IQ and the Mulatto Hypothesis
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
The "Mulatto Hypothesis"- i.e. that IQ in blacks increases in proportion to
the
amount of Caucasian genetic heritage- has been discussed in the literature
since at least 1926. See E.Reuter, Annals of Amer.Acad.Pol.
Soc.Sci.,140(1928):36-43; M.Herskovits, Pedagogical Seminary
33(1926):30-42; and H.Herskovits "A Critical Discussion of the Mulatto
Hypothesis", Journal of Negro Education 3(1934):389-402.
Even those many decades ago American blacks were quite aware, as they are
today, that light skinned blacks were smarter than dark skinned (fully
African) blacks. Nearly all black teachers, leaders, bright students, and
professionals are light skinned. The average genetic admixture for US
blacks
is about 25%, but varies greatly, and the average US black IQ is 85.
African
blacks (0% white admixture) have an average IQ of 70 (see Lynn,1991).
See Rushton's book- Race, Evolution and Behavior (1994), Chapters 6 and 9,
for
additional and more recent references and Brand's statement with references
below:
From C. Brand-
Caucasoid Genetic Admixture: Many US Blacks have a degree of Caucasian
genetic admixture which can be estimated in groups by the frequency of
occurrence of the Duffy gene - a gene found in all Caucasians and in
virtually no pure Blacks. In the one study to date, Californian Blacks (of
whom 23% have the Duffy gene) had an average IQ of 90 on US Army tests; by
contrast, Georgian Blacks (of whom only 11% had the gene) scored around 80.
Likewise, testing in Africa itself - where Caucasian admixture is far less
- yields IQ levels of around 70. Lately, testing in Soweto yielded a mean
Black IQ of 57; and testing in Israel of Black Jews from Ethiopia found an
IQ of 70.(7) The most recent result was provided by a Black psychologist in
Zimbabwe: he found 200 representative Zimbabwean children scored around IQ
67 whereas White inner-city children in London averaged 95.(8) By contrast,
Vietnamese and North Korean refugee children adopted into Belgian families
had IQ's of 110 in 1994 - ten points higher than modern Belgian norms.
7. OWEN, K. (1992). 'The suitability of Raven's Standard Progressive
Matrices for various groups in South Africa.' Personality & Individual
Differences 13, 149-160.
8. ZINDI, F. (1994). 'Differences in psychometric performance.' 'The
Psychologist 7', xii, 549-552.
Hopefully this information will be of some use. The significance of this
is that it is direct evidence that racial group differences in IQ are
genetically based- a fact that many corrupt researchers attempt
to deny in their patronizing zeal to censor scientific reality
and rewrite science texts to contain politically correct untruths.
Dr.Efram E. Goldstein
Justin Samuels
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> Even those many decades ago American blacks were quite aware, as they are
> today, that light skinned blacks were smarter than dark skinned (fully
> African) blacks. Nearly all black teachers, leaders, bright students, and
> professionals are light skinned.
Divide and conquer bullshit. Clarence Thomas, alumni from Yale and
Surpreme Court judge, isn't light by any means. As for the comments
about Black teachers, professionals, bright students,etc being light, I
take it you've never bothered to get field data? In other words, if you
went around looking, you'd see the sources you quoted were wrong.
And how do you explain that African immigrants, as a group, do so well?
You find that Africans disportionately in professional jobs and in
academia. Your post was simple white racist bullshit.
Eric Bohlman
Kaiju (ka...@NOSPAMecn.com) wrote:
: Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
: > The most recent result was provided by a Black psychologist in
: > Zimbabwe: he found 200 representative Zimbabwean children scored around IQ
: > 67 whereas White inner-city children in London averaged 95.(8) By contrast,
: So how do you explain the fact that people of African and West Indian
: heritage living in England surpass Anglos (read: whites) from that
: country in academic achievement and professionally? It couldn't
: possibly be because you and those you cite are just...er...wrong, now
: could it?
Playing devil's adovcate for the moment: I believe that most people of
African and West Indian heritage living in England today are either
immigrants or the first generation of children of immigrants. Immigrants
and their children are often more successful than natives for the simple
reason that they're a self-selected group; making and following through
with a decision to leave one's home country and start a new life
elsewhere requires certain qualities that are highly correlated with
academic and professional success *in the right environment* (in fact,
it's reasonable to say that one of the main reasons people immigrate is
that they believe that they're capable of more than their old environment
allowed).
Immigrants are not a random sample of the populations from which they're
drawn, which means that studying immigrants and then making inferences
about those populations often leads to invalid results (quick example: in
the area where I live, there are lots of small businesses run by Russian
and Polish immigrants. I would be badly mistaken if I inferred from this
that they grew up in cultures that strongly valued entrepreneurship).
Similarly, the average educational level for residents of China is
roughly third-grade, yet most Chinese immigrants that one's likely to
meet are very highly educated; the reason is that your typical rural
Chinese farmer is much less likely to immigrate to the west than your
top-performing university student.
As for the 67-IQ figure for Zimbabwean children, I find it facially
unbelievable. Scores in that range are commonly seen only in people with
definite developmental disabilities (which are not diagnosed solely on
the basis of IQ scores, so this statement is not a tautology). People
with such disabilities display lags in almost all areas of mental and
social development, not just in academic work. As children, they usually
lagged behind other children in areas like starting to talk, starting to
walk and learning how to perform various activities of daily living (most
of them do eventually catch up; scores in that range are usually
associated with the milder forms of impairment). These disabilities are
the result of actually pathology of the brain; they don't simply
represent the "low end of the curve" (just as dwarfism isn't the same
thing as being on the low end of the ordinary distribution of height).
This means that either:
1) The typical Zimbabwean child is actually mildly retarded as a result
of some sort of brain condition, and displays all the typical
developmental lags. I have a very hard time believing this one.
or
2) A non-trivial number of Zimbabwean children are severely retarded,
thus pulling down the average, i.e. Zimbabwean IQ scores are bimodally
distributed and don't form a bell curve at all. This one is conceivable,
since poor nutrition and disease in infancy can seriously affect brain
development; those are, of course, environmental rather than genetic
influences.
or
3) The relationship between IQ score and brain development is not the
same for Zimbabwean children as it is for Western children, i.e. the
tests are biased (in the technical sense of the term). This is possible;
it is known that there are cultural differences in attitudes toward
tests, and this can affect the results (for example, if some items are
timed, performance is going to be affected by attitudes about what
warrants urgency).
or
4) The results are either completely fictitious or derived by invalid
sampling procedures (like heavily sampling from the populations of mental
institutions).
I find it interesting that 67 is also the IQ score that Yerkes and his
colleagues measured for Polish immigrants to the US back in 1917; his
infamous Army intelligence tests gave them an average mental age of 10.74
for adults.
Abarenbo Shogun VI
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
>
> The "Mulatto Hypothesis"- i.e. that IQ in blacks increases in proportion to
> the
Hmm. The crossposting into soc.culture.african.american suggests to me that
someone is not really interested in discussing IQ but simply wants to create tension
between Jews and black Americans.
Abarenbo Shogun VI
HEXX
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein <efr...@worldsciuni.com> wrote in article
<5unrac$t...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> The "Mulatto Hypothesis"- i.e. that IQ in blacks increases in proportion
to
> the
> amount of Caucasian genetic heritage- has been discussed in the
literature
> since at least 1926. See E.Reuter, Annals of Amer.Acad.Pol.
> Soc.Sci.,140(1928):36-43; M.Herskovits, Pedagogical Seminary
> 33(1926):30-42; and H.Herskovits "A Critical Discussion of the Mulatto
> Hypothesis", Journal of Negro Education 3(1934):389-402.
>
> Even those many decades ago American blacks were quite aware, as they are
> today, that light skinned blacks were smarter than dark skinned (fully
> African) blacks. Nearly all black teachers, leaders, bright students, and
> professionals are light skinned. The average genetic admixture for US
> blacks
<TOTAL ! BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!>
WHAT CRAP! IN THE U.K. EDUCATIONALLY BLACK AS NIGHT AFRICAN KIDS
ARE CANING WHITE AND EVEN ASIAN KIDS INTO THE GROUND!
AND BLACK AFRICAN WOMEN ARE THE MOST QUALIFIED OF
*ANY* GROUP.
RACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION.
MR. GOLDSTEIN IS TRYING TO START ANOTHER
BELLCURVE/ RACE AND IQ FLAME THREAD ALL OVER
AGAIN.
IGNORE THE IDIOT.
"H",
LONDON MASSIVE.
David C. Waters
Abarenbo Shogun VI (as...@cshl.com) wrote:
: Hmm. The crossposting into soc.culture.african.american suggests to me
: to create tension between Jews and black Americans.
It's safe to give African Americans credit for understanding that one Jew
does not speak for all Jews just as one AfAm, or even a high-profile
organization of AfAms, does not represent all other AfAms.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
_/_/ Multimedia Business Answers _/_/ Video Audio CD-ROM Publishing _/_/
_/_/ E-Mail: mba...@netcom.com _/_/ World Wide Web and TV Access! _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
David C. Waters
John Charnock (J.M.Ch...@dl.ac.uk) wrote:
: Where do you get your information that people of West Indian heritage
: surpass Anglos? As far as I know it is an acknowledged problem with the
: British educational system that children of West Indian background tend
: to be underachievers at school compared with [...]
Actually, the consensus of studies that I'm aware of cite African
immigrants, not West Indians, as those who surpass all others in England.
In the USA, although I'm unaware of documented reports, West Indians seem
to do much better than their cousins in England.
Hmmm...might there be a correlation between lower performance of
colonized people, within the cultures that colonized them, as opposed to
cultures to which they voluntarily selected?
Besides, a more important question is to ask how different groups of West
Indians ranked. Are the West Indians who seem to excel in the USA from
the same (nation) group that are perceived as doing poorly in England?
Could it be that the West Indians who do poorly in England are among
people who migrated there, in part, for some sort of dole that was
offered? If so, this could be telling...presuming the validity of any or
all of these so-called relative performance studies.
David "Prefers raw data - don't spoonfeed information!" Waters
Hector Rottweiller Jr.'s Place
In article David C. Waters <mba...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They seem to measure *something*
>but what's measured is certainly _NOT_ intelligence or a predictor of
>"success". As Asians seem to excel in the USA, Africans do so in England
>moreso than even Asians. In any event, regardless of IQ, it's the work
>ethic that seems to be the best predictor of success!
>
>Any definition of intelligence would be arbitrary. There's much more
>that we don't know about human potential than what we "know". Besides,
>virtually everything that we think we know is subject to dispute.
>
Well said. A simple, reasonable, and effective refutation of countless
megs of pretentious and ponderous pseudo-scientific twaddle.
Philip Kasiecki
In article <5unrac$t...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein (efr...@worldsciuni.com) wrote:
The mismatch between e-mail and parent article explains it all...
Phil "that's in addition to some of the newsgroups it's
crossposted to" Kasiecki
--
Philip T. Kasiecki
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University Class of 1999
"Life is not important except in the impact it has on others' lives."
-Jackie Robinson
Gary Lloyd
In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>,
Eric Bohlman <eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Kaiju (ka...@NOSPAMecn.com) wrote:
>
>: Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
>
>: > The most recent result was provided by a Black psychologist in
>: > Zimbabwe: he found 200 representative Zimbabwean children scored around IQ
>: > 67 whereas White inner-city children in London averaged 95.(8) By contrast,
>
>: So how do you explain the fact that people of African and West Indian
>: heritage living in England surpass Anglos (read: whites) from that
>: country in academic achievement and professionally? It couldn't
>: possibly be because you and those you cite are just...er...wrong, now
>: could it?
STOP... Everyone stop...!
Where is it the second someone like this Goldstein character posts
something about IQs it gets like the end of the world around here? Why is
it, everyone feels they've got to call on all the gods on Mt. Olympus to
skin fellows like this alive and hang their hides out on the flag-pole?
Why...?
Let's try to be honest, ok. Yeah, yea, yeah, I know all about the dangers
of racial superiority, but what say, we worry about that later. For the
moment, let's try and deal with what he's saying honestly and
intelligently.
First thing, does anyone actually think whites, Asians, and blacks are all
precisely intelligent as each other? A simple enough question except that
if you answer yes to it, you have to explain why -- that is, pretty much
present a book as thick as "The Bell Curve" telling us why. Now the
problem is, no one has. Oh, they've railed against it; wrote lots of angry
papers about it, but no one, as yet, has produced anything quite like it.
Of course, there are those who argue that a book isn't necessary; that the
truth of the thing is as plain as the nose on your face. Don't know what
they mean by this, won't even hazard a guess, but this not-with-standing,
I think it's safe to say few would argue that there are differences --
many differences between the races few would argue. All of which brings us
back to the central question here: if there ARE differences between the
races we all can agree upon, why do we not agree there can be differences
in intelligence too? Damn IQ tests. I'm talking about differences as
organic as color, texture of hair, height, ratio of fat to muscle, etc.
Again, we don't dispute these differences, why so intelligence?
--
Ins. of Piscatology & Advanced Autophobic Studies
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Wash, DC
Gary Lloyd
Publisher
New Fishwrapper Times
ulysses
On 5 Sep 1997 02:38:04 GMT, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein"
<efr...@worldsciuni.com> wrote:
I cannot believe you bozos are taking this jerk seriously. Dr. Efram
E. Goldstein? Jewish doktor extrordinaire? G E T O U T ! ! !
>The "Mulatto Hypothesis"- i.e. that IQ in blacks increases in proportion to
>the
>amount of Caucasian genetic heritage- has been discussed in the literature
>since at least 1926. See E.Reuter, Annals of Amer.Acad.Pol.
>Soc.Sci.,140(1928):36-43; M.Herskovits, Pedagogical Seminary
>33(1926):30-42; and H.Herskovits "A Critical Discussion of the Mulatto
>Hypothesis", Journal of Negro Education 3(1934):389-402.
Ooooh he's blown the dust off a couple'a Ellsworth Huntington era
cites. I'll bet his fellow professors hold him in the highest esteem.
>
>Even those many decades ago American blacks were quite aware, as they are
>today, that light skinned blacks were smarter than dark skinned (fully
>African) blacks. Nearly all black teachers, leaders, bright students, and
>professionals are light skinned.
Y'all are taking this at face value aren't ya? Historically, light
skinned blacks enjoyed greater status in the American racial pecking
order, owned more property, had greater educational opportunities,
etc. So from this we are to infer greater intrinsic intelligence?
>The average genetic admixture for US
>blacks
>is about 25%, but varies greatly, and the average US black IQ is 85.
>African
>blacks (0% white admixture) have an average IQ of 70 (see Lynn,1991).
Lynn, 1991. That's it? What am I clairvoyant? We have a definite
D- freshman talking here, boys and girls. Doctor? Not a chance.
>
>See Rushton's book- Race, Evolution and Behavior (1994), Chapters 6 and 9,
>for
>additional and more recent references and Brand's statement with references
>below:
Oh, O.K.
>
>From C. Brand-
Oh, O.K.
>Caucasoid Genetic Admixture: Many US Blacks have a degree of Caucasian
>genetic admixture which can be estimated in groups by the frequency of
>occurrence of the Duffy gene - a gene found in all Caucasians and in
>virtually no pure Blacks. In the one study to date, Californian Blacks (of
>whom 23% have the Duffy gene) had an average IQ of 90 on US Army tests; by
>contrast, Georgian Blacks (of whom only 11% had the gene) scored around 80.
>Likewise, testing in Africa itself - where Caucasian admixture is far less
>- yields IQ levels of around 70. Lately, testing in Soweto yielded a mean
>Black IQ of 57; and testing in Israel of Black Jews from Ethiopia found an
>IQ of 70.(7) The most recent result was provided by a Black psychologist in
>Zimbabwe: he found 200 representative Zimbabwean children scored around IQ
>67 whereas White inner-city children in London averaged 95.(8) By contrast,
>Vietnamese and North Korean refugee children adopted into Belgian families
>had IQ's of 110 in 1994 - ten points higher than modern Belgian norms.
Again, we are to take this alpha-numeric sludge at face value?
Come on people, its 1997. You KNOW that there is no science here.
You KNOW that all this is nothing more than yet another line of
anti-black disinformation. I can't believe I'm seeing earnest replies
to this obviou hate bait.
