Racial and national IQ differences
Robert Henderson
Note: A caution should be issued about such studies. One really needs to
know
the social backgrounds of the samples. Urban populations generally
score better than rural populations. Moreover, the samples may not have
been random. For example, in the case of African studies, if
the studies were made of schoolchildren, the likelihood is that those
tested would have been not only from the towns but also from the
wealthier classes because only the wealthier will generally be able to
send their children to secondary school - there is not a great deal of
point in testing children below primary school age, because IQ scores
for young children are somewhat unreliable.
>
The figures for black Africa average out below even Richard Lynn's
average circa 1990. One can also trace the influence of blacks in
countries with a large black component, ie lower overall score.
With average IQs around 70 it is scarcely surprising that the African
societies are in such a shambles. They lack both sufficient numbers of
people with sufficient intellect to run a modern state and the generally
low intellect will mean that the average African is rather childlike -
low IQ people )60-75) are not monsters or idiots, rather they have a
poor capacity to handle abstractions, plan for the future, project
beyond their own ego etc.
Interesting to see that not all the Chinese IQ results show higher than
Caucasian average.
RH
Source: "Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations" ( Richard
Lynn &
>Tatu Vahanen, 2000-02)
>
> Country
> Age
> Test
> Sample
> IQ av
> Reference
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Argentina
> 5-11
> CPM
> 420
> 98
> Raven et al., 1998
>
> Australia
> 5-10
> CPM
> 700
> 98
> Raven et al., 1995
>
> Australia
> 8-17
> SMP
> 4,000
> 99
> Raven et al., 1996
>
> Belgium
> 7-13
> SMP
> 944
> 99
> Goosens, 1952
>
> Brazil
> 14
> SMP
> 160
> 88
> Natalicio, 1968
>
> Brazil
> 7-11
> CPM
> 505
> 84
> Angelini et al., 1988
>
> Brazil
> 5-11
> CPM
> 1,131
> 90
> Angelini wt al., 1988
>
> Brazil
> 5-11
> CPM
> 1,547
> 85
> Angelini et al., 1988
>
> Britain
> 6-15
> SPM
> 3,258
> 100
> Raven, 1981
>
> Canada
> 7-12
> SPM
> 313
> 97
> Raven et al., 1996
>
> China
> 6-79
> SPM
> 5,108
> 98
> Raven et al., 1996
>
> Congo (Br)
> Adults
> SPM
> 320
> 73
> Ombredane et al., 1952
>
> Congo (Br)
> 13
> SPM
> 88
> 72
> Nkaya et al., 1994
>
> Congo (Zaire)
> 10-15
> SPM
> 222
> 68
> Laroche, 1959
>
> Croatia
> 13-16
> SPM
> 299
> 90
> Sorokin, 1954
>
> Cuba
> 12-18
> SMP
> 1,144
> 85
> Alonso, 1974
>
> Czech Rep.
> 5-11
> CPM
> 832
> 98
> Raven et al., 1996
>
> Denmark
> 12
> SPM
> 628
> 97
> Vejleskov, 1968
>
> Egypt
> 6-12
> SPM
> 129
> 83
> Ahmed, 1989
>
> Ethiopia
> 15-16
> SPM
> 250
> 67
> Lynn, 1994
>
> Finland
> 7
> SPM
> 755
> 98
> Kyostio, 1972
>
> France
> 6-9
> CPM
> 618
> 97
> Bourdier, 1964
>
> Germany
> 11-15
> SPM
> 2,068
> 105
> Raven, 1981
>
> Germany
> 6-10
> CPM
> 3,607
> 101
> Raven et al., 1995
>
> Ghana
> 15
> CPM
> 1,639
> 62
> Glewwe & Jacoby, 1992
>
> Guinea
> 20
> SPM
> 1,144
> 70
> Faverge et al., 1962
>
> Hong Kong
> 3-13
> SPM
> 13,822
> 103
> Lynn et al., 1988
>
> Hong Kong
> 6-15
> SPM
> 4,500
> 110
> Lynn et al., 1988
>
> Hong Kong
> 6
> CPM
> 4,858
> 109
> Chan & Lynn, 1989
>
> India
> 9-15
> CPM
> 5,607
> 81
> Sinha, 1968
>
> India
> 5-10
> CPM
> 1,050
> 82
> Rao & Reddy, 1968
>
> India
> 11-15
> SPM
> 569
> 82
> Raven et al., 1996
>
> Iran
> 15
> SPM
> 627
> 84
> Valentine, 1957
>
> Iraq
> 14-17
> SPM
> 204
> 87
> Abul-Hubb, 1972
>
> Iraq
> 18-35
> SPM
> 1,185
> 85
> Abul-Hubb, 1972
>
> Ireland
> 6-13
> SPM
> 3,466
> 87
> Raven, 1981
>
> Israel
> 9-15
> SPM
> 250
> 90
> Lynn, 1994
>
> Italy
> 11-16
> SPM
> 2,432
> 103
> Tesi & Young, 1962
>
> Japan
> 9
> SPM
> 444
> 110
> Shigehisa & Lynn, 1991
>
> Kenya
> Adults
> CPM
> 205
> 69
> Boissiere et al., 1985
>
> Kenya
> 6-10
> CPM
> 1,222
> 75
> Costenbader et al., 2000
>
> Korea, South
> 9
> SPM
> 107
> 106
> Lynn & Song, 1994
>
> Malaysia
> 7-12
> SPM
> 5,412
> 92
> Chaim, 1994
>
> Mexico
> 6-11
> CPM
> 597
> 84
> Raven, 1986
>
> Mexico
> 6-11
> CPM
> 434
> 95
> Raven, 1986
>
> Mexico
> 9-12
> SPM
> 404
> 84
> Raven, 1986
>
> Netherlands
> 4-10
> CPM
> 1,920
> 99
> Raven et al., 1995
>
> Netherlands
> 6-12
> SPM
> 4,032
> 101
> Raven et al., 1996
>
> New Zealand
> 8-17
> SPM
> 2,635
> 101
> Reid & Gilmore, 1989
>
> Nigeria
> Adults
> SPM
> 86
> 69
> Wober, 1969
>
> Nigeria
> 6-13
> CPM
> 375
> 69
> Fahrmeier, 1975
>
> Peru
> 8-11
> CPM
> 4,382
> 76
> Raven et al., 1995
>
> Philippines
> 12-13
> SPM
> 203
> 86
> Flores & Evans, 1972
>
> Poland
> 6-15
> SPM
> 4,006
> 92
> Jarorowska et al., 1991
>
> Portugal
> 6-12
> CPM
> 807
> 91
> Simoes, 1989
>
> Puerto Rico
> 5-11
> CPM
> 2,400
> 83
> Raven et al., 1995
>
> Puerto Rico
> 8-15
> SPM
> 2,911
> 84
> Raven & Court, 1989
>
> Qatar
> 12
> SPM
> 273
> 78
> Bart et al., 1987
>
> Romania
> 6-10
> CPM
> 300
> 94
> Zahirnic et al., 1974
>
> Russia
> 14
> SPM
> 432
> 96
> Raven, 1988
>
> Sierra Leone
> Adults
> CPM
> 60
> 67
> Berry, 1966
>
> Singapore
> 13
> SPM
> 147
> 103
> Lynn, 1977
>
> Slovak Rep.
> 5-11
> CPM
> 832
> 98
> Raven et al., 1995
>
> Slovenia
> 8-18
> SPM
> 1,556
> 95
> Roben, 1999
>
> South Africa
> 16
> SPM
> 3,993
> 72
> Owen, 1992
>
> Spain
> 4-9
> CPM
> 1,189
> 96
> Raven et al., 1995
>
> Switzerland
> 6-10
> CPM
> 408
> 99
> Raven et al., 1995
>
> Switzerland
> 6-10
> CPM
> 167
> 102
> Raven et al., 1995
>
> Sudan
> 8-12
> SPM
> 148
> 72
> Ahmed, 1989
>
> Taiwan
> 6-7
> CPM
> 43,825
> 103
> Hsu, 1976
>
> Thailand
> 8-10
> CPM
> 1,358
> 91
> Pollitt et al., 1989
>
> Taiwan
> 9-12
> SPM
> 2,496
> 105
> Lynn, 1997
>
> Tanzania
> 17
> SPM
> 2,959
> 78
> Klingelhofer, 1967
>
> Tanzania
> Adults
> CPM
> 179
> 69
> Boissiere et al., 1985
>
> Turkey
> 6-15
> SPM
> 2,277
> 90
> Sahin & Duzen, 1994
>
> United States
> 18-70
> SPM
> 625
> 98
> Raven et al., 1996
>
> Uganda
> 11
> CPM
> 2,019
> 73
> Heyneman et al., 1980
>
> Uruguay
> 12-44
> SPM
> 1,634
> 96
> Risso, 1961
>
> Zambia
> 13
> SPM
> 894
> 75
> MacArthur et al., 1964
>
> Zimbabwe
> 12-14
> SPM
> 204
> 70
> Zindi, 1994
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal http://members.dencity.com/delenda/
Personal web site http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
--
Robert Henderson
Gaz
--
X-No-archive: yes
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8HiBrwAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
> Note: A caution should be issued about such studies. One really needs to
> know
> the social backgrounds of the samples. Urban populations generally
> score better than rural populations. Moreover, the samples may not have
> been random. For example, in the case of African studies, if
> the studies were made of schoolchildren, the likelihood is that those
> tested would have been not only from the towns but also from the
> wealthier classes because only the wealthier will generally be able to
> send their children to secondary school - there is not a great deal of
> point in testing children below primary school age, because IQ scores
> for young children are somewhat unreliable.
> >
> The figures for black Africa average out below even Richard Lynn's
> average circa 1990. One can also trace the influence of blacks in
> countries with a large black component, ie lower overall score.
>
> With average IQs around 70 it is scarcely surprising that the African
> societies are in such a shambles. They lack both sufficient numbers of
> people with sufficient intellect to run a modern state and the generally
> low intellect will mean that the average African is rather childlike -
> low IQ people )60-75) are not monsters or idiots, rather they have a
> poor capacity to handle abstractions, plan for the future, project
> beyond their own ego etc.
>
> Interesting to see that not all the Chinese IQ results show higher than
> Caucasian average.
> RH
>
>
As someone who has read Charles Murray 'The Bell Curve', cover to cover, and
accepted some of the reasoning, but not the conclusions of the book, how
neutral can the testing for cognitive ability be? The few black people I do
know, from West Africa, my relatives, are educated to a level not obtained
by anybody in my circle of family and friends, my wife's father was a profes
sor of economics, all her sisters have degrees, her brother has a masters
degree, her cousins have doctorates, ranging from Dentistry to general
medical.
However, in a society where letters and numbers, books, and sources of
information and learning are within easy reach, where even the most basic of
plaything has been scientifically designed to encourage educational growth,
compared to sub-Saharan African nation, where life is continual struggle for
survival, where large families result in little individual attention, where
learning is how to pull a plough or cook a chicken, how fair are the tests?
Gaz
Unferth
great deal of ambiguity about the meaning of the results. It has been shown
that white American IQ results have improved by ~10% in the last 25 years.
Obviously this brings into doubt a purely racial interpretation of the
results.
It is an interesting subject and may have racial implications but I would
argue even if it did it would still be better to judge people on IQ tests
rather than the colour of their skin.
Bastered
wrote:
I've read these things off and on for some years, and the thing that
strikes me every time, is how closely these IQ medians follow the
popular prejudices about peoples' intelligence. I think we've had it
right all along in that regard, even if the resultant bigotry is
non-productive.
Bobby
brown eyes compared to blue?
Also if you want to measure say Blacks go to a Black country which is poor
as hell and the education system is just third world. Or perhaps go to a
Western country where the Black areas are made up mainly of immigrants and
the next couple of generations ie poor as hell. Race is not the only
variable factor so it is scientifically unfounded to make conclusions, of
course being of the master race you would know that.
Bastered <ilu...@zoidberg.net> wrote in message
news:jsvl6u0cdfoh36dag...@4ax.com...
