1 question that should convince you of mental differences among races...

[Piscean]

Quote by: Electric Hermit If you are a racist/racialist (let us not be deceived by the feeble euphemism) then you start from the assumption that there are meaningful differences between races (a term of dubious meaningfulness itself). The racist moves from this assumption of difference to normative assumptions about the superiority/inferiority of whatever it is that they choose to identify as "races". Having done this, they then take whatever deficiencies they can identify in the inferior race - relative to the race that is already assumed to be superior - and attribute those supposed deficiencies entirely to "racial" factors. Similarly, they take whatever attributes of the supposed "superior" race to which they subjectively assign positive values and assert that these too are a function of "racial" differences. It is a process which serves no purpose other than to affirm existing prejudice. Whatever this may be called, it is most definitely not science.

Totally agree with this.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Rortykiller Quoting myself until it is addressed by the thread creator. This is the best argument in this thread against him, no offense guys but you just can't hack. Of course, its also the one he ignores. So respond or be gone.... I actually provide the real science and history and people go on about non-sequitor other garbage. This guy brought up a point, I destroyed his point, he ignores me...the sign of a weak thinker.

Sorry for not replying earlier... I'm not on here 24/7 though, plus their were a lot of replies.

Yours didn't paticularly stick out to me, because it wasn't the best argument against me. I focused on the most recent and best arguments first.

I will answer you now though, to silence your accusations of weakness.

Please bae in mind me and one other individual are debating around 20 others. Its difficult to respond to all points promptly.

Quote by: Rortykiller 1)The evolution of the brain occurred before we became white/asian. 2) It took 100million years for our 1lb brains to turn into a 3lb brain capable of thought. 3) Needless to say, if this is the case, why would minds evolve into something stupider? And in addition, there is no correlation with intelligence and mating, so there is no drive. This is just simply bad evolution. In addition, race emerged over a relatively small period of time and is relegated to results caused by only the most extreme elements of an environment. Namely, black people evolved into white people to absorb more vitamin D in cold weather to prevent rickets. 4) And they evolved into mongoloids because of extreme temperature variations and wind. 5)There is no other isolated leap of intelligence like what you're describing in our history.

1)*rubs eyes*.... their has not been a single point in the biological history of creatures with brains were evolution of the brain "finished". Yes, the brain had been evolving prior to us becoming white/asian, but that doesn't mean it didn't continue afterwards. You make the arrogant assumption that the human brain of 20 000 years ago was perfect for every environment and era up until now. This is a widespread but foolhardy assumption- humans are subject to Darwin Evolutionary process just as much as any other species. We are not "finished" evolving, and weren't 20000 years ago.

2) This linear view of the evolution of the brain is LOLworthy. Who's to say, for example, that the brain didn't shrink at some point, or that the rate of growth didn't speed up/slow down..

Also, IF we assume you linear model, that means that:
2lb growth every 100 000 000(years).
Thus, 1lb growth every 50 000 000 years.
Thus, 1lb divided by 2500 will be the growth rate over 20 000 years(the amount of time human beings have been seperated). 1 lb=0.45359237 kg.

Thus, if we assume your 2lb in 100 million years model, that means that that the amount of growth of the human brain over 20 000 years is: 0.45359237kg divided by 2500, which equals 0.0018136948 kg, which equals 0.003998512585211712 lb.

This means the potential difference between the smallest brained race and largest brained race is 0.03333%recurring (according to YOUR linear assumption of brain growth, and assuming a human average of ~3kg) . This might seem small, but its fairly significant. Of course this estimate(which was based upon YOUR brain growth model) assumes that:

a-brain growth rate hasn't sped up or slowed down over the last 100 million years, and the last 20 000 years(though I'd be prepared to be it is has sped up)
b-the process of evolutionary brain growth didn't, on account of some miracle, stop 20 000 years ago.
c-their has been no regression in size.
d-some races of human have had their brain stop growing, while others growed at the average for the last 100 million years.

3) Its happening now among the human race actually. Less intelligent people have significantly more children. And why? Becuase less intelligent people tend to mature earlier, and be more prolific- a commonality among all races and species. This tendency means that excess brainpower which is not neccesary for a races or species survival slowly "shrivels up", us generation by generation the "stupider" individuals have more children.

This process is countered in a situation where a certain level of intelligence is necessary for survival, given that the less intelligent of people die out leaving only the cream of the crop remaining.

In pre-modern Sub-Saharan Africa, the intelligence neccessary for one to remain alive is lesser then in pre-modern Scandinavia. Thus the intelligence necessary to survive in Scandinavia(prior to the emergence of "civilisation" I mean) would have been greater then that necessary to survive in, say, Nigeria(pre-civilisation).

Of course, this situation has reversed itself in the modern era- while the standard of living in Scandinavia means the intelligence necessary to survive is getting lower and lower, the emerging African crisis means that in all likelihood the intelligence neccessary to survive in Nigeria(for example) is rising.

Oh, and in regards to your physical differences statement, they are probably greater then you realize. I posted some examples on the first page of this thread, as well as link listing some more.

Also, I wish to emphasize that their is more then one type of pressure upon intelligence. Australian Aborigines, for example, despite having an IQ average of ~65(and take into account that most modern Australian Aborigines have some white ancestry, which would have pushed their IQ up), have a visuo-spatial capacity superior to that of rights given that evolutionary pressure neccessitated it given their hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This superiority is paticularly pronounced among those descended from the Australian Aborigines of the desert, understandably considerin the importance of tracking to their civilisation. I want to emphasize that this paticular superiority in visuospatial capacity is also found among the descendants of desert aboriginals who now inhabit the city- thus culture doesn't account for it, paticularly considering the desert-descended aboriginals(who inhabit the city) have a higher visuospatial IQ then the non-desert descended aboriginals who inhabit the city.

4) Which led to Mongoloids developing higher IQ's then Caucasians.

5)Indeed. Just a continual progression of evolution which has been occuring since the beginning of life itself. And said evolution varies dependant on the environment one inhabits. Humans are not exempt from this, though are intellect MAY allow us to lessen the pressure placed by Darwinian slection SLIGHTLY. However the things drived from our intelligence, such as civilisation, cause new evolutionary pressures to emerge as well. So its questionable whether the general intelligence exhibited by humans speeds up or slows down our evolution.

[Yarn]

As you are somewhat pressed, I will try to make my arguement fairly narrow and concise to start with.

Owing to the Toba Catastrophe, humanity's numbers were reduced to between 1 to 15 thousand individuals 70 to 75 thousand years ago. All of humanity was at that time in Africa, and after that catastrophe humanity lost most of its pre-existing genetic diversity. Meaning all the modern day differences between races have evolved in the last 70 thousand years.