>
>7. OWEN, K. (1992). 'The suitability of Raven's Standard Progressive
>Matrices for various groups in South Africa.' Personality & Individual
>Differences 13, 149-160.
Ooooh a citation.
>
>8. ZINDI, F. (1994). 'Differences in psychometric performance.' 'The
>Psychologist 7', xii, 549-552.
Oooooh, another one. "Psychometric performance . . ." Oooooh.
>
>Hopefully this information will be of some use.
Ah yes, the coup de grace. "Of some use"--most certainly, if your
name is Arthur Hu. Better tuck this one away too, Asia Boy.
>The significance of this
>is that it is direct evidence that racial group differences in IQ are
>genetically based- a fact that many corrupt researchers attempt
>to deny in their patronizing zeal to censor scientific reality
>and rewrite science texts to contain politically correct untruths.
A low-brow Goebbels stand-in if ever I saw one.
>
>Dr.Efram E. Goldstein
Mind games.
>
cheers, ulysses
remove the ? to email
Mr. Toast
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote in article
<340F8A...@cornell.edu>...
> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> > Even those many decades ago American blacks were quite aware, as they
are
> > today, that light skinned blacks were smarter than dark skinned (fully
> > African) blacks. Nearly all black teachers, leaders, bright students,
and
> > professionals are light skinned.
>
> Divide and conquer bullshit. Clarence Thomas, alumni from Yale and
> Surpreme Court judge, isn't light by any means. As for the comments
> about Black teachers, professionals, bright students,etc being light, I
> take it you've never bothered to get field data? In other words, if you
> went around looking, you'd see the sources you quoted were wrong.
He's talking about populations, not individuals. Statistically,
the existence of Clarence Thomas doesn't prove anything. As
for data, his cites were that long list of publications at the end
of your quote. Did you read the whole post?
> And how do you explain that African immigrants, as a group, do so well?
> You find that Africans disportionately in professional jobs and in
> academia. Your post was simple white racist bullshit.
Great. Call it bullshit. You have data to back that up,
right? You wouldn't be so rude as to ignore a number
of cites with data, call the conclusions bullshit, and
have no data yourself, would you?
David C. Waters
Gary Lloyd (gary...@havea.min.net) wrote:
: if there ARE differences between the
: races we all can agree upon, why do we not agree there can be differences
: in intelligence too? Damn IQ tests. I'm talking about differences as
: organic as color, texture of hair, height, ratio of fat to muscle, etc.
: Again, we don't dispute these differences, why so intelligence?
First of all, _IF_ the concept of biological "race" among humans exists
then it's arbitrarily defined. The physical differences that you listed
can be measured directly and plenty of overlap exists between the
so-called defined races.
The problem with (so-called) "intelligence" is that it is not clearly
understood or even defined so that it can be measured!
Gary Lloyd
In article <mbanetEG...@netcom.com>,
David C. Waters <mba...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Gary Lloyd (gary...@havea.min.net) wrote:
>: if there ARE differences between the
>: races we all can agree upon, why do we not agree there can be differences
>: in intelligence too? Damn IQ tests. I'm talking about differences as
>: organic as color, texture of hair, height, ratio of fat to muscle, etc.
>: Again, we don't dispute these differences, why so intelligence?
>
>First of all, _IF_ the concept of biological "race" among humans exists
>then it's arbitrarily defined. The physical differences that you listed
>can be measured directly and plenty of overlap exists between the
>so-called defined races.
>
>The problem with (so-called) "intelligence" is that it is not clearly
>understood or even defined so that it can be measured!
>--
>_/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
Evasive...
And it seems this is the only response the "Bell Curve" detractors are
capable of making, ie.: "We really can't say anything conclusive about
anybody."
fac...@hotmail.com
On 5 Sep 1997 13:48:36 GMT, "HEXX" <he...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>WHAT CRAP! IN THE U.K. EDUCATIONALLY BLACK AS NIGHT AFRICAN KIDS
> ARE CANING WHITE AND EVEN ASIAN KIDS INTO THE GROUND!
>
>AND BLACK AFRICAN WOMEN ARE THE MOST QUALIFIED OF
>*ANY* GROUP.
I am quite surprised, since British newspapers are on the web, can you
give some URLs for a newspaper that has an article supporting your
view. I read a report by Prof. Chris Brand of Edinburgh University
that said white children performed better than black kids while south
asian kids were the best of the three groups. If the african kids are
the best I assume black kids who are genetically similar would be
equal.
E...@hotmail.com
On 5 Sep 1997 14:17:13 GMT, mtu...@ms.showtower.com.tw (Michael
Turton) wrote:
>
>
> [Points about the alleged 67 IQ of Zimbabweans snipped]
Hernstein (Bell Curve) put sub-saharan african IQ at 75. African
americans who have a 30% caucasian admixture (as found by geneticist
Cavalli-Sforza) are said to have an IQ of 85. This suggests that pure
africans may have an IQ between 75-80 and NOT 67 and could be due to
poor diet and unenriched enviorment. The 'Flynn effect' which shows
that poor diet and lack of schools effects IQ. Examples:
In the Netherlands in 1952 tests showed Dutch IQ at 85. Modern Dutch
IQ is 100+
Asian Indian IQ was shown to be 86 but Indian kids tested in UK had IQ
of 100 and outperform white kids. Low IQ in India was attributed to
lack of protein/vitamin in diet leading to stunted growth and low body
weight and unenriched enviroment.
Justin Samuels
Very well, Bard. Africans have tested low on IQ tests, but that's do
to several reasons. Because of the extreme poverty that some African
children face, their intellectual development has been hindered. It's
been proven that inadequate nutrition can delay or cripple the
development of the brain.
And the researchers who give IQ tests nenver mention what languagethey
give them in. Do they gove them in English? Or do the translate them
into the subjects native language? In short, the Bell Curve type
scientists are sloppy and don't fully describe their experiments.
As far as intelligence goes, the differences in the physical features
you've named have nothing to with intelligence. No one has proved any
organic differences between the brains of those of different races, so
there is no proof of intelligent differences along these lines.
Justin Samuels
Mr. Toast wrote:
>
> He's talking about populations, not individuals. Statistically,
> the existence of Clarence Thomas doesn't prove anything. As
> for data, his cites were that long list of publications at the end
> of your quote. Did you read the whole post?
His so called data was most certainly insufficent. How does one make
the claim that Black Americans are 20% white? What's the source of this
data? How was it collected? It sounds like he or the sources he
quoted simply pulled these figures out of the air.
>
> > And how do you explain that African immigrants, as a group, do so well?
> > You find that Africans disportionately in professional jobs and in
> > academia. Your post was simple white racist bullshit.
>
> Great. Call it bullshit. You have data to back that up,
> right? You wouldn't be so rude as to ignore a number
> of cites with data, call the conclusions bullshit, and
> have no data yourself, would you?
Visit any university, and there's all the data you need. There;s
abosolutely no evidence of this man's claims. Just because someone
presents so called data doesn't mean it's true. And, when reading books
of any sort, one should look for writer bias. But I guess you're the
type to believe everything you read. And there is also researcher
bias. A biased researcher can simply throw away data that doesn't match
what he wishes to believe, and keep the data that matches what he wishes
to believe, or even alter data to match what he believes. Just because
a scientist say's it's so doesn't mean it. And we've no proof that this
Dr. is even a doctor. Anyone can post anything on the usenet.
Mr. Toast
Michael Turton <mtu...@ms.showtower.com.tw> wrote in article
<5up499$2...@netnews.hinet.net>...
>
>
> [Points about the alleged 67 IQ of Zimbabweans snipped]
>
>
> >4) The results are either completely fictitious or derived by invalid
> >sampling procedures (like heavily sampling from the populations of
mental
> >institutions).
> >
> >I find it interesting that 67 is also the IQ score that Yerkes and his
> >colleagues measured for Polish immigrants to the US back in 1917; his
> >infamous Army intelligence tests gave them an average mental age of
10.74
> >for adults.
> >
>
> This article on this "work", which as I recall was done by Lynn
> (or perhaps only cited by him), does not give a data on what language the
> tests were given in or by who, under what conditions, etc. I can just
> picture a white researcher walking into a classroom of Africans who speak
> so-so English and giving them a test in English.......I strongly suspect
> that the results are derived by invalid testing procedures, as well as
> bias in the tester and other problems.
You admit you have no idea what his experimental methods
were. You don't like the result, so you decided to believe
that the method is wrong. That shows an extreme bias.
Read the method, if the method is not acceptable, gather
the data using what you believe to be an acceptable method,
and then publish your rebuttal.
David C. Waters
Justin Samuels (js...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: How does one make the claim that Black Americans are 20% white? What's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: the source of this data? How was it collected? It sounds like he or
Actually, isn't it ironic that, on one hand, the proponents of
_The_Bell_Curve_ rhetoric cite so-called "racial" differences in
intelligence while simultaneously claiming that one group of people is
actually a percentage-wise composite of two "races"?
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
> Justin Samuels (js...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : How does one make the claim that Black Americans are 20% white? What's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : the source of this data? How was it collected? It sounds like he or
> : the sources he quoted simply pulled these figures out of the air.
The literature is extensive on the issue of racial admixture, genetic
methods
are used for making the determinations. See S.M.Garn, ed. (1968), "Readings
on Race"
for several older review articles that in turn reference over 80 journal
studies. More recent information can be found in Cavalli-Sforza's
book "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (1994).
The average "recent" white admixture in US blacks is about 20-25%, but of
course this
varies from 0 to 100% depending on the individual case. These facts are
disputed by no one in the scientific community.
Understand that my motives for posting factual information
pertaining to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism, which
we all deplore, but in the interest of scientific integrity- a tragic
victim
of the efforts of corrupt social politicians to rewrite science texts
and to suppress the dissemination of the scientific truth about
racial differences. We need not fear the facts- it is self deception that
is our greatest potential roadblock to progress in resolving these
important issues.
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Gary Lloyd
In article <341173...@cornell.edu>,
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Gary Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> >The problem with (so-called) "intelligence" is that it is not clearly
>> >understood or even defined so that it can be measured!
>> >--
>>
>>
>> And it seems this is the only response the "Bell Curve" detractors are
>> capable of making, ie.: "We really can't say anything conclusive about
>> anybody."
>>
>
>
>As far as intelligence goes, the differences in the physical features
>you've named have nothing to with intelligence. No one has proved any
>organic differences between the brains of those of different races, so
>there is no proof of intelligent differences along these lines.
First, what makes you say the differences in physical features hasn't
anything to do with intelligence? Professor Leonard Jeffries, in fact,
tells us they do. You'll recall his theory of melanin, sun people, ice
people, etc.
Second, there ARE differences between brains. Size is one, shape another.
This is not in dispute. The dispute is whether these differences translate
into higher IQs.
Third, my point is simply that it is quite logical to think the races
aren't precisely of the same intelligence -- whether we can prove it
or not.
Everything we know about humans tell us this is logical. Thus the
assertion that all races are of precisely the same intelligence isn't
logical, at least, not on its face. The question of who's smarter is
another question. Perhaps, blacks are smarter as Professor Jeffries says;
however, this is not the point. The point is if we look at every component
of a person, compile aggregate numbers, compare these numbers to a second,
third, and forth race, we arrive at dramatically different results every
time.
We don't dispute African Americans are better athletes, Eskimos are better
equipped for Arctic weather, or Asians are smaller, why then do we refuse
to accept the possibility there can be differences in intelligence too?
The answer is obvious -- high intelligence is valued more than these other
differences. High intelligence is what distinguishes man from the lower
orders. Thus the question of intelligence is not merely a question of
measurement, it is a question of the equality of man, and for this reason
it is taboo.
Now that's the truth of the thing, you know it, I know it, everybody knows
it. Everything that follows is smoke and mirrors. "The Bell Curve" was
good scientific work; certainly better than anything to yet challenge it.
But The Bell Curve was also "bad science"; that is, science that doesn't
advance mankind. Hiroshima was bad science, the Japanese and Nazi human
experimentation labs were bad science; still, each was science.
These are the things we have to understand about this question of
intelligence; and that is, that the question is an unacceptable one,
taboo, one that must never be honestly discussed. You, and the other
members of this group, pretend that your interest is only to answer the
question objectively; that if you truly believed there were differences
you'd step forward and say so without hesitation; but you know this isn't
the truth of it. You know you would never do that. You know that there is
no evidence you'd ever accept as proof for to do so would mean accepting
the notion that you are inferior something you'd never do either.
Isn't this true?
Philip Kasiecki
In article <5use32$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
: > : How does one make the claim that Black Americans are 20% white? What's
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > : the source of this data? How was it collected? It sounds like he or
: > : the sources he quoted simply pulled these figures out of the air.
(snip)
: The average "recent" white admixture in US blacks is about 20-25%, but of
: course this varies from 0 to 100% depending on the individual case.
: These facts are disputed by no one in the scientific community.
The existence of "race" among humans is disputed by many in the
scientific community.
: Understand that my motives for posting factual information pertaining
: to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism
Liar.
: which we all deplore
You obviously don't.
: but in the interest of scientific integrity
Ha!!! *YOU*, the king quack, cares about "scientific integrity"?
Please. Tell me why your posts are forgeries. You obviously don't care
about your own personal integrity to begin with.
: a tragic victim of the efforts of corrupt social politicians to rewrite
: science texts and to suppress the dissemination of the scientific truth
: about racial differences.
See what I wrote about "the scientific truth about racial
differences" and the debate among scientists.
: We need not fear the facts- it is self deception that is our greatest
: potential roadblock to progress in resolving these important issues.
Look in the damned mirror you fool.
*PLOINK*
Phil Kasiecki
Justin Samuels
David C. Waters wrote:
>
> Justin Samuels (js...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : How does one make the claim that Black Americans are 20% white? What's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : the source of this data? How was it collected? It sounds like he or
> : the sources he quoted simply pulled these figures out of the air.
>
> Actually, isn't it ironic that, on one hand, the proponents of
> _The_Bell_Curve_ rhetoric cite so-called "racial" differences in
> intelligence while simultaneously claiming that one group of people is
> actually a percentage-wise composite of two "races"?
Not really. They had to find groups of people that didn't represent the
real world, in order distort data to their liking. That's why their
data collecting, and they methods the use are hardly even mentioned.
Only their so called results are mentioned.
> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
Justin Samuels
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
>
> > Justin Samuels (js...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> > : How does one make the claim that Black Americans are 20% white? What's
>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > : the source of this data? How was it collected? It sounds like he or
> > : the sources he quoted simply pulled these figures out of the air.
>
> methods
> are used for making the determinations. See S.M.Garn, ed. (1968), "Readings
> on Race"
> for several older review articles that in turn reference over 80 journal
> studies. More recent information can be found in Cavalli-Sforza's
> book "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (1994).
In 1968 genetics was barely concieved. There couldn't be a test of
determining the percentage of white ancestry in black americans. The
genes for skin color and other varying physcial features are a very
small percentage of our genome. Therefore, no scientist could
adequately say that 20-25 percent of the genetic background of Black
americans is white. Ther percentage would vary enormously with an
individual family's history. As I suspected, the figures of the
sources you quote are alll falsified made up data.
>
> The average "recent" white admixture in US blacks is about 20-25%, but of
> course this
> varies from 0 to 100% depending on the individual case. These facts are
> disputed by no one in the scientific community.
And how was the average taken? From a very small test group of black
americans? Probably no more than 20 people.
>
> Understand that my motives for posting factual information
> pertaining to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism,
Lies.
which
> we all deplore, but in the interest of scientific integrity-
You have slaughtered scientific integrity. You are the example of
someone using falsified ata to meet his own end. You're the type who
throws away data that doesn't meet your beliefs. You're posting from a
fake organization, using a fake name. That says it all. You're no
scientist.
a tragic
> victim
> of the efforts of corrupt social politicians to rewrite science texts
> and to suppress the dissemination of the scientific truth about
> racial differences.
You'd make science a tragic victim of your need to prove yourself
superior.
>We need not fear the facts- it is self deception that
> is our greatest potential roadblock to progress in resolving these
> important issues.
Amen. So stop decieving yourself.
>
> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Justin Samuels
> : > Justin Samuels (js...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : > : How does one make the claim that Black Americans are 20% white? What's
> : > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : > : the source of this data? How was it collected? It sounds like he or
> : > : the sources he quoted simply pulled these figures out of the air.