Bastered
<b*o*b*s*i*l*b*y@*a*o*l.*c*om> wrote:
>Do taller people score better than shorter people, how about people with
>brown eyes compared to blue?
>
>Also if you want to measure say Blacks go to a Black country which is poor
>as hell and the education system is just third world. Or perhaps go to a
>Western country where the Black areas are made up mainly of immigrants and
>the next couple of generations ie poor as hell. Race is not the only
>variable factor so it is scientifically unfounded to make conclusions, of
>course being of the master race you would know that.
Don't you think investigators have thought of all this? Do you think
they haven't tried to erase these median gaps by sampling through
socio-economic strata and rearing? The medians move around a bit, but
the gaps remain as if they were ordered from above. Race matters when
the question concerns a population's performance, but it says nothing
about the quality of an individual. You are what you are, not what
your race is. Take a pill.
athomik
news:3c6b0...@news.teranews.com...
> Do taller people score better than shorter people, how about people with
> brown eyes compared to blue?
>
> Also if you want to measure say Blacks go to a Black country which is poor
> as hell and the education system is just third world. Or perhaps go to a
> Western country where the Black areas are made up mainly of immigrants and
> the next couple of generations ie poor as hell. Race is not the only
> variable factor so it is scientifically unfounded to make conclusions, of
> course being of the master race you would know that.
>
choose samples of people of different colours, but from the same country
(they need to have been there for at least a few generations) and include an
equal crossection of different backgrounds in each colour group (and even
then, any racial prejudices may scew the results as they would affect
certain subjects and their circumstances).
I.e. you need to prove that a black kid from the slums isn't as smart as a
white kid living next door, that a white professor of Mathematics is smarter
than his black collegue etc. I'm not sure you would end up with the sort of
'clear cut' results implied in the studies mentioned.
--
athomik
Tom Whipple
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8HiBrwAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
> know
> the social backgrounds of the samples. Urban populations generally
> score better than rural populations. Moreover, the samples may not have
> been random. For example, in the case of African studies, if
> the studies were made of schoolchildren, the likelihood is that those
> tested would have been not only from the towns but also from the
> wealthier classes because only the wealthier will generally be able to
> send their children to secondary school - there is not a great deal of
> point in testing children below primary school age, because IQ scores
> for young children are somewhat unreliable.
> >
My main problem with this is that the results it gives when applied seem
ludicrous. I would have to agree with other posters when I say that the fact
that these surveys are done in Africa is the overriding factor. Not from
some lefty perspective, but purely from a mathematical one.
If the results are to be believed, then the main erroneous data isn't at the
average, but rather at the extremities. Placing the same bell curve on this
data, but with the mean at 70 implies that only 2% of black africans will
have an IQ higher that 115. But, even more absurdly than that, the data
implies that a random white male would be more likely to be born with the
highest IQ the world has ever seen than a randomly born black male would be
born with an IQ high enough to join mensa.
This is clearly not the case, so something else must be at play.
andrew wainwright
This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need. It's a form of psuedo
science where "researched" statistics are quoted out of context to make a
political point. The guys behind such reports do not start out from a
neutral platform as they claim, but with a preconcieved idea and carry out
only selective research which will lend evidence to their theory.
Firstly this idea has been cited in the past about poor whites, about the
Irish and many other groups. The sort of people who put about these theories
have one aim. To make one man's abuse of his fellow men seem morally
justifiable! It is dehumanising people so that we don't feel bad about their
suffering. To make the poor look deserving of their fate. One word, for
these types. Scum.
The idea that IQ is entirely, or even mostly gentically determined is proven
bunkem. It's a combination of genetic, biological and environmental factors
that play a part.
The brain is both an organ and a computer. Like all organs, it develops and
strengthens with regular exercise, and benefits from a good diet and good
general state of health . Like all computers, it has a strong software
element- a baby can do as little for itself as a PC without an operating
sytem, and in both cases the quality of system software or the child's
upbringing will make a major difference in any performance test.
Stimulation leads to growth- children who are encouraged to read write and
think will develop more capable brains. Only educated parents can offer this
to their children- illiterate peasants can't. Better off parents can ensure
their child's body is kept in good enough health to be alert and
concentrated.
IQ tests were designed for testing those with western educations and
upbringings only. To apply these tests on others does yield useful results-
its effectively benchmarking on a non native platform. It's like saying my
PC version of Quake III only runs at 10fps on my Mac.
The only way a fair assesment of the genetic component can be carried out is
by comparing to children of the same family, i.e. siblings or stepsiblings,
attending the same school and being taught by the same teachers. Even then
it's still hard to bring race into the equasion, as step parents of a
different race will have a different effect in terms of role models due to
having different looks to their child.
Another favourite of revisionists is to link IQ to morality- saying the
stupid are more likely to become criminals. This overlooks the seemingly
obvious fact that less inteligent criminals are far less likely to get away
with their crimes, and usually end up in prison as a result. The bright ones
are still at large, presumably committing the three quarters of crimes that
no one ever gets done for!
Robert Henderson wrote in message <8HiBrwAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
Steve Smith
news:a4g90i$qrd$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Yes, racial mixing. Many people claim to be 'black' when they are in fact a
goodly mixture of races. In fact it seems 'black' only means non-white these
days.
Steve
Unferth
> science where "researched" statistics are quoted out of context to make a
> political point. The guys behind such reports do not start out from a
While this maybe true of many involved in the field, but it is interesting,
and we shouldn't stifle all research purely because we are concerned about
the motives of some of the people carrying it out.
>
> The idea that IQ is entirely, or even mostly genetically determined is
proven
> bunkem. It's a combination of genetic, biological and environmental
factors
> that play a part.
I'm not sure what you are saying, but I don't think you are right for the
"mostly" case. I think the jury is still very much out on this one.
>
> The only way a fair assesment of the genetic component can be carried out
is
> by comparing to children of the same family, i.e. siblings or
stepsiblings,
> attending the same school and being taught by the same teachers. Even then
> it's still hard to bring race into the equasion, as step parents of a
> different race will have a different effect in terms of role models due to
> having different looks to their child.
>
I believe they have performed tests on the old favourite, identical twins
seperated at birth, and found that they could produce similar test results
despite differences in environment. However this didn't tie in with another
result showing that the total population's IQ had improved over time,
indicating environment was important. Researchers then postulated that much
of the way society treats us is so ingrained it is the same for identical
twins regardless of their apparent different upbringings, eg tall people are
always though good, black people are thought bad, so again environment does
play a role.
Human intelligence is one of the most interesting branches of science. I
once heard someone say that due to advances in our understanding of the
subject we should be able to give a pretty certain answer to the whole
race/intelligence issue with the next few decades and that it would be
prudent to start considering how to deal with the consequences of that
research now.
Unferth
Very interesting argument, but I thought the Normal approximation could only
be used for the middle regions, and it is quite likely that the actual
distribution differs significantly in the tails, ie they are much fatter
than Normal. Hence your arguments aren't really valid.
Tom Whipple
"Steve Smith" <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a4gdqo$2n0m$1...@ID-123292.news.dfncis.de...
No, I don't think that is it - unless you are contending that wholly black
people would be unable to, even in extremis, join mensa.
> Steve
>
>
Tom Whipple
> > My main problem with this is that the results it gives when applied seem
> > ludicrous. I would have to agree with other posters when I say that the
> fact
> > that these surveys are done in Africa is the overriding factor. Not from
> > some lefty perspective, but purely from a mathematical one.
> >
> > If the results are to be believed, then the main erroneous data isn't at
> the
> > average, but rather at the extremities. Placing the same bell curve on
> this
> > data, but with the mean at 70 implies that only 2% of black africans
will
> > have an IQ higher that 115. But, even more absurdly than that, the data
> > implies that a random white male would be more likely to be born with
the
> > highest IQ the world has ever seen than a randomly born black male would
> be
> > born with an IQ high enough to join mensa.
> >
>
> Very interesting argument, but I thought the Normal approximation could
only
> be used for the middle regions, and it is quite likely that the actual
> distribution differs significantly in the tails, ie they are much fatter
> than Normal. Hence your arguments aren't really valid.
>
No, I'm afraid they are. I wasn't fitting a normal distribution on the
results, I was fitting the same distribution as the general population
distribution on the results - try it, you'll reach the same conclusions.
>
Robert Henderson
<ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
>>
>I suspect the only way you could get any meaningful result, would be to
>choose samples of people of different colours, but from the same country
>(they need to have been there for at least a few generations) and include an
>equal crossection of different backgrounds in each colour group (and even
>then, any racial prejudices may scew the results as they would affect
>certain subjects and their circumstances).
>
Er...that has been done extensively in the States. Moreover, the most
telling statistic of all is the fact that people of the same racial type
in different societies score broadly the same, eg Japanese Americans
score the same as Japanese. RH
>I.e. you need to prove that a black kid from the slums isn't as smart as a
>white kid living next door, that a white professor of Mathematics is smarter
>than his black collegue etc. I'm not sure you would end up with the sort of
>'clear cut' results implied in the studies mentioned.
--
Robert Henderson
athomik
news:a4gdqo$2n0m$1...@ID-123292.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > This is clearly not the case, so something else must be at play.
> >
>
> Yes, racial mixing. Many people claim to be 'black' when they are in fact
a
> goodly mixture of races. In fact it seems 'black' only means non-white
these
> days.
>
significant amount of black Afican ancestry, yet does not know it (he may
even be one of those who denounce blck and mixed race people as inferior).
In the US in particular, it must be very difficult to establish clear racial
divisions based on ancestry, rather than the superficial appearance of the
last generation or two. This, in turn would make any meaningful study into a
link between race and IQ, and the elimination of environment as a
significant factor virtually impossible.
In areas where clear racial types can be established to some extent, the
envronement, social factors etc are vastly different. In areas where the
environmental and other factors can be equalled out, distinct, undiluted
racial types are virtually nonexistent.
I would suspect that whichever way you approach the question, you have to
make assumptions which are inherently incorrect or which will inevitably and
predictably skew the results, and consequently any conclusions drawn from
them.
--
athomik
Unferth
> >
> > Very interesting argument, but I thought the Normal approximation could
> only
> > be used for the middle regions, and it is quite likely that the actual
> > distribution differs significantly in the tails, ie they are much
fatter
> > than Normal. Hence your arguments aren't really valid.
> >
>
> No, I'm afraid they are. I wasn't fitting a normal distribution on the
> results, I was fitting the same distribution as the general population
> distribution on the results - try it, you'll reach the same conclusions.
>
Where did you get this distribution from? I would be interested in having a
play. I'm not a statistician but I thought with any type of "bell" type
distribution it was dangerous to make inferences in the tails due to the
sparsity of data and difficulty determining exactly what the distribution
was at that point.
I also don't understand why you feel you can translate the distribution for
the general population onto the black population? The very fact that you
got the results you did proves something is wrong somewhere.
Bastered
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <a4g67e$ilm$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de>, athomik
><ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>I suspect the only way you could get any meaningful result, would be to
>>choose samples of people of different colours, but from the same country
>>(they need to have been there for at least a few generations) and include an
>>equal crossection of different backgrounds in each colour group (and even
>>then, any racial prejudices may scew the results as they would affect
>>certain subjects and their circumstances).
>>
>
>Er...that has been done extensively in the States. Moreover, the most
>telling statistic of all is the fact that people of the same racial type
>in different societies score broadly the same, eg Japanese Americans
>score the same as Japanese. RH
Exactly. People want to dodge this issue, understandably, but the work
has been done. Race matters folks. It says nothing about an individual
(an important thing to remember), but it says everything about how a
racial group is going to perform in a competitive country.
Tom Whipple
"Unferth" <Unf...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:a4gl7u$4e05$1...@ID-103389.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Tom Whipple" <tp...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:a4ghn0$68j$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > >
> > > Very interesting argument, but I thought the Normal approximation
could
> > only
> > > be used for the middle regions, and it is quite likely that the actual
> > > distribution differs significantly in the tails, ie they are much
> fatter
> > > than Normal. Hence your arguments aren't really valid.
> > >
> >
> > No, I'm afraid they are. I wasn't fitting a normal distribution on the
> > results, I was fitting the same distribution as the general population
> > distribution on the results - try it, you'll reach the same conclusions.
