provoked the publication of several interdisciplinary books on the environmental point of view, some in popular science, but also led to a public statement from the American Psychological Association acknowledging a gap between average IQ scores of whites and blacks as well as the absence of any adequate explanation of it, either environmental or genetic.

    APA acknowledges that there is a gap in IQ between blacks and whites and that there is neither an enviromental nor genetic explanation. I'll leave it at that. Anyone who claims they have an enviromental explanation is simply spouting a personal opinion, nothing based on science. That's the point of view I'm taking. I'm sticking with the APA.


    Why do I continue?

    It's because it seems certain people are unwilling to admit there is a divide. I believe it is due to the fact that lefties have brainwashed us. We have taken what they've said as truth and have not questioned it. Now I know there is a divide. That's all I need to know. That's all any of us need to know.

    Why is it important? I'll quote the link again:

    In response to criticism that their conclusions would have a negative effect on society if they were to gain wide acceptance, Jensen and Rushton have justified their research in this area as being necessary to answer the question of how much racism should be held responsible for ethnic groups' unequal performance in certain areas. They maintain that when racism is blamed for disparities that result from biological differences, the result is mutual resentment, and unjustified punishment of the more successful group. They state:

    [T]he view that one segment of the population is largely to blame for the problems of another segment can be even more harmful to racial harmony, by first producing demands for compensation and thereby inviting a backlash. Equating group disparities in success with racism on the part of the more successful group guarantees mutual resentment. As overt discrimination fades, still large racial disparities in success lead Blacks to conclude that racism is not only pervasive but also insidious because it is so unobservable and "unconscious." Whites resent that nonfalsifiable accusation and the demands to compensate blacks for harm they do not believe they caused.[133]



    It is this very thing that I've brought up before. Why do we need to give them preferential treatment? Why are we permanently having to feel sorry for the fact that 150 years ago blacks were slaves. When does the preferential treatment end? Is it when blacks have equal representation when given a level playing field? If blacks have an average lower IQ, they will never succeed on an equal playing field because they are playing with a disadantage. In other words, unless the IQ divide can be reached, blacks will always need to receive special treatment based on race. I think that normal people would agree with me in that we should not strive to have a permanent bias given to any racial group.


    For me this is an ever growing topic. Now I have two major concerns based on this one subject:

    Judging Schools on Standardized Test scores

    Giving black people permanent special priviledges to try to make up for having ancestors that were slaves 150 years ago.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    08 Sep '10 03:03
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    you've got cohorts of relatively highly trained students (Asians and whites) competing with cohorts of relatively lowly trained students (blacks and hispanics). genetic effects if present at all are likely to be very low contributors in this scenario.

    there's also the effect of stigmatization of high achievers in low-achieving communities. maybe ATY o ...[text shortened]... E capable than those on the outside who didn't have those challenges. a la natural selection.
    I don't have much to add. Sounds right to me.