>
>
> : The average "recent" white admixture in US blacks is about 20-25%, but of
> : course this varies from 0 to 100% depending on the individual case.
> : These facts are disputed by no one in the scientific community.
>
> scientific community.
And the gens that dicate hair texture, and skin color are very small
parts of our genome. That's very little genetic differences between
races. That being said. there's no way any test could determine that
20% of the genes taken from Black Americans come from whites. That was
a figure someone made up.
>
> : Understand that my motives for posting factual information pertaining
> : to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism
>
> Liar.
>
> : which we all deplore
>
> You obviously don't.
>
> : but in the interest of scientific integrity
>
> Ha!!! *YOU*, the king quack, cares about "scientific integrity"?
> Please. Tell me why your posts are forgeries. You obviously don't care
> about your own personal integrity to begin with.
>
> : a tragic victim of the efforts of corrupt social politicians to rewrite
> : science texts and to suppress the dissemination of the scientific truth
> : about racial differences.
>
> See what I wrote about "the scientific truth about racial
> differences" and the debate among scientists.
>
> : We need not fear the facts- it is self deception that is our greatest
> : potential roadblock to progress in resolving these important issues.
>
Gary Lloyd
In article <3411EF...@cornell.edu>,
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Gary Lloyd wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> First, what makes you say the differences in physical features hasn't
>> anything to do with intelligence? Professor Leonard Jeffries, in fact,
>> tells us they do. You'll recall his theory of melanin, sun people, ice
>> people, etc.
>
>Melanin has nothing to with brains.
The question doesn't stand or fall on Jeffries. The assertion was made
"differences in physical features hasn't anything to do with
intelligence." Do you agree with this? If so, tell us why.
>
>> Second, there ARE differences between brains. Size is one, shape another.
>> This is not in dispute. The dispute is whether these differences translate
>> into higher IQs.
>>
>
>There are no differences between brains along racial lines. Only on an
>individual basis.
Of course there are. Any haberdasher can tell you that. Head sizes and
shapes between blacks and Asians are very different. This being the case,
what happens to the residual volume in the larger black cranium? Does it
remain empty? Does it fill with Colt 45? If both brains are the same are
blacks skull filled with stuffing or something to take up the slack?
Or maybe you're saying the black head is no larger than the Asian head?
That little Vietnamese men could take a shot in the head from Mike Tyson
and remain standing as unflinchingly as Evander Holyfield. Mind you,
that's a punch in the head, not a bite.
>
>> Third, my point is simply that it is quite logical to think the races
>> aren't precisely of the same intelligence -- whether we can prove it
>> or not.
>
>You havethe desire to claim you and yours smarter than others. So in
>your mind, perhaps it's logical. In the minds of others, it isn't. It
>depends on how the person thinks.
A person would have to ascribe to convoluted, illogical, inexplicable
thinking indeed to think blacks are smarter than whites. There certainly
isn't any ocular evidence of it, nothing that even hints at it.
Conversely, everything we see in the world points to precisely the
obverse. This is what I mean by logic. You've yet to explain what you mean
by it on the question. Again, logically, the reasonable man would assume
blacks aren't as intelligent as whites. Perhaps your explanation of the
fallacies inherent in IQ tests, the legacy of slavery and discrimination,
etc, would change his mind, but this would come after, after you
convinced him to set his native logic aside. If you were to land on
another planet to discover green people living like white folks, and
orange people living like black folks, wouldn't you logically assume the
green folks were smarter?
>
>> Everything we know about humans tell us this is logical. Thus the
>> assertion that all races are of precisely the same intelligence isn't
>> logical, at least, not on its face. The question of who's smarter is
>> another question. Perhaps, blacks are smarter as Professor Jeffries says;
>> however, this is not the point. The point is if we look at every component
>> of a person, compile aggregate numbers, compare these numbers to a second,
>> third, and forth race, we arrive at dramatically different results every
>> time.
>>
>> We don't dispute African Americans are better athletes, Eskimos are better
>> equipped for Arctic weather,
>
>True.
>
Why not?
> or Asians are smaller,
>
>Not necessarily true. The Manchus of North China are very tall. And
>there has been some data suggesting that the children of many "short
>Asian" immigrants to the US are taller. So nutrition and enviroment
>play a role as well in differences.
>
And pygmys are shorter than Asians. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule.
Was this your point? Mine was to make a generally accepted comment about
the size of Asians relative to the size of African Americans.
>why then do we refuse
>> to accept the possibility there can be differences in intelligence too?
>
>Why would there be?
>
Why would there be differences in size?
>
>"The Bell Curve" was
>> good scientific work; certainly better than anything to yet challenge it.
>
>The Bell Curve was garbage. I read it and the writers don't adequately
>explain their methods. They do explain their results, but that's all.
>Since the information on their data collection and their methodolgy is
>so lacking, it seems like they took very small test groups to find out
>what they wanted to know. And through the results away that didn't
>agree with what he wanted. For example, for those people they tested
>low and belong to non English speaking groups, were they tested in
>English or in their native language? The book doesn't say. Those
>Africans who tested low, were they tested in their native language.
>Were they chronically malnourished?(As you know this most certainly
>affects intelligence). The book doesn't give info on their health. In
>short, the Bell Curve can't be called scientific work at all, Gary.
Of course it can. The book isn't controversial because it's trash. It's
controversial because it's good science producing dangerous conclusions.
Were it simply garbage people would ignore it; but they don't, they can't,
the book is a threat; the authors, not Billy Bob writing from his tool
shed in the mountains, but respected, highly-trained thinkers. No, calling
it "trash" is just too flip, too sweeping, too dismissive. The problem
isn't their methods, it's their conclusions. Had they concluded blacks are
just as smart as whites and Asians would you call this trash too? No, in
fact, we should expect you'd support that conclusion 100%. Again, it's the
conclusion not their science that's at the core of the controversy.
Moreover, we still haven't heard your science. Tell us about your
evidence. Tell us about the research you've done that proves their thesis
wrong.
Justin Samuels
Gary Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> First, what makes you say the differences in physical features hasn't
> anything to do with intelligence? Professor Leonard Jeffries, in fact,
> tells us they do. You'll recall his theory of melanin, sun people, ice
> people, etc.
Jeffries is a quack. he's presnted to real evidence to back this up.
Melanin has nothing to with brains.
> Second, there ARE differences between brains. Size is one, shape another.
> This is not in dispute. The dispute is whether these differences translate
> into higher IQs.
>
There are no differences between brains along racial lines. Only on an
individual basis.
> Third, my point is simply that it is quite logical to think the races
> aren't precisely of the same intelligence -- whether we can prove it
> or not.
You havethe desire to claim you and yours smarter than others. So in
your mind, perhaps it's logical. In the minds of others, it isn't. It
depends on how the person thinks.
> Everything we know about humans tell us this is logical. Thus the
> assertion that all races are of precisely the same intelligence isn't
> logical, at least, not on its face. The question of who's smarter is
> another question. Perhaps, blacks are smarter as Professor Jeffries says;
> however, this is not the point. The point is if we look at every component
> of a person, compile aggregate numbers, compare these numbers to a second,
> third, and forth race, we arrive at dramatically different results every
> time.
>
> We don't dispute African Americans are better athletes, Eskimos are better
> equipped for Arctic weather,
True.
or Asians are smaller,
Not necessarily true. The Manchus of North China are very tall. And
there has been some data suggesting that the children of many "short
Asian" immigrants to the US are taller. So nutrition and enviroment
play a role as well in differences.
why then do we refuse
> to accept the possibility there can be differences in intelligence too?
Why would there be?
"The Bell Curve" was
> good scientific work; certainly better than anything to yet challenge it.
The Bell Curve was garbage. I read it and the writers don't adequately
explain their methods. They do explain their results, but that's all.
Since the information on their data collection and their methodolgy is
so lacking, it seems like they took very small test groups to find out
what they wanted to know. And through the results away that didn't
agree with what he wanted. For example, for those people they tested
low and belong to non English speaking groups, were they tested in
English or in their native language? The book doesn't say. Those
Africans who tested low, were they tested in their native language.
Were they chronically malnourished?(As you know this most certainly
affects intelligence). The book doesn't give info on their health. In
short, the Bell Curve can't be called scientific work at all, Gary.
> But The Bell Curve was also "bad science"; that is, science that doesn't
> advance mankind. Hiroshima was bad science, the Japanese and Nazi human
> experimentation labs were bad science; still, each was science.
>
> These are the things we have to understand about this question of
> intelligence; and that is, that the question is an unacceptable one,
> taboo, one that must never be honestly discussed. You, and the other
> members of this group, pretend that your interest is only to answer the
> question objectively; that if you truly believed there were differences
> you'd step forward and say so without hesitation; but you know this isn't
> the truth of it. You know you would never do that. You know that there is
> no evidence you'd ever accept as proof for to do so would mean accepting
> the notion that you are inferior something you'd never do either.
>
> Isn't this true?
>
Kaiju
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
>
<snip>
> You have committed an act of anti-Semitism in your libelous attack
> upon Dr. Goldstein, a fine and kindly man of science.
> Your post has nothing to do with facts or debate- it is simply
> an excuse for venting anti-Semitic hatred against Dr. Goldstein
> and his people. Rest assured your transgression will be reported to
> the anti-defamation league.
>
> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
If there was ever any question left about where this guy is either a
doctor or a Jew...this should eliminate them.
He's neither. He's just another troll.
Kaiju
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Philip Kasiecki <pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote in article
<5usila$p...@isn.dac.neu.edu>
in a vitriolic anti-Semitic attack on Dr. Goldstein:
...
> In article <5use32$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein (efr...@worldsciuni.com) wrote:
> : The average "recent" white admixture in US blacks is about 20-25%, but
of
> : course this varies from 0 to 100% depending on the individual case.
> : These facts are disputed by no one in the scientific community.
> : Understand that my motives for posting factual information pertaining
> : to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism
>
> Liar.
>
> : which we all deplore
>
> You obviously don't.
>
> : but in the interest of scientific integrity
>
> Ha!!! *YOU*, the king quack, cares about "scientific integrity"?
> Please. Tell me why your posts are forgeries. You obviously don't care
> about your own personal integrity to begin with.
>
> : a tragic victim of the efforts of corrupt social politicians to rewrite
> : science texts and to suppress the dissemination of the scientific truth
> : about racial differences.
>
> : We need not fear the facts- it is self deception that is our greatest
> : potential roadblock to progress in resolving these important issues.
>
> Look in the damned mirror you fool.
> *PLOINK*
>
> Philip T. Kasiecki
> Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Northeastern University Class of 1999
>
Justin Samuels
Gary Lloyd wrote:
>
> The question doesn't stand or fall on Jeffries. The assertion was made
> "differences in physical features hasn't anything to do with
> intelligence." Do you agree with this? If so, tell us why.
Yes. Because there isn't t evidence to there are those differences.
>
>
>
> Of course there are. Any haberdasher can tell you that. Head sizes and
> shapes between blacks and Asians are very different.
Head sizes and shapes among Blacks vary among the ethnic group. Head
sizes and shapes among Asians vary as well. Head sizes and shapes
amongh Europeans vary as well. These variances are sometimes along
ethnic lines, and sometimes along individual variation
If you were to land on
> another planet to discover green people living like white folks, and
> orange people living like black folks, wouldn't you logically assume the
> green folks were smarter?
No. How do white people live, Gary. Look at Bosnia, Northern
Ireland,etc. In Russia the country is dominated buy the mafia, and five
year old boys and girls are sold buy their pimps. Police protection is
none existant unless you are rich enough to pay for it. Russia and
Eastern Europe are now poorer than many third world countries. Brazil,
China, Argentina, Mexico, many Middle Eastern nations, Singapore, etc
are all ahead of Russia and Eastern Europe. The situation in South
Africa, Ghana, Uganda, and Egypt is a lot better than it is the in
Ukraine, former Yugoslavia or the former Soviet Union.
And mind you, Russia has one of the world's largest white populations.
if the liens you described lived like whites and blacks, I wouldn't
assume anything because their are huge variations in the lifestyle of
both.
Mine was to make a generally accepted comment about
> the size of Asians relative to the size of African Americans.
And your generally accpeted comment as to the size differences between
Asians and Blacks are wrong. There are many tall Asians and short
Blacks.
>
> Why would there be differences in size?
What differences in size? There aren't differences in size along racial
lines. Along ethnic lines, now that's a different story.
>
> >
> >"
> Of course it can. The book isn't controversial because it's trash. It's
> controversial because it's good science producing dangerous conclusions.
> Were it simply garbage people would ignore it;
Bard ,dear, most best sellers are fiction. People love garbage.
Serious scientific works are boring and don't sell that well. The Bell
Curve was trashy, and that's why it sold.
kumar yelubandi
On 6 Sep 1997, Gary Lloyd wrote:
> In article <341173...@cornell.edu>,
> Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >> >The problem with (so-called) "intelligence" is that it is not clearly
> >> >understood or even defined so that it can be measured!
> >
> >you've named have nothing to with intelligence. No one has proved any
> >organic differences between the brains of those of different races, so
> >there is no proof of intelligent differences along these lines.
>
> anything to do with intelligence? Professor Leonard Jeffries, in fact,
> tells us they do. You'll recall his theory of melanin, sun people, ice
> people, etc.
So...you are saying that physical differences outside of
physical brain differences, nonetheless have an impact on
intelligence. Curious. On first reading it seems illogical.
Second reading confirms it.
Professor Jeffries is being illogical if, indeed, that's what
he says. For intelligence is not a collaborative effort of
brain, heart, kidneys, gonads, stomach, hair, skin, etc.
It is the sole effort of the brain, at least, in the science
I am familiar with. Perhaps you know of a different science
...indeed, by your position here, it seems you do.
Of course, Jeffries' theory can still be redeemed if it is
demonstrated that physical brain differences actually do
correlate with other physical differences
...that's correlate, not coincide.
And this, like, Justin says, has not been proven. Indeed, the
only way it can be proven, AFAIK, is if the gene product of say,
an 'IQ gene' (eg. intelligence protein)...is also directly
involved in the regulation (or metabolism) of nonintelligence
protein(s). That is, the hypothetical Brain-160 protein which
contributes to a hypothetical IQ of 160, say...is also involved
as an enzyme (or metabolite) in that pathway which determines hair
texture, or skin color, etc.
Certainly, the idea of 'massive' neuroanatomical differences in
'racially distinct brains' has already been suggested by Dr. Robards,
earlier on in this thread. But he offered scant proof to back his
claim...certainly, there is no hard proof to support his contention
that differences in functional anatomy (of the brain) exist.
He did vaguely mention differences in the sulci arrangement between
European and Aborigine brains...but did not then explain how the
different arrangements translate into differences in intelligence.
> Second, there ARE differences between brains. Size is one, shape another.
> This is not in dispute. The dispute is whether these differences translate
> into higher IQs.
Encephalometric/craniometric pseudoscience, IMO. The quick
laboratory for this is the cosmopolitan street. Go out and study
the head sizes of the various 'racial' groupings that stride by a
busy street corner...and I challenge anyone to actually resolve
(or order-rank) head size according to 'race'. As for head shape,
the differences appear to be minimal. Certainly, the African
American head shape is virtually indistinguishable from the
European or the South Asiatic...and both are approximately the
same shape as the Far Asiatic.
As for brain size/weight...has anyone actually done some credible
science on this? Or are brain weight measurements little more
than derivative measurements of head size estimations, implying
then, the propagation of error? I mean...much, if not all,
literature in this area appears to be carried out by suspect
'research(ers)' with a strong 'eugenics' tilt. Certainly, size
alone is insufficient to describe intelligence. The rhinoceros
has a bigger brain than the human...but there is speculation
the human brain has a higher intelligence. Why should the
situation be any different within species than across species?
For that matter, across genders. I mean, the male brain is
supposedly larger than the female brain, with slight anatomical
differences (I presume)...but why isn't this translated into
tangible differences in intelligence? Indeed, one may argue the
female brain is superior (eg. has a superior configuration)...
and who's to say that that person is not correct in that
assessment? Do we know enough about the brain to make a proper
assessment either way? I think not. Certainly, academic
performance in K-12 suggests that girls tend to do better than
boys...why is this?
Ah...environmental factors, you say...well, pull up
a chair and have a seat, Sherlock!
Back to the human and rhinoceros example.
