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

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Calam *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? You're asking questions that can't be proven. You would have to index a massive amount of human beings by thousands and thousands of possible characteristics and variables, and then look for common factors. It cannot be done. 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? 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.

That's what I mean when I say there is no evidence of tweaks.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: RealRockingham 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.

There is no such thing as racially pure in the real world. I can't pretend to do a genetic examination of a past civilisation.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Electric Hermit Backs away slowly avoiding eye contact...

Ooopss.... I MEANT to say I support Eugenics. I DO NOT support Euthanasia... that was a typo.

I do not support genocide, full stop.

Quote by: Morality Games I look forward to your Nazi-esque presentation with great anticipation.

Once again, I MEANT to say Eugenics.

I'm assuming you intend to debate the merits of eugenics, so I shall open another thread. Let us not debate eugenics here.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: RealRockingham Ooopss.... I MEANT to say I support Eugenics.

Apparently your parents didn't.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Calam * 1)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. 2)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? 3)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? 4)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.

1) No, I did NOT say we are all the same race. I said " that all living humans are all descended from an initial "prototype" of human, that is a single race... ". Just because were DESCENDED from a single race doesn't mean we haven't diverged into different races now.

2) Look, human communities have been diverging for around 50 000 years, long enough that physical differences have emerged between the races- its seems foolish to suggest mental differences haven't as well...

3) Partly through standardized tests(such as IQ), and partly through common sense.

4) No, this is unneccesarily pedantic. Statistical or scientific research is never held to as strenuous standards as you describe above.

Quote by: Morality Games That's what I mean when I say there is no evidence of tweaks.

YES THEIR ARE. You want evidence of tweaks? Look at the multiple physical differences between races which I listed on page 4.

I would consider these physical "tweaks" to directly imply mental differences. If such significant gaps have emerged in the physical characteristics of humans, can it reasonably be suggested that no mental ones have? I would question whether it is even possible for physical differences to exist without mental differences, given that the mind is a part of the physical body.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary There is no such thing as racially pure in the real world. I can't pretend to do a genetic examination of a past civilisation.

Ok, it doesn't have to be totally pure, just reasonably black.

In any case, you had no issue with mentioning Carthage of the top of your head in your original post. So go on, try and find an example, don't cop out. And I will try to rebut your example.

Guess what, you can't find an example, because their isn't one.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Electric Hermit Apparently your parents didn't.

LOL....

Yes, by my own standards of what genetic characteristics should be prevented from existing, I would have been terminated as a fetus.

In my opinion the genetic traits that lead to mental retardation, low IQ, and heritable diseases should be quickly eliminated within a generation or two through a eugenic program of eliminating fetus's which possess them...

In keeping with this opinion, I have committed myself to never being a parent- I would not want my genetic traits to be continued. Not that its likely that I would have a chance of continuing them even if I wanted to.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: RealRockingham In keeping with this opinion, I have committed myself to never being a parent- I would not want my genetic traits to be continued. Not that its likely that I would have a chance of continuing them even if I wanted to.

Who knows what crucial genetic material you may be denying to future generations. And this is the whole point. You presume to know which bits of the genetic matrix are worthy and which are not. In fact, there is no way to know. The complexity of this matrix is such that it is not possible to predict what will be the long-term effects of "breeding out" some component.

The key to the success of the human species is its diversity. So far, our genes have not encountered any challenge in the environment which they could not cope with. It may be that they will have met their match in some eugenicist over-endowed with the tools of 21st century science and under-endowed with humility.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Glorious Achievements of Black Civilizations

This sites a little too racially fixated for my taste, but then so is this debate.

Oh, and not to resort to a fallacy of authority, but I tend to trust these guys, given that I have no background in this sort of anthropology, in their opinions on race over guys I communicate with over the internet.

AAA Statement on "Race"

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Electric Hermit Who knows what crucial genetic material you may be denying to future generations. And this is the whole point. You presume to know which bits of the genetic matrix are worthy and which are not. In fact, there is no way to know. The complexity of this matrix is such that it is not possible to predict what will be the long-term effects of "breeding out" some component. The key to the success of the human species is its diversity. So far, our genes have not encountered any challenge in the environment which they could not cope with. It may be that they will have met their match in some eugenicist over-endowed with the tools of 21st century science and under-endowed with humility.

Another point, it is better to be less than perfect and diverse than only adapted for a specific niche, especially if its self adapted.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Another point, it is better to be less than perfect and diverse than only adapted for a specific niche, especially if its self adapted.