As to how humanity evolved into being in the first place, that was a consequence of Africa having a highly variable climate for the past hundreds of thousands years. This resulted in more adaptable individuals surviving when less adaptable individuals perished. A positive correlation between intelligence and adaptability steadily pressed our genetic ancestors to become more and more intelligent.

With these, likely agreeable, premises behind us, lets continue.

I would first proport that Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel offers a comprehensive and elegantly simple way to explain the differences in rates of technological advancement across all the geographical areas of the globe without resorting to claims of genetic inferiority and superiority.

I would further argue that it is at this time impossible to isolate the variable of genetic intelligence between different races through testing, owing to the differences in socioeconomic and cultural background among different races. As time has gone on, tested differences in intelligence between races have shrunk with clear correlation between less unequal schooling and disparity of income distribution.

And to clarify, differences in intelligence between races, whatever they could be, are far less dramatic than the differences in intelligence between humans and bonobos. There is considerable overlap of the bell curves for all human races. Many blacks are smarter than most whites. This is supported even by the aforementioned testing, which cannot yet isolate the variable due to dramatic differences in average upbringing. What we are talking about therefore is only a difference in averages.

In sum, I believe that genetic differences in intelligence between races are small. And furthermore, different races, like different genders, may have different relative mental strengths. This in turn might lead us to come to the same conclusion regarding them that we come to in regarding to gender: different but equal.

In order to have a progressing discussion, we will need to expose our views to one another so as to offer them to one another for evaluation. There is my opening batch.

As general piece of advice, when you are debating multiple people at once you should think of all of them as a single person who likes to repeat him or herself. It is inefficient and impractical to reply to the same points multiple times, so you should reply to identical points only once, and copy and paste your response to them when they come up again.

[RealRockingham]

QUOTE=Gods_Mercenary;565796]Then again, the whole Mediterranean world is so turbulent, can anyone living around there really be referred to as a single race?[/QUOTE]
Well, their has been a lot of intermixing. Certainly, some areas can be reffered to as (almost)100% Caucasian. Parts have taken on some "black" blood however, and maybe some Mongoloid.

Quote by: Athena If a White mother has a Black son, what race is the child?

Most African Americans are actually around 50% white in terms of ancestry. So, really, they would more likely then not be reffered to as black(though random chance may cause them to look rather white).

"Officially" however, such a person is known as a Mullatto.

Quote by: Piscean Good points. I don't know of any native american scientists yet noone is accusing them of being unevolved. It's for cultural reasons of circumstance that certain races aren't holding a lot of certain positions....yet.

Well, "unevolved" is the wrong word. I'm not calling Black Africans unevolved either.

But many people who beleive in the existance of racial differences would be of the opinion that the native Americans are of a lower IQ on account of genetics then Europeans. Nonetheless, their were some high achieving states among the native americans, such as the Maya.

I assume people will start pointing three things out:
1)"Native Americans are Mongoloids"- yup. But, like "Caucasians", their is variation within the Mongoloid race as well. The Native American ancestors split off from the ancestors of the East Asians prior to their common anestors having evolved the intellectual capacity East Asians currently have. On account of rapidly immigrating southwards, the Amerindian ancestors didn't experience the evolutionary development of the brain that East Asian ancestors have(on account of evolutionary pressure for intelligence by their cold environment).

It is worth mentioning that the Amerindians of the cooler territories, for example Canada, are on average more intelligent then those of the warmer territories(ie Brazil/Guatemala). Evolutionary reasons, perhaps?

2)"But the Maya did so well!"- Amerindians are not a united bloc. Furthermore we do not know where the Maya came from- they may have been descended from Amerindians who migrated from further North. Their are also hypothesis's about origins from outside the Americas(Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), though I persoanlly put little stock in these.

3) "The fact they are failures now but did well back then proves the culture hypothesis"- A convincing argument at first glance, but no. For one, we cannot be certain that the Mayans of their golden era are of the same race of those of today- they may well have mixed with surrounding tribes, thus diluting their DNA.

Besides this, most of the Mayan best and brightest were either killed, absorbed into the general Mestizo population, or died on account of disease. By and large all that remained were the peasant class. It is quite likely that they were genetically distinct for the "Maya" responsible for the achievements.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary 1)Races are mainly seperated by superficial variations. 2) Sure, if you isolate a community long enough, serious mental variations are possible, 3)but we humans don't stay in one place for long, and we breed with the locals when we move.

1)OK, later(today) I am going to post a concise list of physical variations- so as to show they are not superficial or trivial.

2)Hmmm... according to Wikipedia, the timeframe human communities have had to diverge is significantly longer then 20 000 years which was posited by myself earlier....

The Aboriginal Australian population has been seperated from the rest of the world for at least 40000 years:Prehistory of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So we had an even longer period to diverge then I previously thought.

Oh, and Mercenary- we have been isolated long enough for serious physical variations to emerge- so really, how can you be so sure we haven't been isolated long enough for mental variations to emerge?

3) To an extent. Nonetheless, a couple of cases of interbreeding in a population of 2000 isn't going to have a serious impact. Certainly, their are cases were widescale inter-breeding has had a major impact- Egypt is an example, they are not racially the same as they were 3500 years ago.

Yes, their has been some inter-gene flow, but still not so much as to present physical variation- and thus, logically, not so much to prevent mental variation. To be honest, I dislike seperating the two. The mind is a part of the physical body, after all- it does not deserve a seperate category in terms of variation.

Quote by: Athena 1)We know we can breed dogs to serve different functions, such as companion dogs, guard dogs, herding, hunting. So equal differences amoung humans is possible. However, there is a wide range of differences among African tribes, and speaking of them as though they one are genetic group is an error. 2)And plenty of White people are complete idiots, whole others good leaders. I suppose we could carry the argument, you appear to be making, to justifying the old idea that some people are fit to rule and others must be ruled. The difference is not limited to race. Genetic Studies in Dogs

1)I agree, but I don't have a major understanding of the genetics of individual tribes, thus I speak in generalizations. To my understanding, their are 5 man Subsaharan races:
-Congoid: The stereotypical African, the most widespread.
-Aethopoid: Ethiopians, Somalis, Sudanese some presence in Tanzania and Kenya.... these are actually 2/3 white in ancestral terms, but are grouped as Black Africans on account of appearance
-Capoid: These are actually genetically closer to East Asians(“Mongoloids”) then Black Africans. They were the original inhabitants of a large part of the Southern African continent, but were pushed out by Congoids and then whites, to the extent that they are now little more then a few small tribes and communities in the deserts of Namibia and Botswana.
-Pygmy: These are something of an enigma- in part because the remaining pygmy communities of Africa don’t seem to be related to each other. It is assumed that they were once the primary race in much of Central Africa, for example the Congo. However, they were almost eliminated by migrations by Congoids(the Bantu Migration). This Bantu Migration also largely replaced the aforementioned Capoids.
-The Senagalese: These are something of an enigma, as they have some Caucasian characteristics.