Indeed, it seems more likely that quality of (neuronal) configuration
rather than quantity of configuration...is the key determinant here.
(eg. parallelity of architecture over seriality)
Hypothetically speaking, even if one 'race' has a larger size
average brain...what proof is there that this extra size favors
parallelity?
Here, parallel architectures are assumed to be more
intelligent because of more interconnections or neuronal
synaptic activity.
In any event, functional mapping of the brain is still crude.
To assert that differences in brain weight (assuming for a moment
they exist)...translate into tangible differences in intelligence
without having adequately mapped intelligence onto the anatomical
brain...is really just an extension of the pre- and post-
genome-mapping dilemma, no?
> Third, my point is simply that it is quite logical to think the races
> aren't precisely of the same intelligence -- whether we can prove it
> or not.
It is also quite logical to assume that there are no tangible
differences in 'race' intelligence...upon observing that various
individuals of one race (pick a race, any race), intellectually
outperform individuals from another race (pick a race, any race).
That the quantity, [pick a race, any race], can be shown _NOT_
to exclude any particular 'race'...is the key determinant here.
OTOH, if this quantity turns out to exclude a particular race
in a battery of intelligence tests or activities...then that
race would necessarily be inferior to the other races. Alas,
in my experience, I've met individuals (in every major race)
who have demonstrated the ability to perform at a high intellectual
level; certainly, at a level (in my estimation) that would allow
them to intellectually outperform the putative 'all others' should
such occasion present itself. With that factual anecdote in mind,
it is my duty to inform you that you have just been gedanken'ed.
> Everything we know about humans tell us this is logical. Thus the
> assertion that all races are of precisely the same intelligence isn't
> logical, at least, not on its face. The question of who's smarter is
Intelligence is not an exact function. Differences probably
do exist, but none that are currently resolvable. Certainly,
the proposition that the Far Asiatic race is the top 'intelligence'
subrace of humanity...is not always true. Similarly, the
proposition that the British-African race is the top intelligence
subrace (as has been posted recently)...is not always true
either. Then again, instances can be found where both propositions
are true. So where does this leave us...I mean, logically?
> another question. Perhaps, blacks are smarter as Professor Jeffries says;
> however, this is not the point. The point is if we look at every component
> of a person, compile aggregate numbers, compare these numbers to a second,
> third, and forth race, we arrive at dramatically different results every
> time.
[...]
This is the fallacy of argument by personal conviction.
Fact remains, scalar numbers for physical observables like height,
and skin color, and finger thickness, and penis size, and etc...
are totally incompatible with scalar numbers for intelligence,
precisely because the latter is _NOT_ a physical observable.
Intelligence is an intuited observable.
And intuited observables must first be mapped onto a physical
observable before any meaningful scalar can be assigned, and
an aggregate number computed, for each individual...which may
then be compared, after group averaging, with group averages for
other races. Ordered ranks for 'racial' intelligence to follow.
And the first real opportunity to do this with the nonphysical
observable, intelligence...is to map the genome for the IQ genes
...IOW, to bring intelligence into the arena of the physically
observable.
Failing that, you have only the joker's thesis of race-based
intelligence, with nary a shrub of substance.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_ _/_
_/_ zookumar _/_ yelubandi _/_
_/_ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_
Mr. Toast
ulysses <noman?@unix.tamu.edu> wrote in article
<34107ec9...@news.tamu.edu>...
> On 5 Sep 1997 02:38:04 GMT, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein"
> <efr...@worldsciuni.com> wrote:
>
> I cannot believe you bozos are taking this jerk seriously. Dr. Efram
> E. Goldstein? Jewish doktor extrordinaire? G E T O U T ! ! !
My daughter and I were going over her high school social
science book. It talks about propaganda and how to
determine the truth. I am going to show her your post. You
hit on a couple of the "how to tell when someone's not
right" clues.
Your entire post was without merit.
Mr. Toast
Gary Lloyd <gary...@havea.min.net> wrote in article
<5urhh3$q...@havea.min.net>...
> Evasive...
>
> And it seems this is the only response the "Bell Curve" detractors are
> capable of making, ie.: "We really can't say anything conclusive about
> anybody."
Indeed! I agree. Einstein once wrote:
"The only justification for our concepts and system of concepts
is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences;
beyond this they have no legitimacy. I am convinced that the
philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of
scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from
the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control,
to the intangible heights of the a priori."
This sort of evasiveness has been going on a long time.
Gary Lloyd
In article <34123D...@cornell.edu>,
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Gary Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> The question doesn't stand or fall on Jeffries. The assertion was made
>> "differences in physical features hasn't anything to do with
>> intelligence." Do you agree with this? If so, tell us why.
>
>>
Lack of evidence is not evidence. Besides, the evidence that suggests
whites are smarter than blacks is staggering. Indeed, one would have to be
deaf, dumb, and blind to think otherwise.
>
>>
>>
>> Of course there are. Any haberdasher can tell you that. Head sizes and
>> shapes between blacks and Asians are very different.
>
>Head sizes and shapes among Blacks vary among the ethnic group. Head
>sizes and shapes among Asians vary as well. Head sizes and shapes
>amongh Europeans vary as well. These variances are sometimes along
>ethnic lines, and sometimes along individual variation
>
It seems whenever I talk about statistical averages you become thoroughly
confused. Let me break it down for you real simple -- blacks have
bigger heads than Asians.
>If you were to land on
>> another planet to discover green people living like white folks, and
>> orange people living like black folks, wouldn't you logically assume the
>> green folks were smarter?
>
>No. How do white people live, Gary. Look at Bosnia, Northern
>Ireland,etc. In Russia the country is dominated buy the mafia, and five
>year old boys and girls are sold buy their pimps. Police protection is
>none existant unless you are rich enough to pay for it. Russia and
>Eastern Europe are now poorer than many third world countries. Brazil,
>China, Argentina, Mexico, many Middle Eastern nations, Singapore, etc
>are all ahead of Russia and Eastern Europe. The situation in South
>Africa, Ghana, Uganda, and Egypt is a lot better than it is the in
>Ukraine, former Yugoslavia or the former Soviet Union.
>
This is silly. And I really don't want to go there, but you're forcing my
hand. Go to the US patent office, pick up any science text, do some
business research and see who runs 99% of the world's business; compile
the number of black MDs and put this list against the amount of white or
Asian MDs. So forth and so on. We're talking documented intelligence
here, not your transparent attempt to confuse the issue. Sure, there may
be good reasons to ignore IQ tests, but how can anyone possibly say
everything else in the world should be ignored too? It's ridiculous,
dishonest, and absurd, and I'm sorry, but I'll have none of it. I don't
need the Bell Curve. I need a person like you to tell me why the million
other indicators in our world seems to suggest the same thing.
>And mind you, Russia has one of the world's largest white populations.
>if the liens you described lived like whites and blacks, I wouldn't
>assume anything because their are huge variations in the lifestyle of
>both.
>
Fine, then name the African nation that has a space program.
> Mine was to make a generally accepted comment about
>> the size of Asians relative to the size of African Americans.
>
>And your generally accpeted comment as to the size differences between
>Asians and Blacks are wrong. There are many tall Asians and short
>Blacks.
>>
Now you tell us Asians and blacks are not only of the same intelligence,
but the same size too. Right, and what you do here is a typical tactic.
Losing the rational argument on all fronts, you resort to the absurd one.
Next we should expect you'll be calling me "racist" and calling for my
troll-tagging. Typical...
>> Why would there be differences in size?
>
>What differences in size? There aren't differences in size along racial
>lines. Along ethnic lines, now that's a different story.
>>
>> >
>> >"
>> Of course it can. The book isn't controversial because it's trash. It's
>> controversial because it's good science producing dangerous conclusions.
>> Were it simply garbage people would ignore it;
>
>Bard ,dear, most best sellers are fiction. People love garbage.
>Serious scientific works are boring and don't sell that well. The Bell
>Curve was trashy, and that's why it sold.
No, that's not how it works. You mistakenly take a general idea and apply
to each and every specific. The Bell Curve met the level of scientific
validity expected of books in its category. This is the point most of its
detractors gloss over. Produce any book, curriculum, that is accepted and
taught in our schools, and we'll see the same level of reliability. Simply
put, there really isn't anything exceptional about the book on this point.
The science is Ok. The problem is the conclusion, not the science. So what
happens? People attack the science. But the thing of it is, the way to
really attack the science is to come out with a book that yields a
different conclusion, yet no one has done this yet. If I say five plus
five, equals nine, and you say it equals ten; wouldn't it be more
convincing to produce ten apples than endlessly discussing the thing?
And science is like that, you see: it's the best we have until something
else comes along. Yes, the Bell Curve might be wrong, but there really
isn't anything else out there better. And that's the secondary problem
here.
Finally, I ask you this again: if the Bell Curve had concluded that
blacks, whites, and Asians are all of the same intelligence would you
dispute this too?
Mr. Toast
David C. Waters <mba...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<mbanetEG...@netcom.com>...
> Justin Samuels (js...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : How does one make the claim that Black Americans are 20% white? What's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : the source of this data? How was it collected? It sounds like he or
> : the sources he quoted simply pulled these figures out of the air.
>
> Actually, isn't it ironic that, on one hand, the proponents of
> _The_Bell_Curve_ rhetoric cite so-called "racial" differences in
> intelligence while simultaneously claiming that one group of people is
> actually a percentage-wise composite of two "races"?
Races are just groupings (based on genetics) and are not cast
in stone. Differences between isolated breeding groups arise
because each such group doesn't share the gene frequencies of
the other groups.
And isolation is not always absolute.
The isolation between "blacks" (which tend to be descended
from a small group in western Africa) and "whites" (which tended to be
from a few western European countries...) were more isolated 500
years ago than they are today in the U.S.. Isolation in the U.S. has
been mostly due to cultural barriers rather than geographic obstructions.
What you refer to as ironic is nothing more than an acknowledgment
that the barriers between isolated populations are not so absolute
anymore, and that there is a difference in how the groupings are
made now to how they could have been made 500 years ago.
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
kumar yelubandi <aa...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.91.970906...@chebucto.ns.ca> with his usual
total lack of scientific understanding:
>
> Go out and study
> the head sizes of the various 'racial' groupings that stride by a
> busy street corner...and I challenge anyone to actually resolve
> (or order-rank) head size according to 'race'.
>
> As for brain size/weight...has anyone actually done some credible
> science on this?
> _/_ zookumar _/_ yelubandi
There are many published studies on racial differences in
brain size and weight. What follows is
a brief excerpt from a J.P.Rushton paper, and some references
follow that to get you started on your reading.
Rushton (1995) reviewed 100 years of scientific literature and found
that across a triangulation of procedures, brains of East-Asians and
their descendants average about 17 cm3 (1 in3) larger than those of
Europeans and their descendants whose brains average about 80 cm3 (5
in3) larger than those of Africans and their descendants. Although
critics can pick outliers to show counter-examples and suggest
opposite trends (as could critics of a statement that men are, on
average, taller than women) the aggregated data are clear (see
Rushton, 1995, for full discussion of alleged counter examples).
Consider the following statistically significant comparisons. Using
brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1980) summarized data for 1,261
adults (see above) and reported a sex-combined difference between 811
European- Americans with a mean of 1,323 g (sd = 146) and 450
African-Americans with a mean of 1,223 g (sd = 144). Using endocranial
volume, Beals et al. (1984, page 307, Table 5) analyzed 20,000 crania
and found sex-combined brain cases differed by continental area.
Excluding Caucasoid areas of Asia (e.g., India) and Africa (e.g.,
Egypt), 19 East Asian populations averaged 1,415 cm3 (sd = 51), 10
European groups averaged 1,362 cm3 (sd = 35) and 9 African groups
averaged 1,268 cm3 (sd = 85). Using external head measure- ments,
Rushton (1992) found, in a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army
personnel, measured in 1988 to determine head size for fitting
helmets, Asian-Americans, European-Americans, and African-Americans
averaged 1,416, 1,380, and 1,359 cm3, respectively (see also, Rushton,
1994).
Globally, racial differences in brain size parallel those found in
measured intelligence. Europeans in North America, Europe and
Australasia have mean IQs of around 100. For East Asians, measured in
North America and in Pacific Rim countries, means range from 101 to
111. Africans living south of the Sahara, African-Americans and
African-Caribbeans (including those living in Britain), have mean IQs
of from 70 to 90 (Lynn, 1991). Elementary speed of information
processing in 9- to 12-year-olds, in which children decide which of
several lights stands out from others, show that racial differences in
mental ability are pervasive. All children can perform the tasks in
less than 1 s, but more intelligent children, as measured by
traditional IQ tests, perform the tasks faster than do less
intelligent children. Japanese and Hong Kong children have faster
decision times (controlling for movement time) than do British and
Irish children who have faster decision time than South African Black
and African-American children (Jensen, 1993; Jensen & Whang, 1993;
Lynn, 1991).
References
Andreasen, N.C., Flaum, M., Swayze, V., O'Leary, D.S., Alliger, R.,
Cohen, G., Ehrhardt, J. & Yuh, W.T.C. (1993). Intelligence and brain
structure in normal individuals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150,
130-134.
Ankney, C.D. (1992). Sex differences in relative brain size: The
mismeasure of woman, too? Intelligence, 16, 329-336.
Ankney, C.D. (1995). Sex differences in brain size and mental
abilities: Comments on R. Lynn and D. Kimura. Personality and
Individual Differences, 18, 423-424.
Beals, K.L., Smith, C.L. & Dodd, S.M. (1984). Brain size, cranial
morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology, 25,
301-330.
Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence. New York: Academic Press.
Broman, S.H., Nichols, P.L., Shaughnessy, P. & Kennedy, W. (1987).
Retardation in young children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Egan, V., Chiswick, A., Santosh, C., Naidu, K., Rimmington, J.E., &
Best, J.J.K. (1994). Size isn't everything: A study of brain volume,
intelligence and auditory evoked potentials.Personality and Individual
Differences, 17, 357-367.
Haug, H. (1987). Brain sizes, surfaces, and neuronal sizes of the
cortex cerebri. American Journal of Anatomy, 180, 126-142.
Ho, K.C., Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J.V., & Monroe, G. (1980).
Analysis of brain weight. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory
Medicine, 104, 635-645.
Jensen, A.R. (1993). Spearman's hypothesis tested with chronometric
information processing tasks.Intelligence, 17, 47-77.
Jensen, A.R., & Johnson, F.W. (1994). Race and sex differences in head
size and IQ.Intelligence, 18, 309-333.
Jensen, A.R., & Whang, P.A. (1993). Reaction times and
intelligence.Journal of Biosocial Science, 25, 397-410.
Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain.Scientific American,
267 (No. 3), 119-125.
Kolakowski, D., & Malina, R.M. (1974). Spatial ability, throwing
accuracy, and man's hunting heritage.Nature, 251, 410-412.
Lynn, R. (1991). Race differences in intelligence. Mankind Quarterly,
31, 255-296.
Lynn, R. (1993). Brain size and intelligence in man: A correction to
Peters. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 748-750.
Lynn, R. (1994). Sex differences in intelligence and brain size.
Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 257-271.
Peters, M. (1993). Still no convincing evidence of a relation between
brain size and intelligence in humans. Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 47, 751-756.
Raz, N., Torres, I.J., Spencer, W.D., Millman, D., Baertschi, J.C., &
Sarpel, G. (1993). Neuroanatomical correlates of age-sensitive and
age-invariant cognitive abilities. Intelligence, 17, 407-422.
Rushton, J.P. (1992). Cranial capacity related to sex, rank, and race
in a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. military personnel.
Intelligence, 16, 401-413.
Rushton, J.P. (1994). Sex and race differences in cranial capacity
from International Labour Office data. Intelligence, 19, 281-294.
Rushton, J.P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior. A life-history
perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Stringer, C.B. & Andrews, P. (1988). Genetic and fossil evidence for
the origin of modern humans. Science, 239, 1263-1268.
Wickett, J.C., Vernon, P.A., & Lee, D.H. (1994). In vivo brain size,
head perimeter, and intelligence in a sample of healthy adult females.
Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 831-838.
Willerman, L., Schultz, R., Rutledge, J.N., & Bigler, E.D. (1991). In
vivo brain size and intelligence. Intelligence, 15, 223-228.
Hopefully this information will help to guide this
discussion along scientific lines.