> >
>
> Where did you get this distribution from? I would be interested in having
a
> play. I'm not a statistician but I thought with any type of "bell" type
> distribution it was dangerous to make inferences in the tails due to the
> sparsity of data and difficulty determining exactly what the distribution
> was at that point.
Quite right - which is why taking it to the extreme of looking at the very
top (as I admittedly did) is silly. But it is essentially true that 2% of
the general population has an IQ higher than 148, and proportionally
extrapolating that curve exactly (which is dodgy, see below) leads us to
conclude that that implies that only 2% of the black population has an IQ
higher than 115. Which I find difficult to believe.
>
> I also don't understand why you feel you can translate the distribution
for
> the general population onto the black population?
There are, I would guess, 4 possibilities:
1) The curve for the black population follows an entirely different
distribution. If it does, this is both very significant and very
interesting. I however find it unlikely, for two reasons. Firstly I've never
heard it been even mooted. Secondly, the general population curve is a
composition of continuous distributions. It is likely to be skewed if one of
those distributions is of a different form to the others, particularly if it
comprises a large proportion of the population. It is also a fact that the
sum of normal-type distributions is a normal-type distribution.
2) The variance and distribution can be translated exactly - in which case
my conclusions are correct.
3) The variance is smaller - in which case my conclusions are even more
extreme.
4) The variance is larger - in which case there should be a large proportion
of black people wondering around barely able to talk (have you ever looked
up what an IQ of 70 means? It means you are close to being classed as
borderline disabled).
Possibility (1) could just about occur if the distribution was more like a
skewed normal (I believe it's called a gamma distribution), but any
significant skewing would, I would have thought, show up quite clearly.
But I could be wrong - my knowledge of statistics is restricted to a couple
of undergrad courses, and I'm sure there's still a lot I don't know or may
have overlooked.
>The very fact that you
> got the results you did proves something is wrong somewhere.
Yep, you're quite right - my contention though is that the thing that is
wrong is the initial premise that the mean is 70 (at least amongst black
people in the UK).
Regards,
Tom
>
>
>
>
dave
>> This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need. It's a form of pseudo
>> science where "researched" statistics are quoted out of context to make a
>> political point. The guys behind such reports do not start out from a
>
>While this maybe true of many involved in the field, but it is interesting,
>and we shouldn't stifle all research purely because we are concerned about
>the motives of some of the people carrying it out.
>
>>
>> The idea that IQ is entirely, or even mostly genetically determined is
>proven bunkem.
Ah well - there you then. End of story. The famous "proven bunkem" theory wins
every time. Careful though because "it's a form of pseudo
science where "researched" statistics are quoted out of context to make a
political point".
>>It's a combination of genetic, biological and environmental
>>factors that play a part.
Is it really!
Robert Henderson
<an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
>
>This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need.
The clanging a mind as it closes . RH
> It's a form of psuedo
>science where "researched" statistics
No, statistics gained through objective tests. RH
> are quoted out of context to make a
>political point. The guys behind such reports do not start out from a
>neutral platform as they claim, but with a preconcieved idea and carry out
>only selective research which will lend evidence to their theory.
>
>Firstly this idea has been cited in the past about poor whites, about the
>Irish and many other groups. The sort of people who put about these theories
>have one aim. To make one man's abuse of his fellow men seem morally
>justifiable! It is dehumanising people so that we don't feel bad about their
>suffering. To make the poor look deserving of their fate. One word, for
>these types. Scum.
>
>
>The idea that IQ is entirely, or even mostly gentically determined is proven
>bunkem.
Bunkem! RH
> It's a combination of genetic, biological and environmental factors
>that play a part.
The difference between genetic and biological factors? RH
>
>The brain is both an organ and a computer. Like all organs, it develops and
>strengthens with regular exercise, and benefits from a good diet and good
>general state of health . Like all computers, it has a strong software
>element- a baby can do as little for itself as a PC without an operating
>sytem, and in both cases the quality of system software or the child's
>upbringing will make a major difference in any performance test.
>
This is subjective analogising, not fact. RH
>Stimulation leads to growth- children who are encouraged to read write and
>think will develop more capable brains. Only educated parents can offer this
>to their children- illiterate peasants can't. Better off parents can ensure
>their child's body is kept in good enough health to be alert and
>concentrated.
>
>IQ tests were designed for testing those with western educations and
>upbringings only.
So why do people of the same racial type in different societies score
the same? RH
>To apply these tests on others does yield useful results-
>its effectively benchmarking on a non native platform. It's like saying my
>PC version of Quake III only runs at 10fps on my Mac.
>
>The only way a fair assesment of the genetic component can be carried out is
>by comparing to children of the same family, i.e. siblings or stepsiblings,
>attending the same school and being taught by the same teachers.
Nope. Twin studies are the bestm especially those of twins separated
soon after birth. These show startling similarities in not only IQ but
also behaviour and preferences such as favorurite colour or food. RH
>Even then
>it's still hard to bring race into the equasion, as step parents of a
>different race will have a different effect in terms of role models due to
>having different looks to their child.
>
>Another favourite of revisionists is to link IQ to morality- saying the
>stupid are more likely to become criminals.
This is statistically true. RH
> This overlooks the seemingly
>obvious fact that less inteligent criminals are far less likely to get away
>with their crimes, and usually end up in prison as a result. The bright ones
>are still at large, presumably committing the three quarters of crimes that
>no one ever gets done for!
So, you think that, say, there are hoards of high IQ muggers going about
their business without being caught? RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<tp...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8HiBrwAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Note: A caution should be issued about such studies. One really needs to
>> know
>> the social backgrounds of the samples. Urban populations generally
>> score better than rural populations. Moreover, the samples may not have
>> been random. For example, in the case of African studies, if
>> the studies were made of schoolchildren, the likelihood is that those
>> tested would have been not only from the towns but also from the
>> wealthier classes because only the wealthier will generally be able to
>> send their children to secondary school - there is not a great deal of
>> point in testing children below primary school age, because IQ scores
>> for young children are somewhat unreliable.
>> >
>
>My main problem with this is that the results it gives when applied seem
>ludicrous. I would have to agree with other posters when I say that the fact
>that these surveys are done in Africa is the overriding factor. Not from
>some lefty perspective, but purely from a mathematical one.
>
>If the results are to be believed, then the main erroneous data isn't at the
>average, but rather at the extremities. Placing the same bell curve on this
>data, but with the mean at 70 implies that only 2% of black africans will
>have an IQ higher that 115.
Your problem is with the implications of the research not with the
statistics. RH
>But, even more absurdly than that, the data
>implies that a random white male would be more likely to be born with the
>highest IQ the world has ever seen than a randomly born black male would be
>born with an IQ high enough to join mensa.
>
Please explain this more fully. RH
>This is clearly not the case, so something else must be at play.
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
>In the US in particular, it must be very difficult to establish clear racial
>divisions based on ancestry, rather than the superficial appearance of the
>last generation or two. This, in turn would make any meaningful study into a
>link between race and IQ, and the elimination of environment as a
>significant factor virtually impossible.
The interesting thing about US blacks is that they score exactly as one
would expect. With their high admixture of white blood, one would expect
them to score above black Africans who have little white blood in the
population. That is what happens. The average US black score is 85 as
opposed to 70 for Africans. RH .
--
Robert Henderson
andrew wainwright
Unferth wrote in message ...
>> This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need. It's a form of pseudo
>> science where "researched" statistics are quoted out of context to make a
>> political point. The guys behind such reports do not start out from a
>
>While this maybe true of many involved in the field, but it is interesting,
>and we shouldn't stifle all research purely because we are concerned about
>the motives of some of the people carrying it out.
>
>>
>> The idea that IQ is entirely, or even mostly genetically determined is
>proven
>> bunkem. It's a combination of genetic, biological and environmental
>factors
>> that play a part.
>
>I'm not sure what you are saying, but I don't think you are right for the
>"mostly" case. I think the jury is still very much out on this one.
I don't doubt the obvious genetic roll in IQ an intelligence
>>
>> The only way a fair assesment of the genetic component can be carried out
>is
>> by comparing to children of the same family, i.e. siblings or
>stepsiblings,
>> attending the same school and being taught by the same teachers. Even
then
>> it's still hard to bring race into the equasion, as step parents of a
>> different race will have a different effect in terms of role models due
to
>> having different looks to their child.
>>
>
>I believe they have performed tests on the old favourite, identical twins
>seperated at birth, and found that they could produce similar test results
>despite differences in environment.
True. But it's hard to find cases where twins are found placed in very
different environments. One twin might be adopted by another family, but
they'll generally be fed, loved and educated in much the same way. If one
was half starved and denied education and mental stimulation, I think it's
likely that IQ test results would be markedly different.
However this didn't tie in with another
>result showing that the total population's IQ had improved over time,
>indicating environment was important. Researchers then postulated that much
>of the way society treats us is so ingrained it is the same for identical
>twins regardless of their apparent different upbringings, eg tall people
are
>always though good, black people are thought bad, so again environment does
>play a role.
>
>Human intelligence is one of the most interesting branches of science. I
>once heard someone say that due to advances in our understanding of the
>subject we should be able to give a pretty certain answer to the whole
>race/intelligence issue with the next few decades and that it would be
>prudent to start considering how to deal with the consequences of that
>research now.
I'd agree. I'm not against research of any kind. But defining what
constitutes intelligence is not a scientific issue but a philosophical one.
IQ is not intellegence. It's a "bench test" of logical reasoning, memory and
perception, like horsepower is for engines. A lot of horsepower doesn't
necessarily make for a good car, or even a fast one. It doesn't provide any
insight into the ability to make friends, for instance, a mental function
more important to survival than being able calculate things. It's man's
ability to communicate with other man that really sets us apart from chimps.
Yet a lot of really brainy people (in IQ terms) are really poor
communicators.
The higher the better is not true for IQ- there is an "optimum" of around
120. The guy with an IQ of 160 has as tough time as the guy with an IQ of
80. The "mad professor" , like the "village idot" is not normal, and is
considered by society to be a weirdo. Her or she has to suffer the indignity
of being different, strange, of being feared, distrusted. The "genius" is
usually as ostracised as the "simpleton", if not more.
Those with ultra high IQs do not have bigger brains, and to fit in all that
extra brightness, something usually has to give. One is motor control, the
high IQs often being slightly spastic. The other is, as mentioned earlier is
poor non verbal communication, whereby the person is unable to sense and use
body language and eye contact. This makes everything from selling things to
dating extremely difficult.
Both those with very high and low IQs commonly suffer from mental illnesses
ranging from schizophrenia to depression and substance abuse- the sense of
isolation from their nomal IQ'd peers is the primary cause
>
Tom Whipple
I have a problem with both the implication and the statistics. But I am
arguing against this purely on the basis of the statistics.
>
> >But, even more absurdly than that, the data
> >implies that a random white male would be more likely to be born with the
> >highest IQ the world has ever seen than a randomly born black male would
be
> >born with an IQ high enough to join mensa.
> >
>
> Please explain this more fully. RH
Follow the thread down - I explain it later. It involves extrapolation of
both the distribution and the variance. Nothing political about it at all -
I do it every day with other statistics. With a few other fairly reasonable
assumptions, what you are saying implies that it is as likely a white man
can have an IQ of 200 as it is a black man can have one of 148 (entry level
for mensa).
Robert Henderson
<tp...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>
>Quite right - which is why taking it to the extreme of looking at the very
>top (as I admittedly did) is silly. But it is essentially true that 2% of
>the general population has an IQ higher than 148, and proportionally
>extrapolating that curve exactly (which is dodgy, see below) leads us to
>conclude that that implies that only 2% of the black population has an IQ
>higher than 115. Which I find difficult to believe.
Why? RH
--
Robert Henderson
Tom Whipple
Well firstly because it also implies that no black people could ever
realistically get into mensa, and secondly because I know four or five black
people at my college who must have IQ's in excess of 160...which that model
says is almost totally impossible.