2) I definitely agree.

Quote by: Walrus Yes, I agree. I think the rise of what we think of as intelligent civilisation probably relates to the development of writing, in that it gave people the ability to store knowledge and with it one hell of an advantage. This appears to have evolved independently in China, Mesopotamia and South America. Our writing systems probably evolved from the early Sumerians but with the exception of the Nubian kingdom of Kush, it never got down as far as main black African continent, and this was probably down to reasons of geography.

Even if we assume this as true, and assume their was absolutely no genetic variation prior to the emergence of civilisation, couldn’t the emergence of civilisation have caused genetic variation to emerge?

In any case, I have yet to see any convincing evidence or argument against my POV. This statement is based on the assumption I am wrong, but does nothing to PROVE that.

Quote by: Chris this is hogwash. 1)Humans evolved into a race in Africa, and when humans migrated around the world, through subsequent generations, they evolved different races. 2)The reason you have westerners being smarter than jungle tribesman is because the tribesman didnt study physics. But that tribesman has every single bit of potential for knowledge as anyone.

1)Yes, they did evolve different races.

2) So you posit that despite the vast variations in terms of the physical form of humans, their was no change in the brain whatsoever?

Your POV is based on the false premise that the brain is sui generis and immune to evolutionary pressure placed by different environments. That premise is not true in regards to any other part of the body, and it is not true in regards to the brain.

[RealRockingham]

Evidence of mental Differences:
The following quotes are taken from American Renaissance November 1992

“Something equally remarkable about the dogma of equality is that there is no evidence to support it. One would search the planet in vain to find a single group of blacks that has managed to build an advanced, civilized society. By whatever standard one chooses, blacks demonstrate at every opportunity that they are not equal to other races. The history of Africa and the status of blacks in the United States are roughly what we would expect if the races have different capacities. But if the races are equally intelligent, disciplined, and hard-working, then nothing about Africa or African-Americans makes sense. Every disparity, every failure, every moment in history must be painstakingly explained. The egalitarian position is therefore not based on evidence — for there is no evidence for that position — but on excuse-making. It consists purely in excusing blacks from the conclusion to which all the evidence points.”



“In the United States, what little discussion there is about racial differences revolves around intelligence. Study after study has consistently shown that the average black IQ test score is 15 to 18 points lower than the white average. It appears that the gap starts at about 15 points in childhood and widens to as much as 20 points in adulthood. The gap has remained unchanged for 70 years — ever since IQ tests were first given to large numbers of Americans. Civil rights laws, greater social equality, and affirmative action have not reduced the difference. T

There is considerable overlap between more intelligent blacks and less intelligent whites; some blacks are clearly smarter than some whites. Egalitarians seize on this fact to discount the entire notion of racial differences but this is as absurd as claiming that because some women are taller than some men, the average man is no taller than the average woman.

Despite overlapping intelligence distributions, only 16 percent of blacks have IQs of more than 100, the white average. Whites are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the “gifted” range of 135 and higher, whereas blacks are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the “retarded” range of 70 or lower. At the very highest, genius level IQ scores, blacks are hardly to be found at all.

Not even the most reckless egalitarians can deny the differences in test scores. Instead, they claim that the scores are either meaningless or do not measure intelligence. It is true that intelligence cannot be defined to everyone’s liking, but that does not mean it cannot be measured. IQ correlates almost perfectly with subjective impressions of intelligence. If you were to talk to five strangers for twenty minutes each and then rank them by intelligence, there is an excellent chance that you would give them the same rank order that an IQ test would.

Less subjectively, IQ tests are the best possible way to predict whether a student will get good grades or a white-collar worker will do a good job. If a test can accurately predict how well someone will do at any number of activities that we think of as requiring intelligence, it takes a peculiar stubbornness to insist that the test is not measuring intelligence.
IQ tests therefore measure what we understand to be intelligence. Blacks consistently score lower than whites on IQ tests. Are they therefore less intelligent than whites?”



“The theory of “test bias” is that unfair tests consistently underrate blacks’ abilities. If that were true, blacks who got the same test scores as whites would do better than the whites at the things test scores are supposed to measure: they would get better grades and do their jobs better. This does not happen; blacks do no better than the test scores predict. This raises a larger and different issue. Both the tests and the abilities they are supposed to measure may be biased against blacks. Some egalitarians actually make this argument, but it comes dangerously close to arguing that ability and intelligence themselves are somehow biased against blacks.

The “cultural bias” position is further weakened by the fact that newly-arrived Asian immigrants, for whom the United States really is an alien culture, outperform both blacks and whites on IQ tests. The assertion that the same tests that are culturally biased against blacks somehow favor Asians strains credibility.

If blacks are as intelligent as whites, there must be some way to demonstrate this. None has ever been devised. Are we to conclude that the intelligence of blacks remains forever hidden because every method for measuring it is faulty? Believers in test bias cannot explain why it is impossible to design an intelligence test — carefully eliminating all bias — on which blacks score as well as whites. The explanation is that there is no bias to eliminate. “Bias” is an imaginary culprit.”



“If tests cannot be shown to be biased, the next line of defense for egalitarians is to admit that, yes, IQ tests measure intelligence fairly and that blacks therefore may be less intelligent. They nevertheless insist that the difference is due to environment rather than genetics.

Some radical egalitarians talk as if intelligence were wholly a product of environment, but this is obviously not true. Mentally retarded children usually start life in the same environment as their normal siblings, but there is clearly something wrong with them and not with their surroundings. Intelligence comes in fine gradations all the way from genius to idiot. To admit that idiocy is genetic but to claim that every other level of intelligence is due to environment is like saying that the heights of dwarfs are governed by genes but that the heights of everyone else are governed by environment.

The nature v. nurture debate as it applies to intelligence is therefore about which predominates, and the best evidence comes from twin studies. Identical twins are genetically the same, whereas fraternal twins are no more similar to each other than ordinary siblings. When they are reared in the same household, twins have environments that are as similar as can be, but occasionally twins are separated at birth and reared apart. The crucial finding is that identical twins reared apart have more similar IQs (and personalities) than fraternal twins reared in the same household. Identical genes count for more than an identical environment.”