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
jJustin Samuels
Gary Lloyd wrote:
>
> >
>
> It seems whenever I talk about statistical averages you become thoroughly
> confused. Let me break it down for you real simple -- blacks have
> bigger heads than Asians.
Blacks don't have bigger heads than Asians. And that's my real simple
reply Bard.
>
> >
>
> This is silly.
Why.
Go to the US patent office, pick up any science text, do some
> business research and see who runs 99% of the world's business;
99% of the world's business aren't run by whites.
compile
> the number of black MDs and put this list against the amount of white or
> Asian MDs.
Compile the number of Black md's today versus the number of Black md's
80 years ago Bard.
I need a person like you to tell me why the million
> other indicators in our world seems to suggest the same thing.
What million indicators? None of the indicators you named suggesting
anything> If one takes number of Blacks in corparations today versus
ijn corparations 80 years ago, it's grown considerably? How and why, if
their such an intelligence gap? Does this mean the intelligence of
Blacks is growing? And does the decline in Eastern Europe mean their
intelligence is decreasing?
> >And mind you, Russia has one of the world's largest white populations.
> >if the liens you described lived like whites and blacks, I wouldn't
> >assume anything because their are huge variations in the lifestyle of
> >both.
> >
>
> Fine, then name the African nation that has a space program.
Most European nations don't have a space program. And having a space
program doesn't mean you're the most intelligent. It simply means
you're interested in exploring space.
>
> Now you tell us Asians and blacks are not only of the same intelligence,
> but the same size too. Right, and what you do here is a typical tactic.
You've provided no evidence to back up you claim Bard. Asians var yas
much as Blacks vary. You simply can't argue that Asians are taller than
Blacks, and I challengwe you to find an anthroplogist who will say there
is. And mind you, he can't get a scientist with a clearly political
adgenda.
> Losing the rational argument on all fronts, you resort to the absurd one.
You've lost the rational arguement on all fronts. There's no difference
in size between Asians and Blacks ,and there no proven differences in
brains of different racial groups. You couldn't even set out a
definition for Asian or Black. Both Asia and Africa are quite diverse.
What does an Indian have in common with a Korean? After all they are
both Asians? Masai and Pygmies are both Black, but what do they have
in common, other than their Blackness.
Justin Samuels
kumar yelubandi wrote:
>
>
> Encephalometric/craniometric pseudoscience, IMO. The quick
> laboratory for this is the cosmopolitan street. Go out and study
> the head sizes of the various 'racial' groupings that stride by a
> busy street corner...and I challenge anyone to actually resolve
> (or order-rank) head size according to 'race'. As for head shape,
> the differences appear to be minimal. Certainly, the African
> American head shape is virtually indistinguishable from the
> European or the South Asiatic...and both are approximately the
> same shape as the Far Asiatic.
And anthropologists who say they can tell the race of a person by
looking at the skull don't sue head shapes. As you said, the head shape
of Africans is indistinguishable from Europeans or South Asians. They
use the nasal index to estimate whether the person is Black. But
there's no proof that these physical differences have anythig do with
intelligence. No one has proven a difference between the brains of
those belonging to different races as I, Kumar, and others have said.
Gary Lloyd
>
>Gary Lloyd wrote:
>> another question. Perhaps, blacks are smarter as Professor Jeffries says;
>> however, this is not the point. The point is if we look at every component
>> of a person, compile aggregate numbers, compare these numbers to a second,
>> third, and forth race, we arrive at dramatically different results every
>> time.
>[...]
>
> This is the fallacy of argument by personal conviction.
> Fact remains, scalar numbers for physical observables like height,
> and skin color, and finger thickness, and penis size, and etc...
> are totally incompatible with scalar numbers for intelligence,
> precisely because the latter is _NOT_ a physical observable.
> Intelligence is an intuited observable.
> And intuited observables must first be mapped onto a physical
> observable before any meaningful scalar can be assigned, and
> an aggregate number computed, for each individual...which may
> then be compared, after group averaging, with group averages for
> other races. Ordered ranks for 'racial' intelligence to follow.
> And the first real opportunity to do this with the nonphysical
> observable, intelligence...is to map the genome for the IQ genes
> ...IOW, to bring intelligence into the arena of the physically
> observable.
>
> Failing that, you have only the joker's thesis of race-based
> intelligence, with nary a shrub of substance.
>
>
> _/_ zookumar _/_ yelubandi _/_
> _/_ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_
>
You miss the point. The differences in physical appearance give more
credence to the notion of internal -- under the skin -- differences than
not. The methodology you suggest may eventually establish this as fact or
not, but until this is done we are limited in talking about such things
with precision -- limited, not stopped. For example, if blacks are on the
whole taller, heavier, of thicker bone than Asians we cannot be far wrong
in think the anatomy attached, contained, covering these superstructures
are different too, that is, there would exist a mean variation in cubic
centimeters of brain matter. And this is to say, we readily admit physical
differences between blacks and Asians exist (observable) but argue no
differences whatsoever extend to the brain -- why is this? You don't
answer this question in your text above. You give us nothing conclusive,
nor do you present any interesting insight. What you do is merely discuss
methodology, but this isn't what's in dispute.
kumar yelubandi
On 7 Sep 1997, Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> kumar yelubandi <aa...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in article
> <Pine.SUN.3.91.970906...@chebucto.ns.ca> with his usual
> total lack of scientific understanding:
> > Go out and study
> > the head sizes of the various 'racial' groupings that stride by a
> > busy street corner...and I challenge anyone to actually resolve
> > (or order-rank) head size according to 'race'.
> > As for brain size/weight...has anyone actually done some credible
> > science on this? ^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > _/_ zookumar _/_ yelubandi
> There are many published studies on racial differences in
> brain size and weight. What follows is
> a brief excerpt from a J.P.Rushton paper, and some references
> follow that to get you started on your reading.
No, no...you read me incorrectly.
I asked for credible science.
[deletia: Rushton's pseudoscience and citation list that includes
Rushton and Jensen]
David C. Waters
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein (efr...@worldsciuni.com) wrote:
: Understand that my motives for posting factual information pertaining
: to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism, which we all
: deplore, but in the interest of scientific integrity- a tragic victim
: of the efforts of corrupt social politicians to rewrite science texts
: and to suppress the dissemination of the scientific truth about racial
: differences.
Let's examine the so-called "scientific truth about racial differences"
by considering how race is defined. For the sake of this discussion,
let's assume that the concept of "racial purity" is valid using the three
"classic" groups: caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid.
Of course this ignores South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and
Australian Aborigines as separate races. There's no intention to
trivialize these groups as the point of this USENET discussion is to
demonstrate the arbitrary nature of racial definitions which, by
extension, further trivializes attempts to correlate intelligence (as
implied using IQ test scores) with so-called racial designations. The
arbitrary definition of intelligence and the significance of IQ test
scores has been previously discussed in this thread.
However, that being said, one would wonder how or why Native American
descendants of the Aztecs score poorly on IQ tests relative to their
Mongoloid cousins and despite the accomplishments of the Aztecs in
mathematics, astronomy, etc. Unfortunately, we don't have any IQ test
scores of the Aztecs prior to the time that they were conquered by
Europeans.
The Experiment
Let's suppose that there exists three male-female pairs who are
representative of a "pure" caucasoid couple, a "pure" mongoloid couple,
and a "pure" negroid couple. Let's assume ideal health/fitness
conditions for all couples and that their relative ages are the same.
Let's assume that the following rule(s) are followed for the production
of each successive generation:
Each female will produce exactly one male and one female. Each child
will have a different father whose "race" is different from that of its
mother.
Q: How does the (so-called) scientific classification of "race" apply in
this situation to maintain three racial designations for each
successive generation?
Q: How many generations are needed before new racial classifications are
created, assuming everyone shares the same (identical) social
environment?
blair patrick bromley
mba...@netcom.com (David C. Waters) writes:
>Dr. Efram E. Goldstein (efr...@worldsciuni.com) wrote:
>: Understand that my motives for posting factual information pertaining
>: to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism, which we all
>: deplore, but in the interest of scientific integrity- a tragic victim
>: of the efforts of corrupt social politicians to rewrite science texts
>: and to suppress the dissemination of the scientific truth about racial
>: differences.
>Let's examine the so-called "scientific truth about racial differences"
>by considering how race is defined. For the sake of this discussion,
>let's assume that the concept of "racial purity" is valid using the three
>"classic" groups: caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid.
I think the technical name for the fourth group is Australoid.
There may certainly be truth to arguments of a person's intellectual
capabilities being affected by genetics, but it isn't clear to what extent
it is affected. There is also the question about trends that appear to
exist between different racial and/or ethnic groups are affected by
genetics, and more by genetics than the culture, social/environment, and
economics.
To those who like to spend time noting the differences and citing a
genetic explanation, I ask, what is the point of all this? What good will
it do for society to pursue this theory?
Blair
--
Blair P. Bromley "The future of humanity lies in the exploration
Fusion Studies Laboratory and development of space. If humans choose to
103 S. Goodwin Avenue ignore the challenge and opportunity of space,
Urbana, Illinois, 61801 then they will condemn themselves to a mediocre
Mr. Toast
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote in article
<341173...@cornell.edu>...
> Gary Lloyd wrote:
> >
> > In article <mbanetEG...@netcom.com>,
> > David C. Waters <mba...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > >Gary Lloyd (gary...@havea.min.net) wrote:
[snip]
> Very well, Bard. Africans have tested low on IQ tests, but that's do
> to several reasons. Because of the extreme poverty that some African
> children face, their intellectual development has been hindered. It's
> been proven that inadequate nutrition can delay or cripple the
> development of the brain.
This is not disputed.
> And the researchers who give IQ tests nenver mention what languagethey
> give them in. Do they gove them in English? Or do the translate them
> into the subjects native language? In short, the Bell Curve type
> scientists are sloppy and don't fully describe their experiments.
Actually, the methodology is explained, but you have to go
back to the original author's work. M & H simply did a literature
review. They noted, however, that there was a reluctance to
report average IQ scores in the literature they reviewed.
Since it's SOP to give the test in the subjects native language,
I think your assumption that they didn't isn't really valid. One doesn't
usually report that the source of one's work that one is citing didn't
screw up, if they screwed up, you simply don't use their work. :-)
It would be damning if it were the case they gave the test in a language
the test subjects didn't understand.
Even if it were that the test were done in Africa improperly, it
wouldn't change their argument as far as populations in the U.S.
are concerned.
> As far as intelligence goes, the differences in the physical features
> you've named have nothing to with intelligence. No one has proved any
> organic differences between the brains of those of different races, so
> there is no proof of intelligent differences along these lines.
Organic differences?!
Would you say that Einstein was a few notches above normal
intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
and there were no organic differences found?
Golem
Kaiju wrote:
>
> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
>
>
Amen.
>
> So how do you explain the fact that people of African and West Indian
> heritage living in England surpass Anglos (read: whites) from that
> country in academic achievement and professionally?
Actually, that is only true for those of African descent. The West
Indians tend to do worse as a whole than the white British. The
difference between the two minority groups is that immigrants from the
African continent tend to come from well-to-do families with college
educations, while Caribbeans are more likely to come from poor
backgrounds (Sunday Times of London, Jan. 23, 1994). This comparison
has nothing to do with the relative intelligence or ability of the
ethnic groups as a whole, and everything to do with the selective nature
of immigration. Immigrant groups are not always representative of the
general population from which they are emigrating--they may be much more
able (or less able) than their ethnic population as a whole.
Mr. Toast
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote in article
<341174...@cornell.edu>...
> Mr. Toast wrote:
> >
> > He's talking about populations, not individuals. Statistically,
> > the existence of Clarence Thomas doesn't prove anything. As
> > for data, his cites were that long list of publications at the end
> > of your quote. Did you read the whole post?
>
> His so called data was most certainly insufficent. How does one make
> the claim that Black Americans are 20% white? What's the source of this
> data? How was it collected? It sounds like he or the sources he
> quoted simply pulled these figures out of the air.
I guess you didn't read the whole post. :-)
> > > And how do you explain that African immigrants, as a group, do so
well?
> > > You find that Africans disportionately in professional jobs and in
> > > academia. Your post was simple white racist bullshit.
> >
> > Great. Call it bullshit. You have data to back that up,
> > right? You wouldn't be so rude as to ignore a number
> > of cites with data, call the conclusions bullshit, and
> > have no data yourself, would you?
>
> Visit any university, and there's all the data you need.
Been there, done that...
> There;s
> abosolutely no evidence of this man's claims. Just because someone
> presents so called data doesn't mean it's true. And, when reading books
> of any sort, one should look for writer bias. But I guess you're the
> type to believe everything you read.
I am not the type to believe everything I read. When I was a young
anthro major, I remember going over all these traits and genes, and
noting how they varied in different populations. The text books claimed
that average intelligence, however, didn't vary between races!
I went to my anthro prof. How was it that everything, non-adaptive
traits as well as adaptive, varied EXCEPT intelligence?
How could we possibly conclude that, I asked, given the existing
evidence that there WERE differences in IQ.
He just smirked, and then said "Well, no thinking person would conclude
there was no difference." That stuck in my mind. Then he went on to say
that anthropology departments were in trouble with the Black studies
departments and black activists, and that they don't trust anthropology
departments as it is. If the text said that there were IQ differences
between
races, all anthropology departments across the country would be shut
down.
> And there is also researcher
> bias.
Well, we do have to sort out the bias, don't we. Don't forget the
bias of the egalitarians, who take the words "all men are created
equal" as a matter of faith and science.
> A biased researcher can simply throw away data that doesn't match
> what he wishes to believe, and keep the data that matches what he wishes
> to believe, or even alter data to match what he believes.
Clearly, in another post, you disregarded data gathered by Lynn from
11 studies by postulating that all 11 studies gave the test in some
other language than the subjects native tongue. No evidence, no
review of the method, it just wasn't suited to your beliefs so you presume
it was gathered wrong and dismissed it.
Quite clearly, a "biased researcher", or even a usenet poster,
can disregard data that they don't like or alter the data to match
what they believe. You just did it yourself!
> Just because
> a scientist say's it's so doesn't mean it. And we've no proof that this
> Dr. is even a doctor. Anyone can post anything on the usenet.
Ph.D. or not, it doesn't matter. What establishes credibility is one's
ability to go and reproduce the data. Eleven studies is reproduced,
isn't it?
Gary Lloyd
In article <mbanetEG...@netcom.com>,
David C. Waters <mba...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Dr. Efram E. Goldstein (efr...@worldsciuni.com) wrote:
>: Understand that my motives for posting factual information pertaining
>: to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism, which we all
>: deplore, but in the interest of scientific integrity- a tragic victim
>: of the efforts of corrupt social politicians to rewrite science texts
>: and to suppress the dissemination of the scientific truth about racial
>: differences.
>
>Let's examine the so-called "scientific truth about racial differences"
>by considering how race is defined. For the sake of this discussion,
>let's assume that the concept of "racial purity" is valid using the three
>"classic" groups: caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid.
>
>_/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
This is a lot of silliness. The question of "racial purity" has nothing
at all to do with the findings of _The Bell Curve_. Your introduction of
this nonsense is the typical straw man fallacy the opposition keeps
throwing against the wall. You'd have us believe two auto-mechanics
blissfully unfamiliar with scientific sampling wrote the book; that you, a
self-employed officer machine repairer knows more about such things. Just
throwing spaghetti on the wall hoping some of it will stick.
But it won't. The sampling Murray and company did was fine, as reliable as
any of the work we're liable to get from Nathan Hare or Clark. No problem
at all with the scientific integrity of their methods, good, solid work.
Now what else you got?
Gary Lloyd
In article <5uv87v$50a$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
blair patrick bromley <bro...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>mba...@netcom.com (David C. Waters) writes:
>
>
>>: Understand that my motives for posting factual information pertaining
>>: to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism, which we all
>>: deplore, but in the interest of scientific integrity- a tragic victim
>>: of the efforts of corrupt social politicians to rewrite science texts
>>: and to suppress the dissemination of the scientific truth about racial
>>: differences.
>
>>Let's examine the so-called "scientific truth about racial differences"
>>by considering how race is defined. For the sake of this discussion,
>>let's assume that the concept of "racial purity" is valid using the three
>>"classic" groups: caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid.