> Robert Henderson
Robin
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>With average IQs around 70 it is scarcely surprising that the African
>societies are in such a shambles. They lack both sufficient numbers of
>people with sufficient intellect to run a modern state and the generally
>low intellect will mean that the average African is rather childlike -
>low IQ people )60-75) are not monsters or idiots, rather they have a
>poor capacity to handle abstractions, plan for the future, project
>beyond their own ego etc.
This sounds *exactly* like you!
I hadn't realised that you were black. Your photograph showed a leering
semi-white tramp, but I guess you paid the reporter to lighten you up
using Photoshop.
--
Robin Muskett
Dr. Sunil
Oh! Cruel, Robin! Cruel!
andrew wainwright
Robert Henderson wrote in message ...
>In article <a4gda4$6uk$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
><an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
>>
>>This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need.
>
>The clanging a mind as it closes . RH
Right. I understand where you're coming from. But I find this strand of
anthropological thinking belongs in the days of the flat Earth. It's the
sort of thing they were talking about in the 30's,40's,50's . The jazz scene
might have rocked back then, but it was dinosaur times for social sciences.
Cognative science (the modelling of the mind as a machine) has replaced
racial science as the serious research base on thought.
Open YOUR mind, and take a listen to some of the MODERN ideas about
intellegence. The round Earth.
The main one is the growing scientific acceptance of an external
conciousness, a force similar to electricity or radio waves that gives
intellegent life self awareness. The belief that the mind and the soul are
separate entities has been rejected by mainstream science as religious myth
until very recently, but this theory is gaining ground.
Each human (and possibly animal) brain is linked to a conciousness node ,
each node is linked to its neighbours. At some early point during gestation,
the new life is connected, on death the connection is severed.
What gives brains the edge over manmade computers is this high bandwidth
wireless networking and task sharing facility. The individual units form one
superbrain, which provides the "life force", possibly a collection of virus
like processes, that affords humans self awareness.
>
>> It's a form of psuedo
>>science where "researched" statistics
>
>No, statistics gained through objective tests. RH
Hard if not impossible to do objective tests where nothing resembling
scientific conditions exists , and politics are involved. Had the authors
been leftwingers, the tests, results and conclusions would be entirely
different.
>
>> are quoted out of context to make a
>>political point. The guys behind such reports do not start out from a
>>neutral platform as they claim, but with a preconcieved idea and carry out
>>only selective research which will lend evidence to their theory.
>>
>>Firstly this idea has been cited in the past about poor whites, about the
>>Irish and many other groups. The sort of people who put about these
theories
>>have one aim. To make one man's abuse of his fellow men seem morally
>>justifiable! It is dehumanising people so that we don't feel bad about
their
>>suffering. To make the poor look deserving of their fate. One word, for
>>these types. Scum.
>>
>>
>>The idea that IQ is entirely, or even mostly gentically determined is
proven
>>bunkem.
>
>Bunkem! RH
>
>> It's a combination of genetic, biological and environmental factors
>>that play a part.
>
>The difference between genetic and biological factors? RH
Diet and lifestyle are major factors in all aspects of human development. It
has a major effect on the body chemistry, which affects the brain's ability
to function.
Considering over half the world's population are malnourished and living in
squalor amongst disease, its not suprising that they are not mentally at
their peak.
>
>>
>>The brain is both an organ and a computer. Like all organs, it develops
and
>>strengthens with regular exercise, and benefits from a good diet and good
>>general state of health . Like all computers, it has a strong software
>>element- a baby can do as little for itself as a PC without an operating
>>sytem, and in both cases the quality of system software or the child's
>>upbringing will make a major difference in any performance test.
>>
>
>This is subjective analogising, not fact. RH
Providing stimulating experiences, such as playing a child classical music,
can lead to a marked increase in intellegence test performance.
>
>>Stimulation leads to growth- children who are encouraged to read write and
>>think will develop more capable brains. Only educated parents can offer
this
>>to their children- illiterate peasants can't. Better off parents can
ensure
>>their child's body is kept in good enough health to be alert and
>>concentrated.
>>
>>IQ tests were designed for testing those with western educations and
>>upbringings only.
>
>So why do people of the same racial type in different societies score
>the same? RH
People of the same class and social background score the same. When an
immigrant arrives from a poor country, he arrives with nothing. It's also
likely his savings, qualifications and social standing will be worthless in
the new country. He might be an ex-slave or peasant, with no experience of
suburban society. No one's doling out chunks of land here either, as was the
case for the early American immigrants. He has to start from scratch.
Most well to do people have had money and property in the family for
generations. Today sees a far higher level of social mobility, but most born
into rags still die in rags.
Interesting to note that the underachievement amongst black schoolchildren
in London only extends to boys, which tallies with the high proportion of
absent fathers in the black community. This is a problem that affects the
white inner-city underclasses to much the same extent.
>
>>To apply these tests on others does yield useful results-
>>its effectively benchmarking on a non native platform. It's like saying my
>>PC version of Quake III only runs at 10fps on my Mac.
>>
>>The only way a fair assesment of the genetic component can be carried out
is
>>by comparing to children of the same family, i.e. siblings or
stepsiblings,
>>attending the same school and being taught by the same teachers.
>
>Nope. Twin studies are the bestm especially those of twins separated
>soon after birth. These show startling similarities in not only IQ but
>also behaviour and preferences such as favorurite colour or food. RH
A problem with twins for such studies is that they are clones, and clones
share a common consciousness- their minds are conjoined. It's not uncommon
for an identical twin to be able to sense pain and happiness felt by their
twin. Some pairs of identical twins are able to effectively function as a
single person, completing each others sentences without prior rehersal, for
instance .
>
>>Even then
>>it's still hard to bring race into the equasion, as step parents of a
>>different race will have a different effect in terms of role models due to
>>having different looks to their child.
>>
>>Another favourite of revisionists is to link IQ to morality- saying the
>>stupid are more likely to become criminals.
>
>
>This is statistically true. RH
If the police brought even half the offenders to justice, you could guess a
profile of your typical criminal. But most are never caught, and most
crimes are not witnessed, so it's anyones guess what the proper "average"
criminal might be like.
>
>> This overlooks the seemingly
>>obvious fact that less inteligent criminals are far less likely to get
away
>>with their crimes, and usually end up in prison as a result. The bright
ones
>>are still at large, presumably committing the three quarters of crimes
that
>>no one ever gets done for!
>
>
>So, you think that, say, there are hoards of high IQ muggers going about
>their business without being caught? RH
No. Mugging people yourself is far too risky. Selling muggers crack and
buying mobile phones from them for fiver a piece is where it's at if you're
into that sort of thing!
>--
>Robert Henderson
Unferth
"andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4h8is$t06$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
dave
>>>The brain is both an organ and a computer.
But can it play the Monty Pythom tune? That's what we all want to know.
>People of the same class and social background score the same.
What ALL of them?
> When an
>immigrant arrives from a poor country, he arrives with nothing.
0 x 0 = 0
> Today sees a far higher level of social mobility, but most born
>into rags still die in rags.
Yeah Steptoe was one of them wasn't he.
>
>
>>
>>>To apply these tests on others does yield useful results-
>>>its effectively benchmarking on a non native platform. It's like saying my
>>>PC version of Quake III only runs at 10fps on my Mac.
fps? feet per second?
Cedric
<an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>
>This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need. It's a form of psuedo
>science where "researched" statistics are quoted out of context to make a
>political point. The guys behind such reports do not start out from a
>neutral platform as they claim, but with a preconcieved idea and carry out
>only selective research which will lend evidence to their theory.
If blacks and whites have differing physical characteristics, then why
is it so unquestionable they there may also be differing mental
characteristics?
Unferth
>
> Quite right - which is why taking it to the extreme of looking at the very
> top (as I admittedly did) is silly. But it is essentially true that 2% of
> the general population has an IQ higher than 148, and proportionally
> extrapolating that curve exactly (which is dodgy, see below) leads us to
> conclude that that implies that only 2% of the black population has an IQ
> higher than 115. Which I find difficult to believe.
>
Now this is more reasonable and unlike your earlier statement isn't
obviously untrue. I'm not saying it is true but just that it is not
obviously untrue, I don't know enough people to use as examples, and most of
the black people I know come from a very biased sample. However It would be
interesting to see a true curve and not just the mean.
> comprises a large proportion of the population. It is also a fact that the
> sum of normal-type distributions is a normal-type distribution.
>
You don't really mean this do you. But they do say two heads are better than
one, I guess the two headed IQ would be normal ;-)
> Yep, you're quite right - my contention though is that the thing that is
> wrong is the initial premise that the mean is 70 (at least amongst black
> people in the UK).
>
The 70 wasn't really about black people in the UK but people in Africa, I
saw I think RH quote 85 for Blacks in the US.
Incidentally I have just remembered a racial argument I heard about
athletes. It basically followed the argument that there was no true black
race. And that Ethiopian blacks were closer genetically to Caucasians than
they were to Nigerian West Africans. Dunno if it is true or not.
Bastered
wrote:
>
>Incidentally I have just remembered a racial argument I heard about
>athletes. It basically followed the argument that there was no true black
>race. And that Ethiopian blacks were closer genetically to Caucasians than
>they were to Nigerian West Africans. Dunno if it is true or not.
>
Ethiopeans had a major injection of North African genes, what we call
Arabs now.
Adrian Thomas
One could equally argue that this result is epected due to the background of
living in a First World country. My point is that you can't easily test
racial differences in places like the US due to a lack of 'pure' races, and
you can't compare 'pure' races from, for example, Iceland and the Congo,
because of the huge differences in other likely factors.
--
athomik
Tom Whipple
>
> "Tom Whipple" <tp...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:a4gohc$d1s$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> > Quite right - which is why taking it to the extreme of looking at the
very
> > top (as I admittedly did) is silly. But it is essentially true that 2%
of
> > the general population has an IQ higher than 148, and proportionally
> > extrapolating that curve exactly (which is dodgy, see below) leads us to
> > conclude that that implies that only 2% of the black population has an
IQ
> > higher than 115. Which I find difficult to believe.
> >
>
> Now this is more reasonable and unlike your earlier statement isn't
> obviously untrue. I'm not saying it is true but just that it is not
> obviously untrue,
!!!! What did I say before that was obviously untrue !!!! I'd genuinely like
to know, 'cos a maths degree hangs on it!
>I don't know enough people to use as examples, and most of
> the black people I know come from a very biased sample. However It would
be
> interesting to see a true curve and not just the mean.
>
>
> > comprises a large proportion of the population. It is also a fact that
the
> > sum of normal-type distributions is a normal-type distribution.
> >
>
> You don't really mean this do you. But they do say two heads are better
than
> one, I guess the two headed IQ would be normal ;-)
I'm afraid I do mean it. Note I said normal-type, not normal. Normal type
refers to symmetrical distributions for which the mean and the variance are
the sufficient statistics (this itself has a technical definition rather
than an intuitive one). But even if I had said normal, I absolutely mean it.
It is a statistical fact that the sum of normals is a normal...although
quite how this refers to the argument I don't know. However (this is purely
a point of interest, and not relevant in this case) a lot of distributions
when summed correspond to the normal distribution. Some of them are even dis
crete, such as the binomial.
andrewpreece
"andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4h8is$t06$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >In article <a4gda4$6uk$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
> ><an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
> >>
> >>This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need.
> >
>
> >The clanging a mind as it closes . RH
an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
The above is not modern scientific thought about the mind, it's more nearly
"new-age" thought.
Science does not recognise any such thing as the soul. The statement:- "The
main one is the growing
scientific acceptance of an external conciousness, a force similar to
electricity or radio waves that gives
intellegent [sic] life self awareness", is untrue, and AFAIK has not
appeared in any reputable scientific journal.
Science regards the human mind as an incredibly complex
electro-chemical machine. Such questions as
where the seat of consciousness lies are impossible to answer at present,
due to the complexity of the brain,
but it's in there somewhere.
FYI science does not recognise astrology, dowsing, feng shui,
spiritualism, reincarnation or pyramids that
sharpen razors either.
Andy.