Absolutely. I call it the myth of efficiency. I used to listen to senior management types banging on about the need to achieve "100% efficiency". They simply couldn't understand that efficiency is only gained at the cost of flexibility. A 100% efficient machine (or organisation) would be a fragile thing indeed. Susceptible to the slightest change in the conditions for which it is designed.

Nature doesn't do efficiency. This is one of the fallacies that stem from the notion that it is "designed". Nature settles on the first thing that works.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary 1)This sites a little too racially fixated for my taste, but then so is this debate. 2)Oh, and not to resort to a fallacy of authority, but I tend to trust these guys, given that I have no background in this sort of anthropology, in their opinions on race over guys I communicate with over the internet. AAA Statement on "Race"

1) LOL, I think the guy that created that site is from some alternate dimension or summat. Among other things, he claims that:
-Carthage was a black civilisation
-Ancient Egypt was a black civilisation
-That Carthage defeated Rome.
-That the "blacks" of India(who are actually Caucasian, with some theorised Australoid influences) are negroid/African black.

Oh, and he claims the existence of a "Zingh Empire" 20 000 years ago. This Afrocentric myth is based upon the beleif that Australian Aborigines, Dravidians(the "blacks" of India) and Negroids(black Africans) are of the same race..... any site claiming the existance of the "Zingh Empire" is unreliable. To say the least.

2) You are resorting to the fallacy of authority, and a very PC authority at that. Nonetheless, I will rebut their statement.

". Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. "
The idea of their being greater variation within racial groupings then between them is either a deliberate or accidental misinterpretation of the data- I assume the former, given that people of intellect have written this.

After all, if you were to compare Chimpanzee and human DNA, you would probably find that their is greater variation within the two species then between them.

I will post a more thorough rebuttal tomorrow.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don't find their claims incredible, especially if one accepts that the concept of "race" is an artificial creation for the purpose of justifying things like slavery or colonialism, as they do.

Note that they don't discredit the idea that variations can exist between separated breeding groups, just that these variations are based on race.

Yes, by my own standards of what genetic characteristics should be prevented from existing, I would have been terminated as a fetus. In my opinion the genetic traits that lead to mental retardation, low IQ, and heritable diseases should be quickly eliminated within a generation or two through a eugenic program of eliminating fetus's which possess them... In keeping with this opinion, I have committed myself to never being a parent- I would not want my genetic traits to be continued. Not that its likely that I would have a chance of continuing them even if I wanted to

In which case I expect you to be taking out a steak knife and ending the off chance of procreation right now. In keeping with your principles, its not alright to leave the possibility of a new generation of undesirables to come into being based on the decision making of an already genetically inferior person.

I, of course, accept that your children, even if they have a genetic disease, are a little slow, or never break 5 foot 6, have the potential to be a Nobel Prize winner or a champion baseball player.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I, of course, accept that your children, even if they have a genetic disease, are a little slow, or never break 5 foot 6, have the potential to be a Nobel Prize winner or a champion baseball player.

Or just a decent human being. I'd settle for that.

[Yarn]

RealRockingham:

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?

Yes. By the time the west began conquering the rest of the world, massive discrepencies in immune systems had evolved into being between Eurasians and Africans on the one hand, and Americans and Polynesians on the other.

These discrepencies grew as a consequence of Eurasians and Africans being hit with a lot more epidemics and plagues than other humans. These diseases caused population shock events that allowed significant amounts of evolution to occur over very short time frames.

It therefore does not follow that evolution which lacked such shock events could take place as quickly. However, superior strength among Africans suggests that it can. At least through degeneration.

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

Yes.

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.

I have read that native Americans colonized the entire American super-continent within a 1000 year timeframe. Long distance migrations can occur fairly quickly. That isn't say that significant evolution can't occur during them. But it could only occur if there were fairly intense pressure pushing for them.

I don't see how it is vastly harder to live as a hunter and gatherer on a, in human timescales, very gradual trip North or East than it is to live as a hunter and gatherer in Africa.

Since humans first evolved in Africa, it is easier for us to survive there in someways. In much of Africa for example, you would not need as much clothing as you would in moderate and sub-arctic environments.

On the other hand though, African wild life has posed a danger to Africans for as long as humans have existed. In other continents, humans did away with the most dangerous wild life fairly quickly because such wild life didn't have time to evolve to be cautious around people. Africa's most dangerous animals evolved along side proto-humans and so had time to adapt.