“One superficially plausible egalitarian argument is to claim that the meager circumstances in which blacks live thwart their development; rear blacks in good, middle-class homes, it is claimed, and they will be as smart as whites. In fact, a good number of adopted blacks have been reared in white homes, but their IQs remain closer to those of their natural parents than to their adoptive parents. The meager-circumstances argument likewise founders on the IQ scores of American Indians, Mexican immigrants, and Puerto Ricans. They often live in conditions of greater squalor than blacks, yet outperform them on intelligence tests.

Scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) provide some of the most eye-opening data on the relative unimportance of environment. The SAT is not designed as an intelligence test, but it gives results that virtually mirror intelligence. Black students who grow up in families with incomes of more than $70,000 a year get lower scores than whites who grow up in families with incomes of less than $20,000 a year. It would be hard to find more persuasive evidence that race counts for more than family circumstances.

The conditions in which blacks live are the result, not the cause of low intelligence. If an anthropologist were to imagine a society composed of people with an average IQ of 85 — with one sixth as many gifted people and six times as many retarded people as in white society — would he not come up with something like pre-colonial Africa or the American inner city?”



“America is increasingly a society in which intelligence determines social status and success in life. Despite endless claims that America is inveterately prejudiced against non-whites, citizens of all races reap the rewards of intelligence. Prof. Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware has calculated that there are slightly more black doctors, lawyers, and PhDs than the distribution of black intelligence levels would suggest.

If this is true, it has profound implications. It would mean that blacks have already gotten as far in American society as their natural limitations permit. It would also mean that the number of blacks at high levels cannot be increased unless standards are further lowered and that the lingering handicaps of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation have completely disappeared. In other words, there is no such thing as “the legacy of slavery.””

[RealRockingham]

I haven't bothered to find references other then "American Renaissance", but I can if people want me to.

Differences Between Races:
-their are variations in height, and you merely have to look at the pygmies of Africa to prove that

-varition in maturation rate

-variations in level of melanin(rather unimportant, I know)

-variations in hair(it is possible to tell which race one belongs to based on their hair, though if they are mixed race it complicates things)

-Variations in muscle structure

- Variations in leg structure(Black Africans for example are well known for their leg structure)

-Variations in skull structure- one can easily tell, if they recieve basic training, to what race of human a skull belongs just by looking at it(assuming the skull is not belonging to a person of mixed race, which would complicate things)

-It is possible to detect what race one belongs to based on DNA(assuming they are not mixed race)

-Variation in susceptibility to diseases

-Variation in smell

-Variations in medicinal requirements

-Epicanthic folds

-Variations in extent of body hair(almost non-existant in Mongoloids)

-Variations in nose structure

-“Though they may not always be willing to say so, sports physicians have found physical differences that give different races advantages in different sports (see “May the Best Man Win,” AR, Oct. 1992). Whites and West Africans, for example, differ in proportions of body fat, width of hips, thickness of thighs, bone density, and proportion of fast- and slow-twitch muscle. Even East and West Africans differ in important ways that explain why they excel in different sports.

Because blacks have such dense bones, they are less buoyant and less likely to be swimming champions. However, their bones are more resistant to aging. After their mid-30s, white men lose about 2.5 percent of their bone mass every year. Blacks lose less than one percent. Loss of bone mass speeds up greatly under conditions of weightlessness, so blacks could probably survive longer space voyages than whites.
Studies have repeatedly found that black men have more of the male hormone testosterone in their blood than whites do. Testosterone is directly related to physical and sexual aggressiveness, but it also combines significantly with intelligence. Men who are intelligent but who have high testosterone levels are likely to be more successful, socially and professionally, than intelligent men with low testosterone levels. Men who are unintelligent but who have high testosterone are more likely to be criminals than unintelligent men with low testosterone. High crime rates among blacks are consistent with low intelligence and high testosterone”t(taken from American Renaissance News: Race And Physical Differences)

-“The skulls of Australian aborigines have characteristics not found in any other race, but common in fossils of pithecanthropus. The bones of the skull are twice as thick as those of any other race (10 mm v. 5 mm), and the skull has heavy frontal and parietal ridge lines typical of pithecanthropus. The teeth and lower jaws of aborigines are also larger than those of other races, and more similar to those of our remote ancestors”.(init)

-Blacks have identical twins twice as frequently as whites, who have them twice as frequently as Mongoloids(Asians). Some Black populations have them 7 times as frequently as whites.

-“Blacks also have shorter gestation periods than whites or Asians. By the 39th week, 51 percent of black babies have been born but only 33 percent of whites. By the 40th week, the figures are 70 percent and 55 percent. Shorter gestation seems to be a characteristic of blacks that is independent of social status or access to medicine. Prof. J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, who has probably studied maturation rates more extensively than anyone else, reports that rapid development of blacks continues after birth. Many African and black American newborns can hold their heads up whereas white and Asian newborns almost never can. The average age at which black children walk is 11 months, compared to 12 months for whites and 13 months for Asians.

Prof. Rushton has found that blacks reach sexual maturity earlier than whites. By age 12, 19 percent of black girls have full development of breasts and pubic hair, whereas only two percent of white girls do. Black American women menstruate at an earlier age than white women. They then go on to have sexual intercourse for the first time at an average age that is two years younger than that of whites.

Although it has long been the subject of ribald speculation, the races do appear to differ in the size of their sex organs. The best data seems to have been gathered in 1979 by P. H. Gebhard and A. B. Johnson. They actually took measurements and found that popular myths are correct: blacks are better endowed than whites. In extensive interviews, they also found that black men at least report themselves to be less restrained than whites in their willingness to commit adultery, likelihood of frequenting prostitutes, and number of sexual partners.

Somewhat comparable differences have been found between whites and Asians. Even after controlling for body size, Danes have testes that are proportionately twice the size of those of Chinese. Whites are also estimated to produce twice the number of spermatozoa per day as Asians.” (American Renaissance News: Race And Physical Differences)

-Blacks are twice as likely as whites to have high blood pressure- perhaps due to their biological difficulty secreting sodium

-“It has long been known that blood transfusions and organ transplants work best between people of the same race. Until the Second World War, stocks of blood were routinely segregated by race for this reason. Classification by race was ended when it was discovered to be “racist,” but blood banks are reinstituting segregation.

The distribution of the common blood types is different from race to race, and some rare types are unique to certain races. Only blacks have U negative blood; only whites have Vel negative or Lan negative blood. Dr. W. Laurence Marsh of the New York Blood Center justifies racial classification: “It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U negative when no U negative white person has ever been found.”