Adrian Thomas
news:cvnn6u8cvha5ubmc4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:01:57 +0000, Robert Henderson
> <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Er...that has been done extensively in the States. Moreover, the most
> >telling statistic of all is the fact that people of the same racial type
> >in different societies score broadly the same, eg Japanese Americans
> >score the same as Japanese. RH
>
> Exactly. People want to dodge this issue, understandably, but the work
> has been done. Race matters folks. It says nothing about an individual
> (an important thing to remember), but it says everything about how a
> racial group is going to perform in a competitive country.
>
The work has been done, but the initial premises were flawed. There simply
is no such thing as a relatively pure black community living in exactly the
same circumstances (for at least a few generations) as a pure white, yellow
or any other 'race'.
Without all other factors being equal, and using relatively pure racial
samples, any meaningful study is basically impossible. Whichever way you go
about it, for any sample you pick in today's world, you'll be comparing
apples and pears.
The only conclusion one could reach, is that the idea of race is already
well on it's way out as a meaningful concept. Considering that it has only
taken something like 400 years to get to this stage, I'd say we are on the
fast track of human evolution and it won't take anywhere near as long to end
up with are relatively homogenous species as it took to create the diverse
range of phenotypes seen we see today.
--
athomik
Adrian Thomas
> In article <a4gda4$6uk$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
> <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
> >
> >This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need.
>
> The clanging a mind as it closes . RH
>
> > It's a form of psuedo
> >science where "researched" statistics
>
> No, statistics gained through objective tests. RH
>
--
athomik
Unferth
>
> "Unferth" <Unf...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:a4hi1m$cqu1$1...@ID-103389.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Tom Whipple" <tp...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:a4gohc$d1s$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > >
> > > Quite right - which is why taking it to the extreme of looking at the
> very
> > > top (as I admittedly did) is silly. But it is essentially true that 2%
> of
> > > the general population has an IQ higher than 148, and proportionally
> > > extrapolating that curve exactly (which is dodgy, see below) leads us
to
> > > conclude that that implies that only 2% of the black population has an
> IQ
> > > higher than 115. Which I find difficult to believe.
> > >
> >
> > Now this is more reasonable and unlike your earlier statement isn't
> > obviously untrue. I'm not saying it is true but just that it is not
> > obviously untrue,
>
> !!!! What did I say before that was obviously untrue !!!! I'd genuinely
like
> to know, 'cos a maths degree hangs on it!
>
Relax I only meant untrue in a reductio ad absurdum way. I was refering too
your earlier comment
> "But, even more absurdly than that, the data
> implies that a random white male would be more likely to be born with the
> highest IQ the world has ever seen than a randomly born black male would
be
> born with an IQ high enough to join mensa."
>
> I'm afraid I do mean it. Note I said normal-type, not normal. Normal type
> refers to symmetrical distributions for which the mean and the variance
are
> the sufficient statistics (this itself has a technical definition rather
> than an intuitive one). But even if I had said normal, I absolutely mean
it.
> It is a statistical fact that the sum of normals is a normal...although
> quite how this refers to the argument I don't know. However (this is
purely
> a point of interest, and not relevant in this case) a lot of distributions
> when summed correspond to the normal distribution. Some of them are even
dis
> crete, such as the binomial.
>
I guessed you were a mathematician from this one :o). The sum of normally
distributed independent random variables is normal. However you seemed to be
implying that merging two normally distributed samples would mean that the
distribution of the total sample would be normal, which is obviously not the
case. Or do you have another way of summing peoples IQ?
Adrian Thomas
news:r3ho6uoshlh7tqp8n...@4ax.com...
A black baby will grow into a black adult. But a black baby brought up in
the right circumstances will more than likely mentally outperform a white
baby brought up in the wrong circumstances.
There are certain factors, such as the predominance of non-whites in the
socially deprived sector of mixed populations such as in the US/UK, poor
education facilities (and the struggle for daily survival) in black
non-mixed countries and the likelyhood of socially deprived people being
less likely to have been raised in a stimulating and academically superior
environment. Such factors make the kind of statistical results quoted almost
predictable.
--
athomik
Bastered
<ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote:
>Bastered <ilu...@zoidberg.net> wrote in message
>news:cvnn6u8cvha5ubmc4...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:01:57 +0000, Robert Henderson
>> <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Er...that has been done extensively in the States. Moreover, the most
>> >telling statistic of all is the fact that people of the same racial type
>> >in different societies score broadly the same, eg Japanese Americans
>> >score the same as Japanese. RH
>>
>> Exactly. People want to dodge this issue, understandably, but the work
>> has been done. Race matters folks. It says nothing about an individual
>> (an important thing to remember), but it says everything about how a
>> racial group is going to perform in a competitive country.
>>
>
>The work has been done, but the initial premises were flawed. There simply
>is no such thing as a relatively pure black community living in exactly the
>same circumstances (for at least a few generations) as a pure white, yellow
>or any other 'race'.
It sounds more to me that you're scared of the result. This
imperfectability of data argument is the same one that Christians use
to hit evolutionary biologists with.The median gaps remain, they
follow race in whatever country and socio-economic strata people live,
and they do follow mixed race in the US. Of course it is not perfect
data. It is highly persuasive data.
I fully realize that this knowlege is abused, and that it can be
harmful to the spirit of someone whose race doesn't score well. It
appears to be true nevertheless. I use it where it counts; for the
purpose of wise decision-making. I do not deliberately use it to make
an individual feel less worth.
>
>Without all other factors being equal, and using relatively pure racial
>samples, any meaningful study is basically impossible. Whichever way you go
>about it, for any sample you pick in today's world, you'll be comparing
>apples and pears.
>
>The only conclusion one could reach, is that the idea of race is already
>well on it's way out as a meaningful concept. Considering that it has only
>taken something like 400 years to get to this stage, I'd say we are on the
>fast track of human evolution and it won't take anywhere near as long to end
>up with are relatively homogenous species as it took to create the diverse
>range of phenotypes seen we see today.
The Race Doesn't Exist position is just a way that some people want to
look at it. It easy to come at it either way. Race has the meaning
that it gives itself. In this case, it has meaning for the
competitiveness of population groups in those things that are highly
reliant on cognitive ability. Cognitive ability has a straightforward
effect on wealth and crime within a race, and comparatively between
races. In other areas race has no meaning.
Personally, I'll stick with the diversity of race that we have, don't
care to become homogenous.
Robert Henderson
<tp...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jibWyKAk...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <a4gohc$d1s$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Tom Whipple
>> <tp...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>> >
>> >Quite right - which is why taking it to the extreme of looking at the
>very
>> >top (as I admittedly did) is silly. But it is essentially true that 2% of
>> >the general population has an IQ higher than 148, and proportionally
>> >extrapolating that curve exactly (which is dodgy, see below) leads us to
>> >conclude that that implies that only 2% of the black population has an IQ
>> >higher than 115. Which I find difficult to believe.
>>
>>
>> Why? RH
>> --
>
>Well firstly because it also implies that no black people could ever
>realistically get into mensa, and secondly because I know four or five black
>people at my college who must have IQ's in excess of 160...which that model
>says is almost totally impossible.
>
No it doesn't. A small proportion of backs could still get into Mensa.
Moreover, as mixed race people are generally classified as blacks, you
may well know quite a few who fall into that category because the white
admixture raises the IQ - US blacks (which include all those who
classify themselves as black) have an average IQ of 85 not 70.
How many pure blacks do you know with IQs of 150 plus? RH
>
>> Robert Henderson
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<robin....@ntlworld.com> writes
A liberal bigot intellectual displays his mental wares. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Tom Whipple
I'm sorry, but could you enlighten me as to what statistical analysis you
are using, and why you feel a straight shift of the variance is
innapropriate? If you can't, then stop making blind assertions.
> Moreover, as mixed race people are generally classified as blacks, you
> may well know quite a few who fall into that category because the white
> admixture raises the IQ - US blacks (which include all those who
> classify themselves as black) have an average IQ of 85 not 70.
>
> How many pure blacks do you know with IQs of 150 plus? RH
Well given they're foreign students direct from Africa, I would guess the
residents of my college are pure.
Steve Frazer
Why do you care? What possible difference does it make to your pathetic
existence?
--
Steve
"Pity the man who knows his insignificance,
Pity the man who doesn't"
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/
Lord Limbic
"Adrian Thomas" <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4hpcj$d9ms$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de...
> > If blacks and whites have differing physical characteristics, then why
> > is it so unquestionable they there may also be differing mental
> > characteristics?
> >
> Because you can't change physical characteristics (Michael Jakson
excepted).
One can exercise or not. The same is true of intelligence. Nutrition and
emotional health may assist matters, but it cannot make the stupid clever.
> A black baby will grow into a black adult. But a black baby brought up in
> the right circumstances will more than likely mentally outperform a white
> baby brought up in the wrong circumstances.
Whilst I see your point, this is a bit of a guess. Environment plays a part,
so do genes.
From: Heritability Estimates Versus Large Environmental Effects: The IQ
Paradox Resolved
"different intellectual abilities are based on neural circuits that require
environmental stimulation for development -- and are open to change.
However, intelligence researchers argue that there is a general factor of
intelligence ("G") that is highly heritable and defines intelligence as an
overall innate ability to perform well on different measures of
intelligence -- which are not open to change. "
> There are certain factors, such as the predominance of non-whites in the
> socially deprived sector of mixed populations such as in the US/UK,
Could these people be poor because they are less generally intelligent?
>poor
> education facilities (and the struggle for daily survival) in black
> non-mixed countries
Could these countries be in the state they are in because their people are
generally less intelligent?
>and the likelyhood of socially deprived people being
> less likely to have been raised in a stimulating and academically superior
> environment.
But why are they socially deprived in the first place? What interplay of
history, culture and abilities brought them to where they are?
>Such factors make the kind of statistical results quoted almost
> predictable.
Indeed, but possibly for the reasons claimed in addition to your points.
Regards
Lord Limbic
Tom Whipple
Why not?
I was under the impression that that was a statistical fact.
I believe I could even dig up the proof for you if you want.
But...it's not really that relevant, is it....? :-)
andrew wainwright
andrewpreece wrote in message <3c6c...@212.67.96.135>...
Whether it is all contained within our skulls or not, the mind/soul gives us
intellegence and morality. The physical sciences are unable to define to any
degree of accuracy who is a wise man and who is a good man, in the same way
they can't answer the question "how long is a piece of string". Intelect and
conciousness are therefore the subject of philosophy as much as biology.
To say science does not recognise the soul is dodgy ground. It's an area
that has not been extensively researched, due to the difficulties involved.
Going back a few hundred years, there wasn't a lot of research into
electricity either. Many scientists (if not most) are to some degree
religious,and practically all religions treat the soul as a seperate entity
from the mind. It's not difficult to see how this conclusion was
reached-there's a big difference between being smart and being nice.
The point of the original post is that practically all research done on
human intellegence is subjective, because its very definition is based on
personal taste and philosophy, which includes politics. The only way it can
be tested is through exams, and exams tend to say as much about the examiner
as the candidate.
For instance, when setting and marking an essay, how do you split the marks
between spelling and grammar, factual accuracy, innovation and insight,
writing style, humour? It depends on what you personally feel is most
important- yet this personal decision could change someone's grade from an A
to a D.
I'm in favour of all research. But as far as I can see, most of these
race/IQ studies are funded and elsewise propped up by the American right to
give added credence to their plans for welfare cuts, aid cuts to developing
countries, and of course, tax breaks for their rich friends!
The likes of RH are unable to see that they are pawns in the grip of the fat
cats, defending the richest and most powerful in their battle to maintain
supremacy over the poor majority. Whilst hypocritically attacking the
"middle class liberal elite", they constantly side with the ruling class
overlords, begging for the crumbs that drop from their table, in exchange
for this privilage, they heroically battle the have nots.
cheers
the other andy
>
>
>
>
Gaz
--
X-No-archive: yes
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:G9JvV2Bq...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
My wife 140+ her late father 160+, they are as pure as it gets.
Gaz
carldent
monkeys, so in the transition of it goes like this, monkey Apes , blackman,
whiteman, because we are an obvious development from the blackman, possibly
superior, I say not, believe it or not, each race as it's genius.
Paul Hyett
view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>A good deal of work has been done on this recently and their is still a
>great deal of ambiguity about the meaning of the results. It has been shown
>that white American IQ results have improved by ~10% in the last 25 years.