>
>
>
>
> There may certainly be truth to arguments of a person's intellectual
>capabilities being affected by genetics, but it isn't clear to what extent
>it is affected. There is also the question about trends that appear to
>exist between different racial and/or ethnic groups are affected by
>genetics, and more by genetics than the culture, social/environment, and
>economics.
>
> To those who like to spend time noting the differences and citing a
>genetic explanation, I ask, what is the point of all this? What good will
>it do for society to pursue this theory?
>
>
>Blair
>
>--
>Blair P. Bromley "The future of humanity lies in the exploration
Sorry, that's a question for the philosophers. The work of the scientist
is to determine proofs, not good or evil.
Gary Lloyd
In article <341335...@cornell.edu>,
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Mr. Toast wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Would you say that Einstein was a few notches above normal
>> intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
>> and there were no organic differences found?
>
>the motivation and the opportunity.
>>
>>
Right, shifting into Plan B already, are you, Mr. Samuels? Plan B, to
those of you unfamiliar with this much bally-hooed SCAA tactic is the Jesse
Jackson flava people like Mr. Samuels are apt to slip in once the
intellectual waters get too deep. "...motivation and the opportunity!"
"Each one teach one!" "I am somebody!"
Jim Tsou
blair patrick bromley wrote:
>
> To those who like to spend time noting the differences and citing a
> genetic explanation, I ask, what is the point of all this? What good will
> it do for society to pursue this theory?
I often wanted to ask Thomas Edison (if he were alive) the same
question. What good will it do for society to pursue the applications
of electricity?
Justin Samuels
Gary Lloyd wrote:
>
> In article <341335...@cornell.edu>,
> Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >Mr. Toast wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> Would you say that Einstein was a few notches above normal
> >> intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
> >> and there were no organic differences found?
> >
> >Einstein did nothing that no other person couldn't do. He simply had
> >the motivation and the opportunity.
> >>
> >>
>
> Right, shifting into Plan B already, are you, Mr. Samuels? Plan B, to
> those of you unfamiliar with this much bally-hooed SCAA tactic is the Jesse
> Jackson flava people like Mr. Samuels are apt to slip in once the
> intellectual waters get too deep. "...motivation and the opportunity!"
> "Each one teach one!" "I am somebody!"
>
Well, Bard, tell us what you are professionally, other than a troll.
What do you do in your real life. I am posting on this ng from study
breaks from the computer in the libray.(I spend a good part of each day
in the library studying.) How do you find so much time to post here?
Are you a white welfare king?
Justin Samuels
PipePR
MOST OF US NEVER SEEM TO LEARN FROM THE PAST !
As Psychologists, many prefer to deal with the here and now, focusing on a
narrow perspective of the human condition. We tend to dismiss or find
irrelevant the impact of history, the environment , culture, social class
and politics on individual behavior and cognition.
The ongoing discussion on whether Blacks are less intelligent or if
Mulatto's score higher on IQ tests because of a so called " Duffy Gene ",
sounds more like 19th century pseudo-science similiar to the ideas
prevalent in Europe when they were dealing with the so called " Jewish
Question "
According to Sander L. Gilman's study, " The Case Of Sigmund Freud,
medicine and identity at the Fin de Sie`cle":
" There is no category of supposed human beings that come closer to the
orangutan than does the Polish Jew ", said a Bavarian writer , reflecting
the 18th century view that Jews were profoundly flawed.
The Jewish body, popular opinion held, was malformed , from feet to nose,
and predisposed to a hosts of illnesses ranging from the plague to
hysteria. The Jewish soul had a peculiar stench. The Jewish libido had a
tendency toward incest. The Jewish gaze was pathological and precluded the
possibility of unbiased observation.
By the close of the 19th century these ideas had found their way into
European Medical Journals, and the medical establishment was convinced that
Jews were both diseased and perverted. ___ Partial synopsis on book jacket.
" By conclusion of the 19th century the idea of a Jew as a criminal had
become part of the psychiatric literature on forensic pathology ". Page, 170.
I can go on indefinitely, but the point is that there is an inherent
danger when accepting, at face value , theories of presumed inferiority of
human beings as scientific fact.
As Daniel J. Goldhagen so clearly states in his study , " Hitler's Willing
Executioner's ", the European Holocaust was not just the product of a
single political movement but the culmination of a national psyche created
, and constantly pounded , by generations of " Scientific Studies " against
the Jews.
If we continue to internalize, rationalize and unquestionably accept these
so called " scientific theories " on Blacks and other unpopular
minorites as facts, we may be planting the seeds towards repeating 1930's
European History in XXI century America.
Gary Lloyd
In article <01bcbbe1$0a3df6c0$0f02000a@steve>,
>> Gary Lloyd wrote:
>> >
>> As far as intelligence goes, the differences in the physical features
>> you've named have nothing to with intelligence. No one has proved any
>> organic differences between the brains of those of different races, so
>> there is no proof of intelligent differences along these lines.
>
>Organic differences?!
>
>intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
>and there were no organic differences found?
>
sophisticated biotechnology available today the outcome would be
different?
Gary Lloyd
In article <01bcbbe3$28a4f1c0$0f02000a@steve>,><341174...@cornell.edu>...
>> A biased researcher can simply throw away data that doesn't match
>> what he wishes to believe, and keep the data that matches what he wishes
>> to believe, or even alter data to match what he believes.
>
>Clearly, in another post, you disregarded data gathered by Lynn from
>11 studies by postulating that all 11 studies gave the test in some
>other language than the subjects native tongue. No evidence, no
>review of the method, it just wasn't suited to your beliefs so you presume
>it was gathered wrong and dismissed it.
>
And this is the current level of intellectual discourse in black America
-- rejecting anything that doesn't meet their agenda. People like Justin
Samuels challenge your claim, demand evidence, then when you present
evidence they reject it out of hand. It really is quite the transparent
game they play, and they really fool no one. The question isn't the
scientific validity of _The Bell Curve_ it's the unpleasantness of the
book's conclusion. That's it in a nutshell.
Ron McDermott
Justin Samuels wrote:
>
> Mr. Toast wrote:
> >
> >
> > Would you say that Einstein was a few notches above normal
> > intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
> > and there were no organic differences found?
>
> simply had the motivation and the opportunity.
Let's not get totally ridiculous, shall we?! Are
you SERIOUSLY stating that all one needs is the
motivation and opportunity to be an Einstein?!
I have the motivation and opportunity to dunk a
basketball, but I couldn't do it when I was young
and in GOOD shape; I SURE as hell can't do it
NOW <g>!
David C. Waters
Gary Lloyd (gary...@havea.min.net) wrote:
[resopnding to my article questioning the def. of race]
: This is a lot of silliness. The question of "racial purity" has nothing
: at all to do with the findings of _The Bell Curve_.
Amazingly, you managed to miss the point! The issue isn't "racial
purity" nor is the discussion about _The_Bell_Curve_. Out of curiosity,
how do *your* reading comprehension scores weigh-in on standardized tests?
There are two primary issues here: one is the concept of "race" and the
other is the concept of "intelligence" as weighted by standardized IQ
test scores. The problem is that certain people insist upon drawing
correlations between the two and countless others belive that the
so-called findings are in some way meaningful.
Once again, the definition of "race" is arbitrary. The article of mine,
to which you responded, demonstrates this with a simple experiment that
in many ways has been carried out countless times throughout the history
of humankind.
Once again, IQ tests don't measure intelligence! There's more to human
behaviour that we don't understand than we do and intelligence is just
one of many things that remains undefined. Therefore, IQ tests must rely
on some arbitrary definition of intelligence and are therefore
meaningless, especially when making global generalizations about groups
of human beings.
For curiosity's sake, what do *you* think that the significance of the
findings of _The_Bell_Curve_ means and how should this information be
applied? How would these findings apply to individual human beings or
groups of human beings?
Gary Lloyd (gary...@havea.min.net) wrote:
: that you, a self-employed officer machine repairer knows more about
: such things.
A self-employed office[r] machine repairer? *Me*? It's a good idea to
know something about someone when you try to "get personal" with them,
especially in a public forum such as USENET. Since your information
source is wrong about me, why should anyone consider anything else you
write? Then again, *you're* relying on the (questionable) works of
others while I'm using my own thought and reason to form conclusions.
BTW, which group does *your* "intelligence" represent? :-)
Since you obviously have it wrong (please identify your sources), I'll be
very brief since my resume is quite extensive and there isn't a single
mention of office machine repair! Here's a sample of what I did when I
was only twenty (20) years old. I'll be specific so that, hopefully,
you'll gain some insight...I end-up doing this annually on USENET. :-/
[FYI: All that follows is an ad-hoc resume sample of mine]
* In 1981, I was the youngest technically/analytically functional member
of NASA's Space Shuttle Flight Support Team - Flight Systems Design and
Performance Dept. (Integrated Guidance, Navigation, and Control Team).
I directly contributed to a manager involved in the go/no-go decision
process leading to (or preventing) space shuttle launches.
In this capacity, I *SINGLE-HANDEDLY* developed a suite of programs
(software tools) to obtain and process weather balloon data from
hardcopy plots FAXed from the launch site as late as T-15 minutes. One
program digitized atmospheric data curves, using a cubic-spline method
for interpolation. Another formatted the data for processing by a
mainframe trajectory generator/analysis program, the M50. The M50 was
written by people who defined the shuttle's Flight System Software
Requirements.
The atmospheric data was uploaded to an IBM-360 mainframe hosting the
M50 program. This pre-dated wide availability of electronic data
transfer between computers - our "state-of-the-art" modem was 300
BAUD. I had to perform minor modifications to Hewlett Packard's
terminal emulation software because of the relatively primitive data
transfer standards that existed at the time.
Output from the M50 Trajectory Generator/Analysis program was
downloaded to an HP-9845 desktop computer (from which the HP-9000
series of computer workstations grew). I *SINGLE-HANDEDLY* wrote
another program used to plot the tabulated data generated by the M50,
including all of the graphics code and intermediate utility programs
for file handling and storage.
This procedure, and thousands of lines of my original code, was developed
after the first Space Shuttle Flight (April 1981) for use by the second
flight in November 1981. Most so-called software developers today would
consider that an impossible task to complete given the technology/time
constraints in place.
Beyond that, I continued to support the space shuttle program and a DARPA
military project (2.5 years) for 14.75 years. I founded Multimedia
Business Answers (MBA) two years concurrent with the space shuttle
program effort before full-time involvement with MBA. MBA was based on
an interactive remote test monitoring tool that I developed for NASA on my
own time.
MBA is currently profitable and very diverse, including the use of
computer-generated special effects for a major television and film studio
(larger than a mouse) and various other projects underway. I've also
done UNIX Sys. Admin. consulting work (level II/III) for a CRAY server, a
couple of IBM RS-6000s (like "Deep Blue"), and some HP 9000 "K-servers"
for the global services wing of a very large computer maker.
Still, larger projects are underway at MBA...
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
kumar yelubandi
To which, I offer the following rebuttal from Einstein.
"The only justification for our concepts and system of concepts
is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences;
beyond this they have no legitimacy. I am convinced that the
philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of
scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from
the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control,
to the intangible heights of the a priori."
> This sort of evasiveness has been going on a long time.
Indeed. The active evasion from objective science has long
served philosophies whose very existence depends on turning away.
Facing truth has a sobering effect...both on myth-bathed minds
...and on sales made from the elixir wagon.
Scott Erb
In article <5uvi18$r...@havea.min.net>, gary...@havea.min.net says...
>>> Would you say that Einstein was a few notches above normal
>>> intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
>>> and there were no organic differences found?
>>Einstein did nothing that no other person couldn't do. He simply had
>>the motivation and the opportunity.
>Right, shifting into Plan B already, are you, Mr. Samuels? Plan B, to
>those of you unfamiliar with this much bally-hooed SCAA tactic is the Jesse
>Jackson flava people like Mr. Samuels are apt to slip in once the
>intellectual waters get too deep. "...motivation and the opportunity!"
>"Each one teach one!" "I am somebody!"
Uh, your response was a nice ad hominem, and it is certainly possible that
his position is wrong and yours is right, but ad hominem attacks and ridicule
do not an argument make.
Gary Lloyd
>[resopnding to my article questioning the def. of race]
>: This is a lot of silliness. The question of "racial purity" has nothing
>: at all to do with the findings of _The Bell Curve_.
>
>
>behaviour that we don't understand than we do and intelligence is just
>one of many things that remains undefined. Therefore, IQ tests must rely
>on some arbitrary definition of intelligence and are therefore
>meaningless, especially when making global generalizations about groups
>of human beings.
And here we see how truly silly the detractors of _The Bell Curve_ have
become. Being woefully unable to discredit methods and conclusions of the
authors, you attack the thing from a completely different angle -- "IQ
tests don't measure intelligence!"
Well, my friend, I'm not even going to dignify such silliness with a
response. No need. You've admitted defeat and shown you believe the
conclusions of _The Bell Curve_ are quite daunting indeed.
Oh, BTW, here's my resume: high school drop-out; used car salesman, phone
solicitor, chicken plucker...
Gary Lloyd
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.970908...@chebucto.ns.ca>,
kumar yelubandi <aa...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>On 7 Sep 1997, Mr. Toast wrote:
>> Gary Lloyd <gary...@havea.min.net> wrote in article
>> <5urhh3$q...@havea.min.net>...
>> > Evasive...
>> > And it seems this is the only response the "Bell Curve" detractors are
>> > capable of making, ie.: "We really can't say anything conclusive about
>> > anybody."
>>
>> Indeed! I agree. Einstein once wrote:
>>
>> "The only justification for our concepts and system of concepts
>> is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences;
>> beyond this they have no legitimacy. I am convinced that the
>> philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of
>> scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from
>> the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control,
>> to the intangible heights of the a priori."
>
> To which, I offer the following rebuttal from Einstein.
>
> "The only justification for our concepts and system of concepts
> is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences;
> beyond this they have no legitimacy. I am convinced that the
> philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of
> scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from
> the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control,
> to the intangible heights of the a priori."
This is called mimicking, sir. It hasn't any value at all. And it's
becoming clear you're not much of a thinker.
>
>> This sort of evasiveness has been going on a long time.
>
> Indeed. The active evasion from objective science has long
> served philosophies whose very existence depends on turning away.
> Facing truth has a sobering effect...both on myth-bathed minds
> ...and on sales made from the elixir wagon.
>
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_ _/_
> _/_ zookumar _/_ yelubandi _/_
"Facing truth"? And this, of course, is precisely what _The Bell Curve_
detractors are doing everything in their power not to do. It's so plain.
Blacks go to schools, learn all the science taught in these schools,
accept all of it; then when this science produces something they don't
want to hear, they reject it out of hand, say it's pseudo-science, etc,
all the while going on about honesty, objectivity, etc. The people behind
_The Bell Curve_ and similar studies have no racist resumes. Each was a
respected scientist or scholar whose methods and work was accepted and
awarded by the scientific community. How is it, they suddenly become
sloppy racists? Isn't this just a little hard to swallow? Doesn't it smack
of just a little incredulity?
Justin Samuels
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> Uh, your response was a nice ad hominem, and it is certainly possible that
> his position is wrong and yours is right, but ad hominem attacks and ridicule
> do not an argument make.
Precisely. But he can't make any arguements and he knows it.
G. Mark Stewart
Justin Samuels (js...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: Mr. Toast wrote:
: >
: >
: > Would you say that Einstein was a few notches above normal
: > intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
: > and there were no organic differences found?
: Einstein did nothing that no other person couldn't do. He simply had
: the motivation and the opportunity.
If there had been Affirmative Action for non-Einsteins, we could have
all thrown off the shackles of oppression and formulated the photoelectric
effect.
Plus, there would be millions and millions of kinds of atom bombs. So I
guess it works out.
G. Mark Stewart
G. Mark Stewart (gm...@grayfox.svs.com) wrote:
Oooh. Besides which, my IQ's 40 points higher than Einstein's, and I
could kick his ass. Which I threatened to do when he'd call me late at
night all drunk whining, "IQ doesn't mean NOTHIN'!!" in German. Which
pissed me off because of that Nobel Prize thing I'm still steamed about.
Justin Samuels
Gary Lloyd the White Welfare King drooled after drinking his booze:
You presented no evidence.