Kidneys and other organs are classified by race for similar reasons. About 20 percent of blacks are so genetically incompatible with whites that they reject organs from all white donors.”(American Renaissance News: Race And Physical Differences)

[Piscean]

-

Blacks are twice as likely as whites to have high blood pressure- perhaps due to their biological difficulty secreting sodium -“It has long been known that blood transfusions and organ transplants work best between people of the same race. Until the Second World War, stocks of blood were routinely segregated by race for this reason. Classification by race was ended when it was discovered to be “racist,” but blood banks are reinstituting segregation. The distribution of the common blood types is different from race to race, and some rare types are unique to certain races. Only blacks have U negative blood; only whites have Vel negative or Lan negative blood. Dr. W. Laurence Marsh of the New York Blood Center justifies racial classification: “It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U negative when no U negative white person has ever been found.” Kidneys and other organs are classified by race for similar reasons. About 20 percent of blacks are so genetically incompatible with whites that they reject organs

95% of african descended people have o blood. A smaller majority of white peeps have o blood, more like 65 percent or something.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: RealRockingham [B]By whatever standard one chooses, blacks demonstrate at every opportunity that they are not equal to other races.

Just as "equal" does not necessarily mean "identical", so "different" does not necessarily mean "inferior". If and when civilisation collapses, it is likely to be the so-called "inferior" peoples who will best survive. Which would then make them "superior". Context is everything.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Electric Hermit Just as "equal" does not necessarily mean "identical", so "different" does not necessarily mean "inferior". If and when civilisation collapses, it is likely to be the so-called "inferior" peoples who will best survive. Which would then make them "superior". Context is everything.

Yes, I know this. Remember, I was quoting another person. He was out of line in presuming to make subjective judgements like "superiority" and "inferiority".

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Piscean - 95% of african descended people have o blood. A smaller majority of white peeps have o blood, more like 65 percent or something.

I'm curious what your point is. He was talking about U blood, not o blood.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: RealRockingham Yes, I know this. Remember, I was quoting another person. He was out of line in presuming to make subjective judgements like "superiority" and "inferiority".

But this whole "racial difference" thing seems to have no purpose other than to justify assigning such values. What is the point? Suppose black people do have a statistical tendency to be less intelligent according to some questionable measure. So what? Aside from abstract academic interest, what use is this information?

Is the suggestion that it should have some implication for public policy? If so, what?

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: SoylentGreen You have to be kidding , the only source you have is the bible . which has no historical validity. It is a book of myths. Which does not connect jesus to them genetically.

Well, he was more likely Hebrew then any other race. Not the least because the Old Testament prophecies said that the prophets had to be Jewish.
The Jews have tried to discredit Jeebus on many accounts, such as not fufilling certain prophecies. But they have never tried to discredit him on account of not being Jewish- which they would have done 1950 years ago if he wasn't. Incidentally, the same Jews have attempted to discredit Islam on account of Mohammed not being Jewish- making the lack of Jewish claims that Jesus was not a Jew(racially) all the more noticable.
In any case, Jews certainly ain’t Khazars.

Quote by: Walrus 1)Possibly the same reason that it didn’t occur to the peoples of North America who were of the same racial type as those in the south ... simply ... no one thought of it. 2)If the peoples of northern Europe had been cut of from the spread of what we call civilisation, there is no reason to suppose that they would have achieved any more than the peoples of Africa.

1)Actually, North America, paticularly the East coast, was more civilised then it is commonly thought to be. Nat Geo did an article on this.

2) Actually, their is some evidence to suggest that a lot of the Middle Eastern civilisations were descended from migrants/invaders further north, or at least their leaders were. For example, the "Aryan" tribes are said to have come from furher North.

Quote by: Rortykiller The mayans had corn, a sustainable food for farming, Africans did not. Europeans had wheat, and Asians had rice. It is this type of agrarian community which leads to other advances.

WRONG
Neolithic Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Sahel, West Africa and Ethiopian highlands had agriculture in the Neolothic. Furthermore, agriculture spread further through Africa as time went on.
The area of the Niger river, which is approximately the territory of Mali and the other gold-empires or West Africa, had agriculture since the Neolithic times. They had a suitable river to build thriving cities on. They were influenced by the technological advances of Eurasia and Egypt. They had vast reserves of gold, and later were an important trade area.
Yet they never achieved anything remotely like that of the Maya(especially in regards to intellectual pursuits).... or even the Aztec or Inca.
The same could be said of Sudan and Ethiopia- they achieved very little at all- though they were still a bit better then other black states- and that slightly more succesful history... might it possibly be on account of the fact that they are 2/3 white genetically?

Quote by: Yarn RealRockingham: Given that all living humans are all descended from an initial "prototype" of human, that is a single race, and given that such significant differences are emerged among humans in physical terms through the process of evolution, how can such differences not also have emerged in mental capacities as part of the process of evolution? 1)Population bottleneck. 70 to 75 thousand years ago the entire human race was reduced to a population ten to one thousand individuals in size by the eruption of a megacauldara that was located where modern day Lake Toba, Indonesia is. This eruption released 70 million times as much energy as did the Hiroshima fission bomb. - Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Lake Toba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 2)Presently our species has an unusually small amount of genetic diversity, and it just happens this amount of diversity is about as much as you would expect if the Toba catastrophe theory were accurate. 3) the arguement that a hunter and gatherer lifestyle somehow genetically rewards intelligence less than does a more redundant lifestyle that involves much less improvisation, like that lived by farmers and civilized peoples, on the face of it sounds absurd. It has indeed been observed by some that hunters and gatherers are on average quicker, more aware, and more alert than are civilized peoples. It should be noted that complexity of society and complexity of lifestyle are two different things. 4)And that when a lifestyle is complex, but mastering this complexity has little bearing on survival and reproduction, then that complexity does not result in genetic evolution geared toward raising intelligence. In otherwords, very primitive lifestyles reward intelligence more than more advanced ones do. Meaning we would expect peoples who remained hunter gatherers for longer to have greater average genetic intelligence. 5)At the time of the aforementioned population bottleneck, all modern humans were in Africa. Presumably, they were all more or less of one race. The cradle of civilization was the Middle East and not Europe. However, farming originated at about the same time in the Middle East that it did in New Guinea. The Middle East was far less isolated than New Guinae, and had superior crops. Europe had better farmland than the ME. Communication between the two was sufficient to allow gradual diffusion of technology. Africa had the Saharah desert. More importantly, the continent of Africa, like the American supercontinent, has a north-south orientation. Meaning the Middle East's crops couldn't be grown in sub-saharan Africa. However, they could be grown in Europe and China. Continental orientations are one of the single largest facors that led to Eurasian technological superiority in the pre-globalized world.

1)I am aware of this catastrophy...

2)Indeed. And yet... that “small amount of genetic diversity” is enough to cause the very significant physical differences(which I touched on in the above post) found between human races- and thus, is enough to cause mental differences... its more of a question of the extent of mental differences then whether they are present. Surely, looking at it objectively, you must agree with that statement?