>Obviously this brings into doubt a purely racial interpretation of the
>results.
Quite. It implies that lack of education, rather than inherent
inferiority is the issue.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
athomik
news:655b8.941$kX6.8988@NewsReader...
>
> "Adrian Thomas" <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a4hpcj$d9ms$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > There are certain factors, such as the predominance of non-whites in the
> > socially deprived sector of mixed populations such as in the US/UK,
>
> Could these people be poor because they are less generally intelligent?
>
ago and still suffer a certain degree of discrimination plays a big part.
The White population has had centuries of freedom to develop as they wish,
giving them a head start which will probably still take a few generations to
even out.
>
> >poor
> > education facilities (and the struggle for daily survival) in black
> > non-mixed countries
>
> Could these countries be in the state they are in because their people are
> generally less intelligent?
>
Even if intelligence came into it, I suspect that the history of the last
few centuries affecting their environmental conditions plays a much greater
part.
> >and the likelyhood of socially deprived people being
> > less likely to have been raised in a stimulating and academically
superior
> > environment.
>
> But why are they socially deprived in the first place? What interplay of
> history, culture and abilities brought them to where they are?
>
>
> >Such factors make the kind of statistical results quoted almost
> > predictable.
>
> Indeed, but possibly for the reasons claimed in addition to your points.
>
One test could be to take a large sample of white British citizens and
compare their IQ with respect to socio-economic background. This would give
a rough indication of the kind of effect such conditions may have. These
result would then need to be applied as an offset to the studies mentioned
here (bearing in mind that a low income family in the UK still enjoys a much
higher standard of living with access to far more resources than an african
subsistence farmer, which must also be factored out)
If all other influences are fairly reliably factored out, and it turns out
that certain genetic groups (whether racial or having some other common
charactieristic) do produce different results, then that could indicate a
strong influence of genes as a factor in IQ levels.
However, considering that those promoting these studies tend to have an
interest in racial discrimination of one sort or another,(otherwise, what
would be the point of such studies in the first place?) I would point out
that such people would not treat a white person with an IQ of 70 in the same
manner as a black person with an IQ of 70. This makes the whole exercise
pointless. You can't objectively consider a black person inferior because
they have a lower score in your study, yet not consider a white person with
a similar IQ similarly inferior.
--
athomik
Unferth
>
> Why not?
>
> I was under the impression that that was a statistical fact.
>
> I believe I could even dig up the proof for you if you want.
>
> But...it's not really that relevant, is it....? :-)
No its not relevant I was just amused because it is exactly the type of
mistake I would make. If you want a counter example imagine combining the
distribution of IQ's for Men and Baboons, it would be more shaped like a
pair of tits than a bell. Any combination where the samples have different
means would lead to skewing.
athomik
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:11:50 -0000, "Adrian Thomas"
> <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote:
> >The work has been done, but the initial premises were flawed. There
simply
> >is no such thing as a relatively pure black community living in exactly
the
> >same circumstances (for at least a few generations) as a pure white,
yellow
> >or any other 'race'.
>
> It sounds more to me that you're scared of the result. This
> imperfectability of data argument is the same one that Christians use
> to hit evolutionary biologists with.The median gaps remain, they
> follow race in whatever country and socio-economic strata people live,
> and they do follow mixed race in the US. Of course it is not perfect
> data. It is highly persuasive data.
>
> I fully realize that this knowlege is abused, and that it can be
> harmful to the spirit of someone whose race doesn't score well. It
> appears to be true nevertheless. I use it where it counts; for the
> purpose of wise decision-making. I do not deliberately use it to make
> an individual feel less worth.
>
over another? (other than the decision to descriminate wholesale against
everyone who is part of that group, irrespective of any other qualities, or
in genetic research where certain characterictics are worth investigating,
but then that would not just apply to race.)
--
athomik
Unferth
"Paul Hyett" <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Lex0TNLI...@activist.demon.co.uk...
No its not that simple. I believe they have developed test which are
supposedly insensitive to/adjust for education, as tested on identical twins
with different educational backgrounds. No answers I'm afraid just
questions :-(.
Its best not to be prejudiced on this one way or the other. Some people have
even mooted different types of intelligence across races, for instance
aboriginal Australians are supposed to have much stronger visual recognition
skills that whites.
athomik
> In article <a4gj79$4hl7$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de>, athomik
> <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
> >In the US in particular, it must be very difficult to establish clear
racial
> >divisions based on ancestry, rather than the superficial appearance of
the
> >last generation or two. This, in turn would make any meaningful study
into a
> >link between race and IQ, and the elimination of environment as a
> >significant factor virtually impossible.
>
> The interesting thing about US blacks is that they score exactly as one
> would expect. With their high admixture of white blood, one would expect
> them to score above black Africans who have little white blood in the
> population. That is what happens. The average US black score is 85 as
> opposed to 70 for Africans. RH .
> --
The interesting think about US blacks is that they score exactly as one
would expect. With a background of living in a Western society with all the
resources this implies, one would expect them to score above black Africans,
who have few resources and need to spend all their resources just staying
alive. That is what happens. The average US black score is 85 as opposed to
70 for Africans. AT.
--
athomik
athomik
> In article <a4gtep$hvc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Tom Whipple
> <tp...@cam.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> --
> >
> >Well firstly because it also implies that no black people could ever
> >realistically get into mensa, and secondly because I know four or five
black
> >people at my college who must have IQ's in excess of 160...which that
model
> >says is almost totally impossible.
> >
>
> No it doesn't. A small proportion of backs could still get into Mensa.
> Moreover, as mixed race people are generally classified as blacks, you
> may well know quite a few who fall into that category because the white
> admixture raises the IQ - US blacks (which include all those who
> classify themselves as black) have an average IQ of 85 not 70.
>
> How many pure blacks do you know with IQs of 150 plus? RH
> >
IQ in the entire US attending the same college (unless it were the only
college dedicated to gifted black people in the US)?
2) What makes you think that mixed race equates to black? I'm sure the
native/Hispanic people of Central and South America, for example, would
have something to say abot that.
3) What makes you think that it is white blood, and not the fact that they
live in kind of environment found in the US would be the main factor in
creating this difference?
--
athomik
Tom Whipple
You're quite right - I've been doing quantum mechanics for too long and I've
forgotten all my stats. I was considering the distribution of the sum of the
components of two normals, rather than than the distribution of the sum of
two normals.
>
>
jackkincaid
> Robert Henderson wrote in message ...
> >In article <a4gda4$6uk$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
> ><an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
> >>
> >>This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need.
> >The clanging a mind as it closes . RH
>
[snip]
>
> Open YOUR mind, and take a listen to some of the MODERN ideas about
> intellegence. The round Earth.
You're wasting your time. RH isn't interested in genuine objective
research on this subject. He's already pissed in that well. He's
latched on to a report from somewhere which supposedly indicates that
black people are intellectually inferior to white people. You can piss
around the subject as much as you like: this is the crucial conclusion
people like RH require.
Should further research into genetics and intelligence show that there
is a subjective element to certain kinds of testing - that answering a
Mensa test, say, partly depends on a variety of cultural conditioning
prevalent in Europe but not Africa - RH and his ilk will suddenly lose
interest. Likewise, let people of the same 'race 'take the same
intelligence test and if you find a divergence in results between male
and female, or between Anglo and Irish, or between Caribbean and west
African, or between Muslim and Hindu Indian, or between Cantonese and
Mandarin Chinese etc. etc. etc. (as you almost certainly will), thus
making a nonsense of the original notion that one 'race' can be
categorised by the results of one test, and you'll find RH and his
friends have alreday scarpered.
Race is a pretty meaningless term scientifically. Its significance is
cultural. It usually denotes the things we see and hear in a person:
their skin colour, hair type, features, tone of voice, aspects of
their behaviour, none of which are necessarily linked to each other.
It's possible that the tendency to excel at certain abilities, mental
or physical, may also be an inherited characterstic in the same way -
and one of those tendencies may be to score highly in certain tests
which a tiny group of eccentrics called Mensa like to call 'IQ tests'.
There's no reason not to carry out such tests, assuming the testers
can find people who can be bothered to take part in them, but their
value objectively speaking must be limited.
Their value to those like RH who wants to be convinced that people
originating from Africa are inferior to Europeans ends whenever the
test fails to provide the evidence he wants, at which point presumably
he can invent another kind of test.
William Huggins
tossers who are so low on self-esteem that they have to judge
themselves by race or nationality. How about personal IQ differences?
I have designed a foolproof way of measuring IQ from the quality of
people's posts. In still have a lot of IQs left to work out but here
are my results so far.
Robert Henderson 67
Rifleman 78
JA 89
Boedicia 35
Tony 19
[babble deleted]
Lord Limbic
"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
news:eb35fbed.02021...@posting.google.com...
> "andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<a4h8is$t06$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > Robert Henderson wrote in message ...
> > >In article <a4gda4$6uk$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
> > ><an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
> > >>
> > >>This sort of crap is stuff mankind doesn't need.
>
> > >The clanging a mind as it closes . RH
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Open YOUR mind, and take a listen to some of the MODERN ideas about
> > intellegence. The round Earth.
>
> You're wasting your time. RH isn't interested in genuine objective
> research on this subject.
Unlike Jack who has just tacitly accepted the following from the person he
is responding to:
"Each human (and possibly animal) brain is linked to a consciousness node ,
each node is linked to its neighbours. At some early point during gestation,
the new life is connected, on death the connection is severed...What gives
brains the edge over manmade computers is this high bandwidth
wireless networking and task sharing facility. The individual units form one
superbrain, which provides the "life force", possibly a collection of virus
like processes, that affords humans self awareness."
Great objective science there Jack.. : )
Regards
LL
andrew wainwright
Lord Limbic wrote in message ...
OK, I'm not qualified to speak with too much authority on this issue, so
I'll look around for some medical science reports for some evidence and
sources. But there is certainly growing interest in conciousness as a
serious science. The theory I mentioned was from an interview with a
researcher compiling a report on near death experiences. I'll come clean, it
was in some magazine I read at the dentist, I've read other similar articals
in general interest magazines, but I don't read medical journals.
But why should I take some guys' report on race more seriously than that
proposed by the hippy medical student starring in FHM or whatever. They've
both started with a hypothesis, done research, and reached a conclusion. You
may think the network of conciousness theory is whacky, I think the idea of
racial science is whacky- and what's worse is it's dangerous.
Robert Henderson
<tp...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>
>> No it doesn't. A small proportion of backs could still get into Mensa.
>
>I'm sorry, but could you enlighten me as to what statistical analysis you
>are using, and why you feel a straight shift of the variance is
>innapropriate? If you can't, then stop making blind assertions.
>
When one is dealing with a population of blacks (including mixed race)
of what? 1 billion approx, some blacks will have Mensa level IQs. There
just won't be many. RH
>> Moreover, as mixed race people are generally classified as blacks, you
>> may well know quite a few who fall into that category because the white
>> admixture raises the IQ - US blacks (which include all those who
>> classify themselves as black) have an average IQ of 85 not 70.
>>
>> How many pure blacks do you know with IQs of 150 plus? RH
>
>Well given they're foreign students direct from Africa, I would guess the
>residents of my college are pure.
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
>The interesting thing about US blacks is that they score exactly as one
>> would expect. With their high admixture of white blood, one would expect
>> them to score above black Africans who have little white blood in the
>> population. That is what happens. The average US black score is 85 as
>> opposed to 70 for Africans. RH .
>> --
>
>The interesting think about US blacks is that they score exactly as one
>would expect. With a background of living in a Western society with all the
>resources this implies, one would expect them to score above black Africans,
>who have few resources and need to spend all their resources just staying
>alive.
So, why do poor Asians score higher? RH
> That is what happens. The average US black score is 85 as opposed to
>70 for Africans. AT.
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<nospam...@msn.com> writes
>
>> How many pure blacks do you know with IQs of 150 plus? RH
>
>My wife 140+ her late father 160+, they are as pure as it gets.
IQs will be significant. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
>
>
>To say science does not recognise the soul is dodgy ground.