Justin Samuels
Gary Lloyd the White Welfare King drooled after drinking his booze:
>
> want to hear, they reject it out of hand, say it's pseudo-science, etc,
> all the while going on about honesty, objectivity, etc. The people behind
> _The Bell Curve_ and similar studies have no racist resumes. Each was a
> respected scientist or scholar whose methods and work was accepted and
> awarded by the scientific community. How is it, they suddenly become
> sloppy racists? Isn't this just a little hard to swallow? Doesn't it smack
> of just a little incredulity?
Name the awards. You don't know anything about the scientific community
Bard. I doubt you've set foot on a college campus, or actually been
inside a real institute.
Gary Lloyd
In article <3413FB...@cornell.edu>,
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>Gary Lloyd the White Welfare King drooled after drinking his booze:
>>
>
>> want to hear, they reject it out of hand, say it's pseudo-science, etc,
>> all the while going on about honesty, objectivity, etc. The people behind
>> _The Bell Curve_ and similar studies have no racist resumes. Each was a
>> respected scientist or scholar whose methods and work was accepted and
>> awarded by the scientific community. How is it, they suddenly become
>> sloppy racists? Isn't this just a little hard to swallow? Doesn't it smack
>> of just a little incredulity?
>
>Name the awards. You don't know anything about the scientific community
>Bard. I doubt you've set foot on a college campus, or actually been
>inside a real institute.
>>
>> --
I haven't, and what I know about the scientific community you could fit in
a thimble; more the reason why your ignorance is so astonishing. I know
far more about these things than you do. How to explain it, that you, a
man who should be whipping the dog shit out of me is being made to look
the fool at every turn?
Incidentally, Shockley, another proponent of low-black IQs, pioneered work
with transistors for which he and two of his colleagues won the Nobel
Prize. Murray, has a long history of distinguished work as does his late
co-author. See, you should know these things but don't.
Marc H. Pinsonneault
Gary Lloyd wrote:
>
> In article <341173...@cornell.edu>,
> Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >Gary Lloyd wrote:
> We don't dispute African Americans are better athletes, Eskimos are better
> equipped for Arctic weather, or Asians are smaller, why then do we refuse
> to accept the possibility there can be differences in intelligence too?
>
> The answer is obvious -- high intelligence is valued more than these other
> differences. High intelligence is what distinguishes man from the lower
> orders. Thus the question of intelligence is not merely a question of
> measurement, it is a question of the equality of man, and for this reason
> it is taboo.
>
> Now that's the truth of the thing, you know it, I know it, everybody knows
> it. Everything that follows is smoke and mirrors. "The Bell Curve" was
> good scientific work; certainly better than anything to yet challenge it.
This particular post dealt with the claim that the IQ of black
Americans was intermediate between that of black africans and white
americans, therfore claiming that this is based on an admixture of
"smart" white genes and "stupid" black genes.
I have a copy of Kamins devastating critique of this claim, in the
form of a book review in the February 1995 Scientific American.
The african IQ results come from Lynn, and include studies by Owens.
He found that "the English of the majority of black testees was so poor
that certain of the tests proved to be unusable". The tests also
assumed that Zulus were familiar with electrical appliances,
microscopes, and "Western type of ladies' accessories". Some of the
other results came from Raven's Progressive Matrices (which Raven has
clearly stated are not IQ tests and cannot be converted into IQs).
Mind you, the testgiver felt that the instructions for these tests
"are so easy that they can be explained with hand gestures".
(all from p. 100, 2/95 Scientific American, Leon Kamin "Behind the
Curve")
Yup, that's right. Tests in English given to people who don't
understand the language very well, or tests explained with hand
gestures. Furthermore, some of these tests aren't even intended to
be used as IQ tests. I wonder why they didn't do so well?
Hmmmm, I can see some reasons that don't have much to do with genetics.
It is this sort of pathetic science that has a lot of us convinced
that the Bell Curve is bad science in the traditional sense of the
word.
Marc Pinsonneault
> But The Bell Curve was also "bad science"; that is, science that doesn't
> advance mankind. Hiroshima was bad science, the Japanese and Nazi human
> experimentation labs were bad science; still, each was science.
>
> These are the things we have to understand about this question of
> intelligence; and that is, that the question is an unacceptable one,
> taboo, one that must never be honestly discussed. You, and the other
> members of this group, pretend that your interest is only to answer the
> question objectively; that if you truly believed there were differences
> you'd step forward and say so without hesitation; but you know this isn't
> the truth of it. You know you would never do that. You know that there is
> no evidence you'd ever accept as proof for to do so would mean accepting
> the notion that you are inferior something you'd never do either.
>
> Isn't this true?
>
> --
> Ins. of Piscatology & Advanced Autophobic Studies
> 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
> Wash, DC
>
> Gary Lloyd
> Publisher
> New Fishwrapper Times
--
Change x to . to get true email address.
K-Bar
> Okay, I'm a bit curious. If you argue that genetics rather than
environment has more bearing on someone's intelligence, would you then say
that the fact my grandmother was mulato makes me more intelligent than a
black person who had less caucasian lineage? If so I would hae to beg to
differ. K-Bar
F. Prefect
On Fri, 5 Sep 1997 16:26:18 GMT, mba...@netcom.com (David C. Waters)
wrote:
>
>John Charnock (J.M.Ch...@dl.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Where do you get your information that people of West Indian heritage
>: surpass Anglos? As far as I know it is an acknowledged problem with the
>: British educational system that children of West Indian background tend
>: to be underachievers at school compared with [...]
>
>Actually, the consensus of studies that I'm aware of cite African
>immigrants, not West Indians, as those who surpass all others in England.
>
>In the USA, although I'm unaware of documented reports, West Indians seem
>to do much better than their cousins in England.
>
>Hmmm...might there be a correlation between lower performance of
>colonized people, within the cultures that colonized them, as opposed to
>cultures to which they voluntarily selected?
>
>Besides, a more important question is to ask how different groups of West
>Indians ranked. Are the West Indians who seem to excel in the USA from
>the same (nation) group that are perceived as doing poorly in England?
>
>Could it be that the West Indians who do poorly in England are among
>people who migrated there, in part, for some sort of dole that was
>offered? If so, this could be telling...presuming the validity of any or
>all of these so-called relative performance studies.
>
> David "Prefers raw data - don't spoonfeed information!" Waters
Why is it so difficult to accept the premise of a slight variation in
IQ between the races when the are minor but obvious physical ones.
Secondly if there is a variance in IQ it might be very difficult to
detect do the fact that no test has been devised that that does not
contain cultural bias, thus making the results suspect.
F. Prefect
Mr. Toast
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote in article
<3411EF...@cornell.edu>...
[snip]
> The Bell Curve was garbage. I read it and the writers don't adequately
> explain their methods.
If you had read it, you would have noticed that the authors did
a literature review and gave the cites for their data. It is not
for them to quote the entire cite. It is there for you to look up.
> They do explain their results, but that's all.
> Since the information on their data collection and their methodolgy is
> so lacking, it seems like they took very small test groups to find out
> what they wanted to know. And through the results away that didn't
> agree with what he wanted.
This is exactly what you are doing. You don't like the results,
so you engage on idle speculation that the cites were all wrong
(there's a lot of cites in the book...) and then your wishful
thinking leads you to believe that you have made some sort of
scientific and reasoned decision.
> For example, for those people they tested
> low and belong to non English speaking groups, were they tested in
> English or in their native language? The book doesn't say.
Read the cite. Doesn't Cornell have a library? I'm sure they
do. Use it.
> Those
> Africans who tested low, were they tested in their native language.
Read their source.
> Were they chronically malnourished?(As you know this most certainly
> affects intelligence).
I wouldn't be surprised.
> The book doesn't give info on their health.
Cites. Don't they teach how to look up sources at Cornell?
> In
> short, the Bell Curve can't be called scientific work at all, Gary.
Thank you for sharing your feelings with us.
I can't believe anyone would dismiss a work because they
were too lazy to look up the references given in the work.
Justin Samuels
Gary Lloyd wrote:
>
> In article <3413FB...@cornell.edu>,
> Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Gary Lloyd the White Welfare King drooled after drinking his booze:
> >>
> >
> >> want to hear, they reject it out of hand, say it's pseudo-science, etc,
> >> all the while going on about honesty, objectivity, etc. The people behind
> >> _The Bell Curve_ and similar studies have no racist resumes. Each was a
> >> respected scientist or scholar whose methods and work was accepted and
> >> awarded by the scientific community. How is it, they suddenly become
> >> sloppy racists? Isn't this just a little hard to swallow? Doesn't it smack
> >> of just a little incredulity?
> >
> >Name the awards. You don't know anything about the scientific community
> >Bard. I doubt you've set foot on a college campus, or actually been
> >inside a real institute.
> >>
> >> --
>
> I haven't, and what I know about the scientific community you could fit in
> a thimble; more the reason why your ignorance is so astonishing. I know
> far more about these things than you do. How to explain it, that you, a
> man who should be whipping the dog shit out of me is being made to look
> the fool at every turn?
>
> Incidentally, Shockley, another proponent of low-black IQs, pioneered work
> with transistors for which he and two of his colleagues won the Nobel
> Prize. Murray, has a long history of distinguished work as does his late
> co-author. See, you should know these things but don't.
Let me enlighten you. There are many fields within science, and there
are fields with fields, and subfields within those fields. I am a
biologist, and I will specialize in some form of plant genetics or
agricultural genetics when I go to grad school.(Two years away, I am
only a junior).
At some point in the future I'll likely take human genetics, Bard. And
I'll have fun engaging you again in an arguement on the subject.
And you haven't made me look like a fool. You've done that to yourself.
And by the way, what's Murray's field? Where'd he get his degree
from? What degree or degrees does he have? On what authority is he
making these claims?
Mr. Toast
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote in article
> Not really. They had to find groups of people that didn't represent the
> real world, in order distort data to their liking. That's why their
> data collecting, and they methods the use are hardly even mentioned.
> Only their so called results are mentioned.
It's all in the back of the book. If you want to question how the
data was gathered, go look up the references and quit with the
childish make believe.
Mr. Toast
Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote in article
> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > > Justin Samuels (js...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> > > : How does one make the claim that Black Americans are 20% white?
What's
> >
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > : the source of this data? How was it collected? It sounds like he
or
> > > : the sources he quoted simply pulled these figures out of the air.
> >
> > The literature is extensive on the issue of racial admixture, genetic
> > methods
> > are used for making the determinations. See S.M.Garn, ed. (1968),
"Readings
> > on Race"
> > for several older review articles that in turn reference over 80
journal
> > studies. More recent information can be found in Cavalli-Sforza's
> > book "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (1994).
>
> In 1968 genetics was barely concieved.
See Mendel, 1866.
> There couldn't be a test of
> determining the percentage of white ancestry in black americans.
Why do you say that?
> The
> genes for skin color and other varying physcial features are a very
> small percentage of our genome.
Yeah, about 18 to 20 genes determine skin color. Which has very
little to do with race. Please recognize that skin color does not
equal race.
> Therefore, no scientist could
> adequately say that 20-25 percent of the genetic background of Black
> americans is white.
Not bad logic, but it's based on two false assumptions.
> Ther percentage would vary enormously with an
> individual family's history. As I suspected, the figures of the
> sources you quote are alll falsified made up data.
Another case of dismissing the data because you don't
like the result. This is why science is suppose to be done
by reasonable, unbiased people and not the idealistic
wishful thinkers.
> > The average "recent" white admixture in US blacks is about 20-25%, but
of
> > course this
> > varies from 0 to 100% depending on the individual case. These facts are
> > disputed by no one in the scientific community.
>
> And how was the average taken? From a very small test group of black
> americans? Probably no more than 20 people.
Wild speculation on your part. He cited, go check his sources.
> > Understand that my motives for posting factual information
> > pertaining to the IQ - race controversy is not done out of racism,
>
> Lies.
Now you can read people's minds too? Is there nothing that
you don't already know?
> which
> > we all deplore, but in the interest of scientific integrity-
>
> You have slaughtered scientific integrity. You are the example of
> someone using falsified ata to meet his own end. You're the type who
> throws away data that doesn't meet your beliefs. You're posting from a
> fake organization, using a fake name. That says it all. You're no
> scientist.
If you are going to say things like this, at least have the
forethought to remove all the times you dismiss data with
your own wild speculation and emotional bias.
Gary Lloyd
In article <34145F...@cornell.edu>,
Why are you telling us this? What does it have to do with the topic at
hand? You asked what I knew about TBC proponents. I responded. Now you
respond with the sophistry above. Man, you're hopeless.
>
>At some point in the future I'll likely take human genetics, Bard. And
>I'll have fun engaging you again in an arguement on the subject.
>
>And you haven't made me look like a fool. You've done that to yourself.
>
>And by the way, what's Murray's field? Where'd he get his degree
>from? What degree or degrees does he have? On what authority is he
>making these claims?
>
You're doing nothing but inhibiting the discussion with babble like this.
Your ghetto idea of what rational discourse means is as off-base as a
dog's idea of what it is he sees when he looks in a mirror.
mpla...@earthlink.net
Justin Samuels wrote:
>
> Mr. Toast wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Would you say that Einstein was a few notches above normal
> > intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
> > and there were no organic differences found?
>
> Einstein did nothing that no other person couldn't do. He simply had
> the motivation and the opportunity.
> >
> >
How about the INSIGHT??
CalifasArk
Justin,
About 10 years ago, the Guiness book featured a four year old
Korean boy as the person with the highest IQ. He spoke four languages
fluently, and worked calculus problems. Does this sound like a case of
motivation to you? Most four year olds are just learning not to pick
their noses in public.
P.S. His IQ results were over 200!
Tom
On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Justin Samuels wrote:
> Gary Lloyd wrote:
> >
> > In article <341335...@cornell.edu>,
> > Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > >Mr. Toast wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Would you say that Einstein was a few notches above normal
> > >> intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
> > >> and there were no organic differences found?
> > >
> > >Einstein did nothing that no other person couldn't do. He simply had
> > >the motivation and the opportunity.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > Right, shifting into Plan B already, are you, Mr. Samuels? Plan B, to
> > those of you unfamiliar with this much bally-hooed SCAA tactic is the Jesse
> > Jackson flava people like Mr. Samuels are apt to slip in once the
> > intellectual waters get too deep. "...motivation and the opportunity!"
> > "Each one teach one!" "I am somebody!"
> >
>
> Well, Bard, tell us what you are professionally, other than a troll.
> What do you do in your real life. I am posting on this ng from study
> breaks from the computer in the libray.(I spend a good part of each day
> in the library studying.) How do you find so much time to post here?
> Are you a white welfare king?
Lars...@genetik.uu.se
In article <5unrac$t...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" <efr...@worldsciuni.com> wrote:
[Mulatto hypothesis]
>
> Hopefully this information will be of some use. The significance of this
> is that it is direct evidence that racial group differences in IQ are
> genetically based- a fact that many corrupt researchers attempt
> to deny in their patronizing zeal to censor scientific reality
> and rewrite science texts to contain politically correct untruths.
>
> Dr.Efram E. Goldstein
One of the most clearcut "realities" in science is the notion that
correlation in itself does not prove causation. Thus, regardless of
how much or little IQ scores co-vary with geography or genetics it
doesn't say much about the genetic basis for the variation. Many
good genetic textbooks provide the basics for these sorts of
studies.
/Lars
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Gary Lloyd
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970908125821.19964E-100000@comp>,
CalifasArk <tem...@comp.uark.edu> wrote:
>Justin,
> About 10 years ago, the Guiness book featured a four year old
>Korean boy as the person with the highest IQ. He spoke four languages
>fluently, and worked calculus problems. Does this sound like a case of
>motivation to you? Most four year olds are just learning not to pick
>their noses in public.
>
>P.S. His IQ results were over 200!
> Tom
Hahaha... Yes, wasn't his statement ridiculous -- and he's posting from
Cornell, no less! Go figure...
Gary Lloyd
David C. Waters
: could kick his ass. Which I threatened to do when he'd call me late at
: night all drunk whining, "IQ doesn't mean NOTHIN'!!" in German. Which
: pissed me off because of that Nobel Prize thing I'm still steamed about.