3) You are possibly right in this regard- to an extent. For one, the “genetic pressure” on civilised peoples would encourage the evolution of mental traits beneficial in a civilised setting(ie. a city). A civilised person wouldn’t have a chance as a hunter gatherer- and indeed, even if they were raised by hunter gatherers, they may be found to be genetically unsuitable for it.
But in any case, you MISINTERPRETED MY ARGUMENT. I was not saying that “ a hunter and gatherer lifestyle somehow genetically rewards intelligence less”. I was saying that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in Subsaharan Africa rewards intelligence less then a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in cooler climates. Though their is perhaps a turning points in areas as cold as greenland or the Arctic were the extent to which it is advantageous to selecting for intelligence begins to decline.

4) You are right- once a people become “civilised” they tend to experience a gradual genetic decline in terms of intelligence. This is, for example, a big part of the the reason that Scandianvians are generally intellectually “superior”(yes, I know that term is subjective) to the Greeks and Italians..... its also a part of the reason for Middle-East’s decline, though environmental decline and absorbtion of Arabs and other less intelligent races played a part as well.

5)Yes, all more or less of one race. Which later diverged into multiple races with different physical characteristics. Given the variation in terms of physical characteristics, it can be presumed that their were variations in mental characteristics.
Sub-Saharan Africa did have domesticated crops. The situation of Mali and Nubia and Ethiopia was SIGNIFICANTLY better then that of the Inca, Maya and Aztec, and yet the former achieved significantly less then the latter.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Morality Games 1)There is no evolutionary advantage in regression, so the chances of a mutation which causes regression becoming abundant are zero. And no evidence of tweaks. 2)Why would a species become dumber after getting smart? How is being intelligent not an advantage when you are a puny ape? 3)No. Africans never naturally developed socio-political processes for resolving their ethnic and cultural differences because the only way their communities learned to be calm and productive was at gun point, under the watchful eye of exploitative European empires. Most modern western-style institutions introduced into Africa with the aim of achieving lasting peace and prosperity collapse because their presence is artifical and contrived. 4)Civilizations are like children. If they grow under the wrong conditions, it can take a lot of therapy to set them straight again.

1)WRONG
Examples of regression:
-'Regressive Evolution' In Cavefish: Natural Selection Or Genetic Drift (evolutionary regression in cavefish)

-REGRESSIVE-EVOLUTION-OF-AN-EYE-PIGMENT-GENE-IN-INDEPENDENTLY-EVOLVED-EYELESS-SUBTERRANEAN-DIVING-BEETLES (evolutionary regression in beetle eye pigment)

-[Regressive evolution of human teeth] [Nippon Shika Ishikai Zasshi. 1978] - PubMed Result (regressive evolution of human teeth)

-Cult of Equality a Study of the Race ... - Google Book Search (“THE EAR The ear of the Negro is smaller in proportion than the ears of whites. It gives evidence of regressive evolution.”)

As for examples of tweaks... every single physical difference that has emerged since the races began to diverge is, by definition, a “tweak”. I presume you meant no evidence of mental tweaks. Well, I would argue that the fact that their are physical differences is evidence of mental differences. Unless you can find me an example of two types of animals, as physically different as pygmys and whites, that are mentally indentical. Quite simply, such physical variation jus doesn’t happen without mental variation.

2) I will quote myself from earlier in this thread:
“Its happening now among the human race actually. Less intelligent people have significantly more children. And why? Becuase less intelligent people tend to mature earlier, and be more prolific- a commonality among all races and species. This tendency means that excess brainpower which is not neccesary for a races or species survival slowly "shrivels up", us generation by generation the "stupider" individuals have more children.

This process is countered in a situation where a certain level of intelligence is necessary for survival, given that the less intelligent of people die out leaving only the cream of the crop remaining.

In pre-modern Sub-Saharan Africa, the intelligence neccessary for one to remain alive is lesser then in pre-modern Scandinavia. Thus the intelligence necessary to survive in Scandinavia(prior to the emergence of "civilisation" I mean) would have been greater then that necessary to survive in, say, Nigeria(pre-civilisation).

Of course, this situation has reversed itself in the modern era- while the standard of living in Scandinavia means the intelligence necessary to survive is getting lower and lower, the emerging African crisis means that in all likelihood the intelligence neccessary to survive in Nigeria(for example) is rising.”

3) Stop making excuses- the overwhelming trend in EVERY Black African society to ever exist is to not meet the intellectual heights of others. And “black” individuals t odo well at something have almost invariably not been fully black, but have instead been part Caucasian...

4) To an extent. I’m not saying culture has absolutely no effect. But even you must admit this does not totally explain the essentially universal differences between races.

Quote by: Morality Games 1)Besides, as far as evolution is concerned, being athletic and smart are both fine things - an organism wouldn't want to become defficient in either. 2)It is an approximation of what I said. His response was that there could have been a regression ( a reversal back to a more primitive form) or fine-tuning. I said there was evidence for neither.

1)Well actually, their disadvantageous if their unnecessary for survival and reproduction. Thats why not all animals are hugely musclebound, and I assume their are examples of animals getting “dumber”, though my knowledge of animal evolutionary history is limited.

2) Their is evidence for fine-tuning- the physical differences between human races. Their is also evidence for regression in the nose and the ear of the Black African.

Quote by: Electric Hermit More of a man than most, then.

Ooops... that'll teach me to re-read my posts...

Quote by: Electric Hermit If you are a racist/racialist (let us not be deceived by the feeble euphemism) then you start from the assumption that there are meaningful differences between races (a term of dubious meaningfulness itself). The racist moves from this assumption of difference to normative assumptions about the superiority/inferiority of whatever it is that they choose to identify as "races". Having done this, they then take whatever deficiencies they can identify in the inferior race - relative to the race that is already assumed to be superior - and attribute those supposed deficiencies entirely to "racial" factors. Similarly, they take whatever attributes of the supposed "superior" race to which they subjectively assign positive values and assert that these too are a function of "racial" differences. It is a process which serves no purpose other than to affirm existing prejudice. Whatever this may be called, it is most definitely not science.

You presume too much. “Meaningful”, “Superiority” and “Inferiority” are difficult if not impossible to objectively identify, and I do not presume to do so. Even if their is a “superior” race, it is not my race, the white race.

It is as much science as the analysis of differences inbetween animals is.... I make no emotional assumptions, but rather look at the facts impartially. I started off as a dyed-in-the-wool Egalitarian, but having looked at the facts and anlaysed them, and tried to rebut them for many months, I am left with little choice but to accept the idea that the races have diverged in terms of mental characteristics. The fact that Volconvoans, some of the most efficient debaters I have ever met, have failed to provide a convincing counter-argument only serves to reinforce my certainty.