Exactly what scientific experiment could be devised? What would
constitute a soul? RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> How many pure blacks do you know with IQs of 150 plus? RH
>
>Why do you care? What possible difference does it make to your pathetic
>existence?
>--
Follow the argument in the thread creature, and you will find out. RH
>Steve
>
>"Pity the man who knows his insignificance,
> Pity the man who doesn't"
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
Huggins <gorgor...@yahoo.com> writes
A terrified liberal bigot writes. RH
>[babble deleted]
--
Robert Henderson
Lord Limbic
>
> OK, I'm not qualified to speak with too much authority on this issue, so
> I'll look around for some medical science reports for some evidence and
> sources. But there is certainly growing interest in conciousness as a
> serious science. The theory I mentioned was from an interview with a
> researcher compiling a report on near death experiences. I'll come clean, it
> was in some magazine I read at the dentist, I've read other similar articals
> in general interest magazines, but I don't read medical journals.
Have a look at this
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
but balance it with this
http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html
> But why should I take some guys' report on race more seriously than that
> proposed by the hippy medical student starring in FHM or whatever.
What was the proponents evidence/argument?
>They've
> both started with a hypothesis, done research, and reached a conclusion. You
> may think the network of conciousness theory is whacky, I think the idea of
> racial science is whacky
What is racial science?
>- and what's worse is it's dangerous.
Why?
Regards
Lord Limbic
Bastered
<sulfugorATrocketmailDOTcom> wrote:
>
>Bastered wrote in message ...
>>On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 00:42:06 -0000, "Bobby"
>><b*o*b*s*i*l*b*y@*a*o*l.*c*om> wrote:
>>
>>>Do taller people score better than shorter people, how about people with
>>>brown eyes compared to blue?
>>>
>>>Also if you want to measure say Blacks go to a Black country which is poor
>>>as hell and the education system is just third world. Or perhaps go to a
>>>Western country where the Black areas are made up mainly of immigrants and
>>>the next couple of generations ie poor as hell. Race is not the only
>>>variable factor so it is scientifically unfounded to make conclusions, of
>>>course being of the master race you would know that.
>>
>>Don't you think investigators have thought of all this? Do you think
>>they haven't tried to erase these median gaps by sampling through
>>socio-economic strata and rearing? The medians move around a bit, but
>>the gaps remain as if they were ordered from above. Race matters when
>>the question concerns a population's performance, but it says nothing
>>about the quality of an individual. You are what you are, not what
>>your race is. Take a pill.
>>
>
>I have seen various versions of the Lynn results quoted in the first
>message. In one
>of the versions ( in mankind quartely), equatorial guineans were quoted as
>having
> an average iq of 59 ( !!!!!).
>How can this make any sense ? given a sd of about 15, it means that a tiny
>fraction ( 0.2% !!!) have iqs between 100 and 105. It'd mean that 10% have
>iqs between 20 and 40 ! Come on, there's something wrong with those figures.
>I have been in contact with some equatorial
>guineans and i have a hard time believing figures like this. Those people
>didn't strike me as
>being particularly dumb. How could the country even exist or run at all
>with such a population ? There have been recent oil findings in EG and i
>wonder how the new found
>prosperity will affect that population.
>Also, do you stand by measurements of Koko the gorilla's iq as 80 ? Do you
>REALLY believe that
>koko the gorilla is smarter than the average african ? really ? surely
>there is something wrong in
>the way iq is measured in those countries.
>
>sulfugor
>
It's easy enough to find flawed testing. I'd be happy to stick with
recent US/Euro testing (we've got a full selection of race and social
strata to sample through). The thing is, there has been an awful lot
of testing over the years. What always jumps out at me isn't the
median numbers, it's the consistency of the gaps. No matter what you
look at, in any multiracial testing, there they are. The lineup,
starting with ashkenasi jews and working down. The median numbers
vary, but the gaps always there and most always in the same order. It
makes me think that you're looking at a real genetic heritance pushing
through the sample sets, through good and poor testing. So, I've come
to believe this is real, until something convincing shows otherwise.
If it weren't that we were talking about peoples & relationships that
can be abused by the results, I don't think we'd have a big problem
with this. We'd believe we were on the right track, and would want
new, consistent testing to perfect the analysis.
My interest in it involves forced equality of result in programs and
legislation in the US, race-rigged college admission, etc.
Robert Henderson
<ilu...@zoidberg.net> writes
>
>It's easy enough to find flawed testing. I'd be happy to stick with
>recent US/Euro testing (we've got a full selection of race and social
>strata to sample through). The thing is, there has been an awful lot
>of testing over the years. What always jumps out at me isn't the
>median numbers, it's the consistency of the gaps. No matter what you
>look at, in any multiracial testing, there they are. The lineup,
>starting with ashkenasi jews and working down. The median numbers
>vary, but the gaps always there and most always in the same order. It
>makes me think that you're looking at a real genetic heritance pushing
>through the sample sets, through good and poor testing. So, I've come
>to believe this is real, until something convincing shows otherwise.
>If it weren't that we were talking about peoples & relationships that
>can be abused by the results, I don't think we'd have a big problem
>with this. We'd believe we were on the right track, and would want
>new, consistent testing to perfect the analysis.
>
This is an excellent argument against those who use the Flynn effect as
an argument against fixed racial group IQ traits.
A perfectly sound Darwinian argument could be advanced for the rises in
IQ which comprise the Flynn effect (that is assuming they are not
explained simply by changes in testing technique). The argument is this:
as society becomes more orientated to towards intellectual function, as
ours undoubtedly is, then those with higher IQs are selected
differentially to survive. This causes the group IQ to rise. RH
>My interest in it involves forced equality of result in programs and
>legislation in the US, race-rigged college admission, etc.
>
--
Robert Henderson
abelard
typed:
>
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8HiBrwAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Note: A caution should be issued about such studies. One really needs to
>> know
>> the social backgrounds of the samples. Urban populations generally
>> score better than rural populations. Moreover, the samples may not have
>> been random. For example, in the case of African studies, if
>> the studies were made of schoolchildren, the likelihood is that those
>> tested would have been not only from the towns but also from the
>> wealthier classes because only the wealthier will generally be able to
>> send their children to secondary school - there is not a great deal of
>> point in testing children below primary school age, because IQ scores
>> for young children are somewhat unreliable.
>> >
>
>My main problem with this is that the results it gives when applied seem
>ludicrous. I would have to agree with other posters when I say that the fact
>that these surveys are done in Africa is the overriding factor. Not from
>some lefty perspective, but purely from a mathematical one.
>
>If the results are to be believed, then the main erroneous data isn't at the
>average, but rather at the extremities. Placing the same bell curve on this
>data, but with the mean at 70 implies that only 2% of black africans will
>have an IQ higher that 115.
no...that should read 100
iq measured in the uk and usa ~100 years ago would likely show
an even lower mean....
the data is meaningless....lynn is one of those funded by the pioneer
fund i believe....the pioneer fund only funds those who have a
racist agenda....
as usual hatstand is out of his depth.....
iq can be taught...it is being taught.....
understanding the stats is a highly subtle skill....
quite beyond the capabilities of hatstand.....
i guess hatstand has an iq of around 100....
in today's terms....which would have been about
high average in the olden days when he was
educated.....
you can see it in his lack of creativity....
his stereotyped responses.....his repetitive behaviour......
thus in a current west african population he would be
considered rather intelligent.....
whereas in modern western society he would make
an adequate bus driver or tax office clerk....
however, one should not regard him as inferior on
these grounds....the country needs bus drivers....
even if not tax clerks.....
someone has to do these jobs and it is totally unfair
for the middle classes to take a superior attitude
to him.....
because he seems somewhat childish in modern britain....
and britain could not function at its present level of
civilisation, if his iq was as exceptional as it may be if
he were the chief of some hunter gatherer tribe in an
obscure part of wartorn africa.....
britain would still be at the point of experimenting with the
first cars....most transport would be horse drawn and
the country would be fighting border wars with germany
or some such.....
therefore his case with regard to the developmental level
of africa may have some foundation.....
i would congratulate hatstand for working that out all by
himself....if he did.....that would be exceptional behaviour
for a person with an iq of 100 but that could be
attributed to education....or some article he read in
the daily smell.....
it is common to note that people who feel inferior have a tendency
to seek out someone lower to peck....chickens even do it.....
hatstand seems to fixated on black people....
though as gaz is implying....hatstand had better be selective in
the blacks he focuses on....
the real problem for our society is how we make the likes of
hatstand *feel* part of society while adjusting to his relative
inferiority.....
this is a very serious difficulty for modern society where idiots
in school and government continually tell rather dull children
that they are 'equal'
and that their opinion is worth a great deal.....
of course hatstand's opinion will be valued among his peers
down the bus station....and it is important that his superiors
construct and environment where he feels less threatened.....
however, the human ego is a strange thing.....
i expect he has convinced himself that he is really quite bright....
strangely he could become a lot brighter if he chose to learn
some of the above....
remember...i told you that iq is in fact teachable to a very high
degree....
so here we have an urban myth going back at least 80 years
which is actually stopping the likes of hatstand being as
bright as he could otherwise be....
it is rather like the days when every moron just *knew* people
could not fly!
so of course they did not do much investigating....
except for the 9000 they called 'bonkers'.......
i would be seriously interested in any ideas people may have
for encouraging hatstand to gain more confidence, in order
that we may attempt to raise his iq and thus help him to
overcome his pressing needs to finger someone....anyone
'inferior'....
in order to make himself 'feel' better and safer....
if we could do that, perhaps hatstand would start to produce
some more interesting posts....
btw...there are some other posters who might also benefit from
such reorientation....
regards.
web site at www.abelard.org - docs on power, ethics, inflation
..also education, logic and more....~1/3 million doc requests yearly
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D Salt
[Snips]
> technique). The argument is this: as society becomes more
> orientated to towards intellectual function, as ours
> undoubtedly is, then those with higher IQs are selected
> differentially to survive. This causes the group IQ to rise.
For the argument to work, it would be necessary that this society
"more orientated towards intellectual function" ensured that
"high-IQ" individuals enjoyed an advantage in reproductive
success. In the absence of any such evidence, or even an attempt
to present it, it looks rather as if someone who hasn't grasped
the elements of Darwin's principle is making a desperate attempt
to preserve a dearly-loved prejudice in the face of annoying
facts.
All the best,
John.
abelard
typed:
>
>
>On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Robin wrote:
>
>> In article <8HiBrwAD...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
>> <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >With average IQs around 70 it is scarcely surprising that the African
>> >societies are in such a shambles. They lack both sufficient numbers of
>> >people with sufficient intellect to run a modern state and the generally
>> >low intellect will mean that the average African is rather childlike -
>> >low IQ people )60-75) are not monsters or idiots, rather they have a
>> >poor capacity to handle abstractions, plan for the future, project
>> >beyond their own ego etc.
>>
>> This sounds *exactly* like you!
>>
>> I hadn't realised that you were black. Your photograph showed a leering
>> semi-white tramp, but I guess you paid the reporter to lighten you up
>> using Photoshop.
>
>Oh! Cruel, Robin! Cruel!
but reasonably accurate....remember most people in britain
are not highly educated...but they do run a relatively
advanced civilisation....
it is done by giving each a simple task....
like tightening a bolt in a factory....and the next person in
the line may start pump up a tyre and so on....
places like the tax office have mountainous rule books....
every time one gets 'stuck' they just go and look up what
they have to do next....
they have forms to fill in....tick this box if the customer
looks 'a bit dodgy' (you and i would call it acting independently
or 'thinking for themselves'.....)
it is the factory system and it has increased wealth enormously...
however much it might erk and bore an intelligent entity....
and anyway, think, how else could we herd the sheep......
you see if you put a sheep in an office and give them a little power...
they have an awful tendency to imagine they are 'important' or
'powerful'....
on the continent these problems are dealt with rather differently....
in britain we tend, perhaps unwisely, to give the hatstands of
this world....some flexibility....some limited room to use
'initiative'
on the continent the view is that this just generates battalions of little
dictators...
so *everything*....and i mean *everything* must have a rule!
the difference of approach is very interesting.....
regards...