:-)
In other words, if you weren't so much more *intelligent* than Einstein
then perhaps you'd be as *brilliant* as he was, right? :-) By extension,
if I were a little shorter then I'd probably be able to dunk a basketball
and play in the NBA like "Spud" Webb did! :-)
David "Like height in the NBA, IQ does not predict success!" Waters
Serene & Sanguine Sagacity
some lying cowardly asshole trying to call itself "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein"
<efr...@worldsciuni.com> cluelessly blathered tripe including but not
limited to the following completely erroneous claim:
>... light skinned ...smarter than dark skinned ...
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
Brain function has nothing to do with skin melanin.
~~~"Serene" *Sheila Green* "Sagacity"~~~
[aka Word Warrior green*@tristate.pgh.net]
"Eat me, and use your head for better than
the mere absorption of monitor radiation."
d...@gte.net
On Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:01:20 -0500, CalifasArk <tem...@comp.uark.edu>
wrote:
>Justin,
> About 10 years ago, the Guiness book featured a four year old
>Korean boy as the person with the highest IQ. He spoke four languages
>fluently, and worked calculus problems. Does this sound like a case of
>motivation to you? Most four year olds are just learning not to pick
>their noses in public.
>
>P.S. His IQ results were over 200!
> Tom
>
Can you tell us where this little
young pup is today and what is he
doing? I don't know much about
geniuses but I've heard that such
children reach a bright normal as
they mature to adulthood, which may
explain why I haven't met any around
our elderly ladened neighborhood.
DCI
ps: picking one's nose in public is
not so bad as one picking one's
subject of argument without any
knowledeg.
kumar yelubandi
On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, CalifasArk wrote:
> Justin,
> About 10 years ago, the Guiness book featured a four year old
> Korean boy as the person with the highest IQ. He spoke four languages
> fluently, and worked calculus problems. Does this sound like a case of
> motivation to you? Most four year olds are just learning not to pick
> their noses in public.
>
> P.S. His IQ results were over 200!
> Tom
Clearly, intelligence has a genetic component that varies from
individual to individual...and Einstein is an exceptional
intelligence, to be sure, as is that Korean boy. But it is
still pseudoscientific and/or inexact and/or meaningless to give
either Einstein or that Korean boy an integer designation for
their intelligence. That will have to await until the genome is
mapped, ie. intelligence is brought into the physically observable.
As it stands now, it is only intuited. It's quite easy to intuit
that Einstein is of a very high intelligence. It is not so easy to
intuit significant differences in intelligence along 'racial' lines
...because 'race' itself is vaguely defined...and because experience
tells us (if one has been living on the planet Earth for any
significant amount of time) that all the major human subraces/'races'
boast individuals of a very high intelligence.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_ _/_
_/_ zookumar _/_ yelubandi _/_
_/_ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_
Gary Lloyd
In article <mbanetEG...@netcom.com>,
David C. Waters <mba...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
In other words, you don't know a gag when you hear it, dumkopf.
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Justin Samuels wrote:
> > > About 10 years ago, the Guiness book featured a four year old
> > >Korean boy as the person with the highest IQ. He spoke four languages
> > >fluently, and worked calculus problems. Does this sound like a case of
> > >motivation to you? Most four year olds are just learning not to pick
> > >their noses in public.
>
> That child wasn't born doing calculus. He had aprents who pushed him.
> A friend of mine from China said that they already did alegebra by
> elementary school. She was shocked upon finding that her cousin in the
> third grade living in the US knew no alegebra. In Asian cultures, such
> a value is placed on learning that some parents will beat their kids if
> they get less than an A.
>
> And that same child, had he been born to poor parents or even will of
> parents who weren't interested in pushing him, would not have been doing
> calculus. SOurces like the Guiness Book of records or quite poor. They
> present tidbits of information, but not nearly enough to adequately
> explain things. Tom and Gary seem to have gotten the impression that
> this child had some sort of mystical ability. Other kids could have
> done it as well, had they parents interested in pushing them.
>
This child does have some extraordinary ability. Many well-prepared
college freshmen can't do calculus. You can beat a 4 year old all you like
and it won't give them the ability to manipulate abstract symbols if they
don't already have it. You can teach a child to follow steps by rote to
solve calculus problems but not to understand what they are doing, if they
haven't the necessary concepts.
Pushing or not, this behavior is something special and it needs to be
explained, not explained away.
Nancy
Justin Samuels
kumar yelubandi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, CalifasArk wrote:
> > Justin,
> > Korean boy as the person with the highest IQ. He spoke four languages
> > fluently, and worked calculus problems. Does this sound like a case of
> > motivation to you? Most four year olds are just learning not to pick
> > their noses in public.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Clearly, intelligence has a genetic component that varies from
> individual to individual..
Absolutely not. And a big part of intelligence is enviroment.
Nutrition can play a role as well. Had Einstein or that child grown up
severely malnourished, they most certainly wouldn't have been geniouses.
That boy had parents who pushed him. He didn't have calculus in his
genes, or some such nonsense. If the same child have been placed in the
care of a crack addict, he wouldn't have turned out a child genius.
Justin Samuels
Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
>
> some lying cowardly asshole trying to call itself "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein"
> <efr...@worldsciuni.com> cluelessly blathered tripe including but not
> limited to the following completely erroneous claim:
>
> >... light skinned ...smarter than dark skinned ...
>
> Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>
> Brain function has nothing to do with skin melanin.
>
I was wondering where you'd gotten to Sheila. Nice to see you again.
Gary Lloyd
In article <3415C2...@cornell.edu>,
Where do you get this stuff from? Are you saying that if we took a
chimpanzee and fed it nothing but _60 Minutes_, Masterpiece Theater, and
_Firing Line_ he'd fit right in a Washington, DC cocktail party?
Gary Lloyd
In article <3415C1...@cornell.edu>,>> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970908125821.19964E-100000@comp>,
>> CalifasArk <tem...@comp.uark.edu> wrote:
>> >Justin,
>> > About 10 years ago, the Guiness book featured a four year old
>> >Korean boy as the person with the highest IQ. He spoke four languages
>> >fluently, and worked calculus problems. Does this sound like a case of
>> >motivation to you? Most four year olds are just learning not to pick
>> >their noses in public.
>> >
>> >P.S. His IQ results were over 200!
>> > Tom
>>
>> Cornell, no less! Go figure...
>>
>
>they are under 12. In many cultural backgrounds, parents teach the kids
>more than one language at one time. Us Hispanics may teach their kids
>English and SPanish at the same time, in SOuth American kids may learn
>SPanish and Gurani or Quechua at the same time.
>
>In many countries, foriegn language instruction begins as soon as the
>kids reach school age.
>
>That child wasn't born doing calculus. He had aprents who pushed him.
>A friend of mine from China said that they already did alegebra by
>elementary school. She was shocked upon finding that her cousin in the
>third grade living in the US knew no alegebra. In Asian cultures, such
>a value is placed on learning that some parents will beat their kids if
>they get less than an A.
>
You don't understand the discussion at all. You have a slow, dull-witted
way of seeing things. And The problem is, this thread is being read in
groups other than SCAA. Don't take my word for it, watch how everyone
begins slamming what you've written above.
Anyway, the point the Tom was trying to make was that an IQ of 200 in a
four-year-old child happens about once in five or ten billion people.
This, of course, is a simplistic way of explaining it, but how else can we
put it in terms you'll understand? Your argument seems to be some absurd
mis-use of one of our culture's many homilies -- home-spun wisdom, Rev.
Vincent Peale's inspiring thoughts to live by -- whatever, the kind of
corn-flavored bubble-gum that has no place in discussions about
intelligence and scientific measurement. Indeed, you're like the country
bumpkin who comes to town, takes a seat in the restaurant, overhears a
conversation about foot pain, then takes of his brogans to show everyone
how big his bunions are.
Learn when to talk, and when not to. You're at Cornell, for Pete's sake.
Go out and meet some of your fellow students. You're missing half your
education by hiding out in the black student union with other
funny-thinking people like yourself. Get yourself a white girlfriend, join
the school newspaper, sign-up for a political club. Do something, man.
Broaden your horizons. People expect things of you and at the rate you're
going you're going to be a major disappointment.
PS: And don't say anything smart when you respond. I've been taking it
easy on you so far. Try to take it to another level, and I'll really give
your ignorant ass a spanking.
David C. Waters
: >G. Mark Stewart (gm...@grayfox.svs.com) wrote:
: >: Oooh. Besides which, my IQ's 40 points higher than Einstein's, and I
: >: could kick his ass. Which I threatened to do when he'd call me late at
: >: night all drunk whining, "IQ doesn't mean NOTHIN'!!" in German. Which
: >: pissed me off because of that Nobel Prize thing I'm still steamed about.
: David C. Waters <mba...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >:-)
: >In other words, if you weren't so much more *intelligent* than Einstein
: >then perhaps you'd be as *brilliant* as he was, right? :-) By extension,
: >if I were a little shorter then I'd probably be able to dunk a basketball
: >and play in the NBA like "Spud" Webb did! :-)
: >
: > David "Like height in the NBA, IQ does not predict success!" Waters
Gary Lloyd (gary...@havea.min.net) wrote:
: In other words, you don't know a gag when you hear it, dumkopf.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Once again, Gary Lloyd demonstrates his lack of reading comprehension
skills, or failure to understand emoticons. But this time he does it in
dramatically ironic fashion as he flames himself without realizing so!
David "Breaking out the marshmallows!" Waters
Kaiju
Morris wrote:
>
> Can Phillipe Rushton be taken as an objective analyst of 'racial
> intelligence' given that he is a spokesperson for a 'White supremacist
> organisation in Canada?
> AAMM
Precisely. I can't understand why anyone is taking this thread
seriously, no less trying to engage this so-called "Doctor" who isn't
even Jewish, seriously. Most of these "cites" are highly biased and
mostly have been debunked long ago as being either inconclusive or
downright wrong.
He's a troll. Nothing more. Why even get sucked in by his pseudo-
scientific tone?
Kaiju
Justin Samuels
And that same child, had he been born to poor parents or even will of
parents who weren't interested in pushing him, would not have been doing
calculus. SOurces like the Guiness Book of records or quite poor. They
present tidbits of information, but not nearly enough to adequately
explain things. Tom and Gary seem to have gotten the impression that
this child had some sort of mystical ability. Other kids could have
done it as well, had they parents interested in pushing them.
> Gary Lloyd
>
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Justin Samuels wrote:
> >
> >> Gary Lloyd wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <341335...@cornell.edu>,
> >> > Justin Samuels <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >> > >Mr. Toast wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Would you say that Einstein was a few notches above normal
> >> > >> intelligence? Did you know that his brain was sliced and diced
> >> > >> and there were no organic differences found?
> >> > >
> >> > >Einstein did nothing that no other person couldn't do. He simply had
> >> > >the motivation and the opportunity.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> > Right, shifting into Plan B already, are you, Mr. Samuels? Plan B, to
> >> > those of you unfamiliar with this much bally-hooed SCAA tactic is the Jesse
> >> > Jackson flava people like Mr. Samuels are apt to slip in once the
> >> > intellectual waters get too deep. "...motivation and the opportunity!"
> >> > "Each one teach one!" "I am somebody!"
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, Bard, tell us what you are professionally, other than a troll.
> >> What do you do in your real life. I am posting on this ng from study
> >> breaks from the computer in the libray.(I spend a good part of each day
> >> in the library studying.) How do you find so much time to post here?
> >> Are you a white welfare king?
Kaiju
G. Mark Stewart wrote:
>
> Jim Tsou (ts...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : K-Bar wrote:
> : >
> : environment vs genetics, I wholeheartedly agree that environment is more
> : important.
>
> It strikes me as rather silly that folks can argue for days that intelligence
> is a complex thing and not any single quanitifiable characteristic and not
> measurable any test... and then claim that they know for a fact that all
> groups of humans have the same average intelligence.
I'll go one better. "Average" intelligence across broad spectrums of
groups means diddly.
Kaiju <this entire thread is a waste of bandwidth>
Justin Samuels
Gary Lloyd wrote:
>
> Where do you get this stuff from? Are you saying that if we took a
> chimpanzee and fed it nothing but _60 Minutes_, Masterpiece Theater, and
> _Firing Line_ he'd fit right in a Washington, DC cocktail party?
You know, there was this show where they'd trained apes to act. With
all the garbage that comes out of Washington, apes certainly couldn't do
worse.
:)
Jon
Jon wrote:
We are all capable of only so much (intellectually and athletically)
based on our genetic endowment. Nobody can really say what any given
person's limitations are because the effects of heredity and
environment are not easily measured. But an optimal environment will
result in an individual making full use of their genetic endowment. If
all children were raised under similar circumstances much less
discrepancy in performance across ethnic and class lines would be
recorded. But all children are not raised under similar circumstances.
Not even close.
--
Before the beginning of great brilliance, there must be chaos.
- I Ching
Remove NOSPAM from e-mail address to reply.
jon...@juno.com
Justin Samuels
Gary Lloyd wrote:
> You don't understand the discussion at all. You have a slow, dull-witted
> way of seeing things. And The problem is, this thread is being read in
> groups other than SCAA. Don't take my word for it, watch how everyone
> begins slamming what you've written above.
>
> Anyway, the point the Tom was trying to make was that an IQ of 200 in a
> four-year-old child happens about once in five or ten billion people.
And you missed my arguement. No matter how hi a child's IQ, that child
must have certain circumstances for that IQ to foster. Had that young
one's parents been killed in a car accident, and the child placed in the
custody of drug addicts, that child would not have achieved much.
Enviroment and nutrition defintely have a role.
Indeed, you're like the country
> bumpkin who comes to town, takes a seat in the restaurant, overhears a
> conversation about foot pain, then takes of his brogans to show everyone
> how big his bunions are.
I am a country bumpkin, and quite proud of it!
join
> the school newspaper,
Weird. I was jsut thinking about doing that. I just wrote them a
letter.
sign-up for a political club.
Weird. Yet another thing I was just thinking about doing.
Do something, man.
> Broaden your horizons.
And you should broaden yours.
Jim Tsou
Gary Lloyd
In article <3415fea4...@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>, <E...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 8 Sep 1997 20:28:13 GMT, "Mr. Toast" <br...@toaster.com> wrote:
>>> The
>>> genes for skin color and other varying physcial features are a very
>>> small percentage of our genome.
>>
>>Yeah, about 18 to 20 genes determine skin color. Which has very
>>little to do with race. Please recognize that skin color does not
>>equal race.
>
>determined by only 3 or 4 genes.
>
>
>>
>>> Therefore, no scientist could
>>> adequately say that 20-25 percent of the genetic background of Black
>>> americans is white.
>>
>>Not bad logic, but it's based on two false assumptions.
>
>Take the FY-0 gene, it has an 87% gene frequency in pure black
>africans and 0.3% frequency in euros. You then take a large sample of
>AAs and calculate their gene frequency for this gene. Then there are
>about another hundred or so genes that vary between whites and AAs,
>you do the same thing for those. The way it is done exactly is much
>more complex but you get the idea.
>
>Interesting thing is that AAs were 100% 'black' on arrival, but now
>only 70% black and dropping (according to renowned geneticist
>cavalli-sforza's findings). With intermarriage rates both with whites
>and now asians rising, this percentage will continue to drop and
>eventually will reach under 50%. Will they still be black. The rate
>will keep dropping and from what the IQ experts say the IQ should keep
>increasing. What do you all think.
>
Is there such thing as a Jewish gene? They've been around for at least
four thousand years. I'm thinking, blacks could get to look like Brad Pitt
and Gwyneth Paltrow and still talk the talk and walk the walk.
Jon
Justin Samuels wrote:
>
> kumar yelubandi wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, CalifasArk wrote:
> > > Justin,
> >
> from
> > individual to individual..
>
> Absolutely not. And a big part of intelligence is enviroment.
> Nutrition can play a role as well. Had Einstein or that child grown
> up
> severely malnourished, they most certainly wouldn't have been
> geniouses.
>
> That boy had parents who pushed him. He didn't have calculus in his
> genes, or some such nonsense. If the same child have been placed in
> the
> care of a crack addict, he wouldn't have turned out a child genius.
Jon wrote:
And many children, placed in the care of that Korean child's parents
and given the same nurturing, would not turn out to be child geniuses.
G. Mark Stewart
Jim Tsou (ts...@earthlink.net) wrote:
It strikes me as rather silly that folks can argue for days that intelligence
is a complex thing and not any single quanitifiable characteristic and not
measurable any test... and then claim that they know for a fact that all
groups of humans have the same average intelligence.