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.

I can certainly see how the steppe environment awards intelligence to hunter and gatherers. But does it do so much more so than does the sub-Saharan African environment?

True, the steppes are a more marginal environment. But that itself doesn't insinuate anything relevant. If there is less food and less people, ceteris paribus, the importance of intelligence doesn't increase. It is the ability to cope with complexity that must be promoted in order for intelligence to be promoted.

What of the conquests?

For a long time primitive steppe warriors would periodically reak havoc on far more advanced civilizations. These warriors were the best horsemen rangers in the world. They rode upon the world's fastest horses. However, they sucked as infantry men.

Their extreme proficiency with their specialized method of combat was explanable from the lifestyle of their homelands. Their ability to win battles was a consequence of their enemies being either like they were but less skilled, as in the ME where horses were less important to daily life, or else meelee oriented.

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.

Not quite. In the book's introduction, Diamond speculates that New Guinaens are genetically more intelligent than Europeans.

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.).

Rule-following requires less thinking. It dissaudes intelligence by punishing innovation and deneccessitating it.

Altruism is less important where coercion is greater. Rule-following does require us to govern our impulses, but that is not the same as altruism. Altruism is a certain kind of motivation, and for most of human history, authority has relied on fear of punishment to motivate obedience rather than on compassion and nobility. At least from the average person.

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

Diamond alleges that more advanced societies became dominant not by offering better standards of living, but by conquest.

Lets talk about Ethiopia. Ethiopia is out of the way and difficult to conquer owing to its strong natural defenses. The Hykosos didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Egyptians didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Assyrians didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Persians didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Greeks didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Romans didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Muslims didn't conquer Ethiopia. Yet all of these peoples conquered Egypt, and few of them didn't benefit the territories they conquered by spurring technological advancement.

Ethiopia was never conquered until the Italians took it in the 30s.

Ancient Ethiopia conquered Egypt.

If Ethiopia exchanged so much with Eurasia, then why didn't coffee didn't spread further than Yemen until the 15th century?

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.

You could argue that Central America offered a more competitive environment for civilizations than West Africa. During the Mayan era, Mayan civilization was was comprised of a number of competing sovereign city states. When the Aztecs were at the peak of their power, Mexico was divided into a number of strong independent states.

I vaguely recollect that the Incans conquered cities to create their empire. This suggests that city state competition may have played a part in their development.

I don't know of any West African competition. But it seems to me perfectly plausible there was some.

I find your Mali example more formidable than your Ethiopian one, but I will need to do more research before I can fully evaluate it. My knowledge of the relevant histories involved is relatively weak. I have some graded homework to do, so the aforementioned research will have to wait for the moment.

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.

What is it precisely about the steppe environment that is supposed to have so greatly boosted intelligence?

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?

I meant the latter. Though the former is also true at the moment. The science of genomics is a rapidly developing field, but we still don't know what most genes do.

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.

It has narrowed less than I thought it did then. It was something I heard second hand as a general statement.

[Yarn]

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.

Studies have suggested that environmental differences that exist between races are extremely important in IQ determination. For instance, data from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study reported by Scarr and Weinberg (1983) found that when African American children were adopted by White families at an early age, their IQs were more similar to the White IQ average of 110, compared with an average of 90 for African American children reared in the Black community. However, the African American adopted children still scored 6 points below the White children in the same family. Scarr and Weinberg concluded that genetic differences between the races cannot be used exclusively to explain IQ differences.

- Race and Intelligence

6 points. And as Obama could testify, black culture still has a lot of environmental influence even on blacks with white parents. Meaning the 6 point figure difference is certainly an overstatement of any genetic difference. This leaves any difference in genetic IQ looking rather slim indeed.

it makes sense to take into account the general differences, even if their are exceptions.

Perhaps, but when judging individuals, more reliable predictors should be utilized if possible.

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.

My most basic preconceptions on this issue have mainly to do with personal experience. However, these preconceptions could be wrong. Nevertheless, that article I just cited has me leaning against your position on this issue as well as my initial position.

[Piscean]

If ever there is truly good education in Africa during your lifetime you'll see some very smart peeps rise up and do great things (including high IQ test scores).

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I don't find their claims incredible, especially if one accepts that the concept of "race" is an artificial creation for the purpose of justifying things like slavery or colonialism, as they do. Note that they don't discredit the idea that variations can exist between separated breeding groups, just that these variations are based on race.