Quote by: Yarn the trait of intelligence has had evolutionary importance in just about every human society that has ever existed. If you are clinically retarded, you are less likely to survive and reproduce. If you are exceptionally intelligent, perhaps you will be less inclined to reproduce-though that may only be true in advanced civilizations. I think there are evolutionary forces that try to contain intelligence within a certain spectrum.

Hmmm... not necessarily. 12% of blacks in America have an IQ below 70- and are thus, by definition, retarded(A Tail of the Bell Curve: The Politics of Mental Retardation)

Whats more, American blacks are on average around half white in terms of ancestry. Guess what the average IQ for “pure” blacks is- 70. This is exactly what you would expect considering the average African American IQ is 85 and remembering the fact that they are half white and white IQ is an average of 100. Africa-Americans fall half-way between pure black and white average IQ’s- and they are half black, half white.
Remember how 70 and under is the threshhold for “mental retardation”? Well, have of pure blacks are under that line, suggesting that its not such a disadvantage in Subsaharan Africa considering the historic(though not current) ease of living.

You are right, intelligence in societies tends to balance out- if their too stupid, they’ll likely die, and if their too smart the time it takes them to mature and their lesser sexual promiscuity will be a disadvantage. Thus, their are “evolutionary forces which contain intelligence within a certain spectrum”. But that spectrum varies dependant on the environment.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary 1)Yah, can't have anything to do with much of it being covered by desert, jungle, or just as agriculturally useless savanna. But even if there were a viable agricultural river system on the continent, a civilization wouldn't form, oh wait 2)Ancient Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 3)Well, yah, but real black people could never rule such a civilisation... Black Pharaohs - National Geographic Magazine 4)Well, if they weren't given such a great place to live, they couldn't build a society out of scratch that rivaled "white" powers, wait.. Carthage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 5)You can argue all you like about how africa has inferior civilization, but even with severe natural obstacles to the development of advanced societies, great nations were formed.

1) Firstly, you forget that the environment shapes the mental characteristics of humans and animals... a races genetic intellectual capacity is a RESULT of the environment it emerged in.
In any case, the Maya, the Cambodians, the Persians, the Indus civilisation..... all managed in one of the three environments you described. I wan’t to emphasize that West Africa and Sudan was actually better off from enviromental perspective(considering both the natural environment and the political environment) then the New World civilisations. Why were the latter better off? Because they were descended from a people which experienced selective pressures in favour of evolving a higher mental capacity... the Mongoloids.

2) We are talking about race not continent. The two are not synonomous.

3) I think it is significant to know thre things... firstly, the Egypt of the period of Nubian conquest was not racially the same to that of earlier. They had intermixed to a significant extent with blacks who had been taken in as slaves...

Secondly, the Nubian dynasty managed to conquer Egypt only in a time in which Egypt was in civil war. Egypt was conquered 100 years later by the Assyrians, demonstrating how feeble and impotent the Nubian dynasty was...

Thirdly, modern genetic tests show people from Ethiopia and Sudan(the modern day Nubians) to be 2/3 Caucasoid and only 1/3 Negroid.

4) Please... tell me your kidding. The Carthaginian’s closest modern relatives are the Lebanese(the native Lebanese, not the Palestinian refugees who now make up a large chunk of the population), who are considered even by many on racist communities like Stormfront to be borderline white. Carthage may also have been populated by Berbers(who are Caucasian) and Iberians (many of their latter monarchs, such as Hannibal, were actually part Iberian).

5) Sure, great nations existed in Africa- but these were not the result of BLACK Africans(with a few meager exceptions).

Name me just ONE great civilisation to have made real achievements that was racially pure negroid and had negroid rulers. JUST ONE.
History has shown, with remarkable consistency, that “civilisation” as we would define it is pretty much restricted to Caucasoids(which includes Semites) and Mongoloids, and to a significantly lesser extent Mullatoes. Also, the Dravidians have achieved it, though whether or not Dravidians are Caucasoid is the subject of much debate.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Yarn 1)As you are somewhat pressed, I will try to make my arguement fairly narrow and concise to start with. 2)Owing to the Toba Catastrophe, humanity's numbers were reduced to between 1 to 15 thousand individuals 70 to 75 thousand years ago. All of humanity was at that time in Africa, and after that catastrophe humanity lost most of its pre-existing genetic diversity. Meaning all the modern day differences between races have evolved in the last 70 thousand years. 3)As to how humanity evolved into being in the first place, that was a consequence of Africa having a highly variable climate for the past hundreds of thousands years. This resulted in more adaptable individuals surviving when less adaptable individuals perished. A positive correlation between intelligence and adaptability steadily pressed our genetic ancestors to become more and more intelligent. 4)With these, likely agreeable, premises behind us, lets continue. 5)I would first proport that Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel offers a comprehensive and elegantly simple way to explain the differences in rates of technological advancement across all the geographical areas of the globe without resorting to claims of genetic inferiority and superiority. 6)I would further argue that it is at this time impossible to isolate the variable of genetic intelligence between different races through testing, owing to the differences in socioeconomic and cultural background among different races. 7)As time has gone on, tested differences in intelligence between races have shrunk with clear correlation between less unequal schooling and disparity of income distribution. 8)And to clarify, differences in intelligence between races, whatever they could be, are far less dramatic than the differences in intelligence between humans and bonobos. There is considerable overlap of the bell curves for all human races. Many blacks are smarter than most whites. This is supported even by the aforementioned testing, which cannot yet isolate the variable due to dramatic differences in average upbringing. What we are talking about therefore is only a difference in averages. 9)In sum, I believe that genetic differences in intelligence between races are small. And furthermore, different races, like different genders, may have different relative mental strengths. This in turn might lead us to come to the same conclusion regarding them that we come to in regarding to gender: different but equal. 10)In order to have a progressing discussion, we will need to expose our views to one another so as to offer them to one another for evaluation. There is my opening batch. 11)As general piece of advice, when you are debating multiple people at once you should think of all of them as a single person who likes to repeat him or herself. It is inefficient and impractical to reply to the same points multiple times, so you should reply to identical points only once, and copy and paste your response to them when they come up again.

1)Thankyou.

2) Yes. And would you agree that the physical differences that have emerged over that time are quite significant, despite having evolved over the last 70 000 years?

Would you further agree that this indicates that significant mental differences emerging over that time are at least possible?