The big problem with their argument: They may claim that “there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. ", but we can see first hand that this is not so. I listed physical differences on the former page……

If, despite their being “greater variation within racial groups then between them”, there are such significant physical variations, then the “greater variation within then between” mantra does NOT refute the possible mental differences either.

Besides that, there are multiple refutations of the study on the web. I will post some here:

Fighting the mantra, “People vary more within the groups than vary between groups” « Anthropology.net

Quite simply the flaws are thus:

a-despite this “greater variation within then between”, people are genentically closest to members of their own race in nearly all cases.

b-The 6% came about in the period in which the races separated geographically. In that time frame culture and civilization developed. So, I would say it is amazing how important that 6% can be.

c-The study was based on the study of blood-types not the entire genome.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Electric Hermit 1)Who knows what crucial genetic material you may be denying to future generations. And this is the whole point. You presume to know which bits of the genetic matrix are worthy and which are not. In fact, there is no way to know. The complexity of this matrix is such that it is not possible to predict what will be the long-term effects of "breeding out" some component. 2)The key to the success of the human species is its diversity. So far, our genes have not encountered any challenge in the environment which they could not cope with. It may be that they will have met their match in some eugenicist over-endowed with the tools of 21st century science and under-endowed with humility.

1)That’s the beauty of genetic engineering-if something is lost, or needed, it can just be recreated/created.
2) I disagree. Only some genetic traits within that vast array of diversity were necessary for our success. The others are just a fifth column. Name one benefit derived from a predisposition to alcoholism or obesity for example(both of which I have).
Also, as Yarn said, Homo Sapiens is peculiar among the Animal Kingdom in that there is paticularly little genetic diversity among us on account of the Toba Catastrophe. Which pretty much debunks your “diversity is the reason for success” argument.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Another point, it is better to be less than perfect and diverse than only adapted for a specific niche, especially if its self adapted.

Once again, genetic engineering can readapt us to another niche within a ganeration- faster then natural processes can. Plus, efficiency need not come at the cost of flexibility- genetic engineering is not limited like natural evolution is.
In any case, technology can overcome those few difficulties a genetically engineered creature would face in terms of flexibility.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary 1)In which case I expect you to be taking out a steak knife and ending the off chance of procreation right now. In keeping with your principles, its not alright to leave the possibility of a new generation of undesirables to come into being based on the decision making of an already genetically inferior person.

Trust me, theirs absolutely no chance of me ever reproducing.

.

Quote by: Electric Hermit Or just a decent human being. I'd settle for that.

Why settle for something when better can be achieved?

Quote by: Piscean If ever there is truly good education in Africa during your lifetime you'll see some very smart peeps rise up and do great things (including high IQ test scores).

I’m not denying that… I just think we’ll see a significantly lower percentage then among whites and Asians.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: RealRockingham 1)That’s the beauty of genetic engineering-if something is lost, or needed, it can just be recreated-created.

A triumph of wishful thinking.

Quote by: RealRockingham 2) I disagree. Only some genetic traits within that vast array of diversity were necessary for our success. The others are just a fifth column. Name one benefit derived from a predisposition to alcoholism or obesity for example(both of which I have). Also, as Yarn said, Homo Sapiens is peculiar among the Animal Kingdom in that there is paticularly little genetic diversity among us on account of the Toba Catastrophe. Which pretty much debunks your “diversity is the reason for success” argument.

Your genetic "Pick 'n' Mix" counter is a dangerous myth. Both of the things you mention are aberrations caused by some dysfunction affecting predispositions which were/are adaptive. To look for mechanistic causal relationships would tend to oversimplify, but certainly one factor in obesity is our evolved preference for the flavours which tended to indicate that food was safe to eat and/or particularly nutritious. Also, the instinctive urge to eat while the eating was good - particularly when stressed by some threat to survival.

Problems arose only when humans learned to replicate those flavours artificially and thus make non-nutritious foods appealing. While at the same time creating stress-inducing social conditions and making huge amounts of junk food readily available.

So, you see, it was not nature that caused the problem. It was human interference in nature. Interference of a kind which you propose to take to a whole new level.

[Piscean]

I’m not denying that… I just think we’ll see a significantly lower percentage then among whites and Asians.

Maybe but all that really means is that asian culture has asian kids taking their studies more seriously than a lot of white kids do.