3) Yes. And the most adaptable of all... the cream of the crop, you might say... would have been the ones to survive the migrations into Eurasia. Given that Europe is closer then China, it would explain why Mongoloids are smarter then Caucasians- their ancestors had to travel over a larger distance, thus necessitating greater adaptability.

If we assume that greater difficulty faced the Mongoloid ancestors, we can assume they have fewer “founding fathers” which would explain their homogenity relative to Caucasians.

4) I don’t know whether you agree with my addendums to your premises, but I agree with your first three points.

5) Yes, Diamond’s book is of good academic quality and makes some valid points- for one, why the Native Americans didn’t do as well as they should have.

However, it also has flaws. And it makes the assumption that technology, geography, and the resultant civilisation(or lack thereof) has no effect on our genes.

A list of its flaws: -For one, he dismisses out of hand the possibility that genes had a factor on anything. He failed to acknowledge that that it is different environments that cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations. All of the Eurasian developments he described created positive feedback loops selecting for increased intelligence and various personality traits (e.g., altruism, rule-following, etc.).

For another, it fails to explain the success of Native American states compared to those of West Africa, the Sudan, and Ethiopia.

Mali for example, “had farmlands where beans, rice, sorghum, millet, papaya, gourds, cotton, and peanuts were planted. Cattle, sheep, goats, and poultry were bred.”... they also had access to camels, and were influenced and had contact with Eurasian civilisations. Yet, despite all of these advantages(a better crop package, pack animals, the wheel, domesticated animals, access to the legacy of Eurasian cultures), Mali and other West African, Nubian or Ethiopian empires like it, never even came close to the Maya, Inca, or Aztecs in terms of accomplishment.

What does explain the disparity is that the Amerindians are descendants of the Mongoloids, who were subject to natural selection favouring larger brains on account of their climate and the neccessary adaptability to cope with it. The Amerindians seperated from the Mongoloid gene pool before the process of natural selection had fully worked its elevation of their IQ and their adaption to the climate- this is evident in the lack of epicanthic folds in Amerindians.

India and Egypt also stand out in contradiction, and I will elaborate on this tommorow.

6) I don’t quite get your meaning. Are you saying it will be difficult to find the gene/s responsible for genetic differences, or that socio-economic backgrounds obscure he existance of mental differences?

7)Hmmmm.... sources for this? According to my source(Closing the Black/White IQ Gap?: James Flynn and Charles Murray search for a solution. - Reason Magazine), their are actually 2 valid ways of analysing the data. According to one, the IQ gap has not significantly narrowed. According to the other, it has, by about 5 points.

8) Yes, I agree. And those exceptions should be allowed the same opportunities as whites. I am all for meritocracy. Still, those exceptions are similar to the exceptions to general rules like “males are stronger/taller then females”- it makes sense to take into account the general differences, even if their are exceptions.

9) Different yes. Equal... I disagree with that term, much like I disagree with the terms “superior” and “inferior”, because all three terms are subjective.

10) I’m fairly sure our views largely correlate, except I presume the mental differences between the races to be somewhat “larger” then you do.

11) Thankyou for your advice. And may I say, of all the people I have debated on this thread, you are seemingly the most intelligent and open-minded.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Electric Hermit But this whole "racial difference" thing seems to have no purpose other than to justify assigning such values. What is the point? Suppose black people do have a statistical tendency to be less intelligent according to some questionable measure. So what? Aside from abstract academic interest, what use is this information? Is the suggestion that it should have some implication for public policy? If so, what?

Ahhh, so now move from the academic to the practical.....

Well, their are several schools of thought on what course of action should be taken

Racial Seperatism: Basically, throw all non-whites into the ocean. I heartily disagree with this.

Racial Realism: Put simply, doing what is practical considering the racial differences and situation

Racial Egalitarianism: Basically carry on as usual, acting as if their are no differences so as to not harm the exceptions to general racial trends.

Euthanasia/Genetic Engineering: I lean towards this, and shall expand on my views in regards to it tomorrow....

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: RealRockingham Ahhh, so now move from the academic to the practical..... Well, their are several schools of thought on what course of action should be taken Racial Seperatism: Basically, throw all non-whites into the ocean. I heartily disagree with this. Racial Realism: Put simply, doing what is practical considering the racial differences and situation Racial Egalitarianism: Basically carry on as usual, acting as if their are no differences so as to not harm the exceptions to general racial trends. Euthanasia/Genetic Engineering: I lean towards this, and shall expand on my views in regards to it tomorrow....

Backs away slowly avoiding eye contact...

[Morality Games]

On the contrary, I think it's quite probable. If you excel in one area, you're deficient in another. Nature is fair in that respect.

. . . nature is never fair.

Thankyou for your advice. And may I say, of all the people I have debated on this thread, you are seemingly the most intelligent and open-minded.

Don't listen, his flattery is poison.

Euthanasia/Genetic Engineering: I lean towards this, and shall expand on my views in regards to it tomorrow....

I look forward to your Nazi-esque presentation with great anticipation.

[Calam]

Given that all living humans are all descended from an initial "prototype" of human, that is a single race...

*emphasis mine*

You just said right here that the Human race is a single race. So why are you suggesting that racial differences correspond to intelligence levels? Which races? Be clear. By racial do you mean evolutionary? Then by your own words, we're all the same race. If by racial you mean diversity, then that's another story.

Obviously, we've developed different levels of intelligence. The real question here is whether intelligence in humans carries any other common factors. Do white people have higher rates of intelligence than black people? Do people with big ears learn slower than people with pointy ears?

Then the question must be asked; what is intelligence? Is there more than one kind of intelligence? What makes someone "more" intelligent than someone else? How do we rate it? How do we prove it? How can we test it? Who decides it?

You would have to then index a workable percentage of the entire human population on planet Earth--that's a massive amount of human beings--and then order them by thousands and thousands of possible characteristics and variables--that's trillions of units of data--and then look for common factors. You'd have to include everything, just in case there is a connection (or multiple connections). Then, if no common factors are found, you would have to expand the number of variables and categories about each human being further and further, looking for a potential hidden relationship. Only when every percievable variable about humanity and individuality has been examined can you then determine whether or not a connection definitively exists.

A few passing studies of small percentages (as compared to a global population) do not account for 1/1000th of .0001% of the possible data. To sample a few thousand--or even a few million--people from one country (or several countries) to determine a loose connection based on a narrow range of variables will not give you sufficient data to make such a drastic comparison. When it comes to intelligence, all factors must be determined, all definitions conceded upon, and all percentages accounted for. Otherwise, everything else is conjecture.

It simply cannot be done.

There are too many unanswered questions for a link between race and intelligence to be proven. Is it possible? Maybe. But there's no way to test it, so it shouldn't be assumed in any case.