Robert Henderson
<john...@NOSPAM.btclick.com> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:CdMuN3A+...@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
>
>[Snips]
>> technique). The argument is this: as society becomes more
>> orientated to towards intellectual function, as ours
>> undoubtedly is, then those with higher IQs are selected
>> differentially to survive. This causes the group IQ to rise.
>
>For the argument to work, it would be necessary that this society
>"more orientated towards intellectual function" ensured that
>"high-IQ" individuals enjoyed an advantage in reproductive
>success.
It was merely an hypothesis. My own suspicion is that IQ tests have
changed so much over the years that this may account for much if not all
of the increase. RH
>In the absence of any such evidence, or even an attempt
>to present it, it looks rather as if someone who hasn't grasped
>the elements of Darwin's principle is making a desperate attempt
>to preserve a dearly-loved prejudice in the face of annoying
>facts.
>
>All the best,
>
>John.
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
>
>no...that should read 100
>
>iq measured in the uk and usa ~100 years ago would likely show
> an even lower mean....
>the data is meaningless....lynn is one of those funded by the pioneer
> fund i believe....the pioneer fund only funds those who have a
> racist agenda....
>as usual hatstand is out of his depth.....
>
>iq can be taught...it is being taught.....
>
>understanding the stats is a highly subtle skill....
> quite beyond the capabilities of hatstand.....
Oh dear, his valves need replacing again. RH
--
Robert Henderson
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <j6dr6u8fnn1ocjaka...@4ax.com>, Bastered
><ilu...@zoidberg.net> writes
>>
>>It's easy enough to find flawed testing. I'd be happy to stick with
>>recent US/Euro testing (we've got a full selection of race and social
>>strata to sample through). The thing is, there has been an awful lot
>>of testing over the years. What always jumps out at me isn't the
>>median numbers, it's the consistency of the gaps. No matter what you
>>look at, in any multiracial testing, there they are. The lineup,
>>starting with ashkenasi jews and working down. The median numbers
>>vary, but the gaps always there and most always in the same order. It
>>makes me think that you're looking at a real genetic heritance pushing
>>through the sample sets, through good and poor testing. So, I've come
>>to believe this is real, until something convincing shows otherwise.
>>If it weren't that we were talking about peoples & relationships that
>>can be abused by the results, I don't think we'd have a big problem
>>with this. We'd believe we were on the right track, and would want
>>new, consistent testing to perfect the analysis.
>This is an excellent argument against those who use the Flynn effect as
>an argument against fixed racial group IQ traits.
it isn't....unless you can show a cultural change in the groups
over time....
gott you are a pest and a nuisance.....
go read my document as referenced again on this fred...
one day you just might catch onto what it means....
>A perfectly sound Darwinian argument could be advanced for the rises in
>IQ which comprise the Flynn effect (that is assuming they are not
>explained simply by changes in testing technique). The argument is this:
>as society becomes more orientated to towards intellectual function, as
>ours undoubtedly is, then those with higher IQs are selected
>differentially to survive. This causes the group IQ to rise. RH
don't be so damned thik...you have a theory!! pah....
1)the better off, are breeding (overall), at a lower rate than the
incompetent...
2)the factory system substitutes for intelligence....
you know nothing....
every time you post on this you make yourself look thikker....
quit while you are behind hatstand....
regards...sort of...you dull ukp mascot you....
stik to things you know sommat about....
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <Xns91B795B4F3B7...@62.172.195.196>, John D Salt
><john...@NOSPAM.btclick.com> writes
>>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>news:CdMuN3A+...@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>[Snips]
>>> technique). The argument is this: as society becomes more
>>> orientated to towards intellectual function, as ours
>>> undoubtedly is, then those with higher IQs are selected
>>> differentially to survive. This causes the group IQ to rise.
>>
>>For the argument to work, it would be necessary that this society
>>"more orientated towards intellectual function" ensured that
>>"high-IQ" individuals enjoyed an advantage in reproductive
>>success.
>
>It was merely an hypothesis. My own suspicion is that IQ tests have
>changed so much over the years that this may account for much if not all
>of the increase. RH
yes dear...they have changed..in part to allow for the flynn
effect....
in order to rebase 'average' to 100....
you know nothing...you 'reasoning' is full of basic statistical
mis-understandings that are just starting to surface in the
mainstream...
i have been fighting the misunderstandings forever....
you are out of your depth....until you realise that you will
keep right on posting gobbledegoop....
regards....sort of...you can be a bluddy embarrassment you know....
and you cause me unnecessary work cleaning up your poo....
abelard
typed:
so...you have a little knowledge...well i s'pose that trumps hatstand....
read this...carefully....
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
the ashkenasi value education to a considerable degree...
black culture does not to anything like the same degree....
unless cultural elements are matched...the figures are meaningless....
unless dates are matched (in view of the flynn effect) the figures
are meaningless.....
people have re-run the herrnstein and murray data and have
stated that most is accountable by socio-economic mis
matching.....(i can't remember the prime book on the subject...
a book i thought as slanted as the bell curve, james h may
remember)
ah....found it....C. S. Fischer et al., Inequality by Design, 1996,
Princeton University Press, 0-691-02898-2
see note one in the above link...
statistical sampling has a gross inclination to bury the very facts
which oppose the 'hypothesis' (a neat word for 'thik prejudices')
of the 'researcher'(usually a euphemism for ' naive idiot')
i know this subject inside out....and *i don't know* whether
there is a genetic difference....if i don't know...probably
no-one does....
i, like you, am marginally suspicious.....but as you correctly say...
even if there were...it is meaningless....
it has *no* sane social policy implications.....
>My interest in it involves forced equality of result in programs and
>legislation in the US, race-rigged college admission, etc.
yes, it is a problem....a political fix....i don't like it either....
but i am not so arrogant to imagine that my view is definitive....
i expect it to be steadily phased out....
it is possible that it starts as useful....and steadily becomes
counter productive....
a great deal of the problem is dull witted bigoted amateurs like hatstand
muddying the water to the extent that it inhibits any useful public
discussion....
in the end....which ever way....
from a political viewpoint it a great big so what....
it amazes me that dullards like hatstand make such a noise when
it is crystal clear that very large numbers of low light reflectors
are so considerable much more able that himself....
to behave in such a manner is an enlightening demonstration
of serious idiocy....
regards....
abelard
typed:
>"Bobby" <b*o*b*s*i*l*b*y@*a*o*l.*c*om> wrote in message
>news:3c6b0...@news.teranews.com...
>> Do taller people score better than shorter people, how about people with
>> brown eyes compared to blue?
>>
>> Also if you want to measure say Blacks go to a Black country which is poor
>> as hell and the education system is just third world. Or perhaps go to a
>> Western country where the Black areas are made up mainly of immigrants and
>> the next couple of generations ie poor as hell. Race is not the only
>> variable factor so it is scientifically unfounded to make conclusions, of
>> course being of the master race you would know that.
>>
>I suspect the only way you could get any meaningful result, would be to
>choose samples of people of different colours, but from the same country
>(they need to have been there for at least a few generations) and include an
>equal crossection of different backgrounds in each colour group (and even
>then, any racial prejudices may scew the results as they would affect
>certain subjects and their circumstances).
>
>I.e. you need to prove that a black kid from the slums isn't as smart as a
>white kid living next door, that a white professor of Mathematics is smarter
>than his black collegue etc. I'm not sure you would end up with the sort of
>'clear cut' results implied in the studies mentioned.
just so...i'm impressed...you can think....
see other posts here to shade in some of the subtlety.....
the burying of facts in averages is very important...
because very few grasp it....
regards.
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <a4g67e$ilm$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de>, athomik
><ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>I suspect the only way you could get any meaningful result, would be to
>>choose samples of people of different colours, but from the same country
>>(they need to have been there for at least a few generations) and include an
>>equal crossection of different backgrounds in each colour group (and even
>>then, any racial prejudices may scew the results as they would affect
>>certain subjects and their circumstances).
>>
>
>Er...that has been done extensively in the States. Moreover, the most
>telling statistic of all is the fact that people of the same racial type
>in different societies score broadly the same, eg Japanese Americans
>score the same as Japanese. RH
no it isn't moron....
the japanese value education more and they are more conformist....
you continue to expostulate through your lower orifice....
tears copious hair out....
abelard
typed:
>The only conclusion one could reach, is that the idea of race is already
>well on it's way out as a meaningful concept. Considering that it has only
>taken something like 400 years to get to this stage, I'd say we are on the
>fast track of human evolution and it won't take anywhere near as long to end
>up with are relatively homogenous species as it took to create the diverse
>range of phenotypes seen we see today.
relief...someone who hasn't got their head right up their arse....
what do you think to the homogenising of the race?
what of lack of genetic diversity?
this has been a serious problem with threatened species
and dutch elm disease....
or do you trust technology to give us all neat mechanical
brains like mine? or rely on gene engineering....
as you say....these prats are living in the past.....
not far from phrenology imv...
regards....
abelard
typed:
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:11:50 -0000, "Adrian Thomas"
><ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Bastered <ilu...@zoidberg.net> wrote in message
>>news:cvnn6u8cvha5ubmc4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:01:57 +0000, Robert Henderson
>>> <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >Er...that has been done extensively in the States. Moreover, the most
>>> >telling statistic of all is the fact that people of the same racial type
>>> >in different societies score broadly the same, eg Japanese Americans
>>> >score the same as Japanese. RH
>>>
>>> Exactly. People want to dodge this issue, understandably, but the work
>>> has been done. Race matters folks. It says nothing about an individual
>>> (an important thing to remember), but it says everything about how a
>>> racial group is going to perform in a competitive country.
>>>
>>
>>The work has been done, but the initial premises were flawed. There simply
>>is no such thing as a relatively pure black community living in exactly the
>>same circumstances (for at least a few generations) as a pure white, yellow
>>or any other 'race'.
>
>It sounds more to me that you're scared of the result.
moron....argue the facts...not play this sort of crap game....
>This
>imperfectability of data argument is the same one that Christians use
>to hit evolutionary biologists with.The median gaps remain, they
>follow race in whatever country and socio-economic strata people live,
>and they do follow mixed race in the US. Of course it is not perfect
>data. It is highly persuasive data.
no it isn't....there is culture difference to assess....
>I fully realize that this knowlege is abused, and that it can be
>harmful to the spirit of someone whose race doesn't score well. It
>appears to be true nevertheless. I use it where it counts; for the
>purpose of wise decision-making. I do not deliberately use it to make
>an individual feel less worth.
and what possible 'wise decisions' precisely do you make upon your
crap pseudo-science?
>>Without all other factors being equal, and using relatively pure racial
>>samples, any meaningful study is basically impossible. Whichever way you go
>>about it, for any sample you pick in today's world, you'll be comparing
>>apples and pears.
>>
>>The only conclusion one could reach, is that the idea of race is already
>>well on it's way out as a meaningful concept. Considering that it has only
>>taken something like 400 years to get to this stage, I'd say we are on the
>>fast track of human evolution and it won't take anywhere near as long to end
>>up with are relatively homogenous species as it took to create the diverse
>>range of phenotypes seen we see today.
>
>The Race Doesn't Exist position is just a way that some people want to
>look at it. It easy to come at it either way. Race has the meaning
>that it gives itself. In this case, it has meaning for the
>competitiveness of population groups in those things that are highly
>reliant on cognitive ability. Cognitive ability has a straightforward
>effect on wealth and crime within a race, and comparatively between
>races. In other areas race has no meaning.
so use correct terminology....'competing cultural groups' or some such....
if you want to talk 'race'...define it....if you want to talk genes...
name them....
>Personally, I'll stick with the diversity of race that we have, don't
>care to become homogenous.
you are homogenised....upstairs...
race means nothing until you define it....your usage
is anomalous....and dated....
stop clinging to cozy prejudices....
you don't know...so stop claiming to know while hiding behind
middle class pseudo science speak....
how to bluff your way at a mensa meeting....
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <2nps6uc43nlbm59sp...@4ax.com>, abelard
ignorant coward....
admit you are wrong wrong wrong....stop posturing
...stop attempting to cover up....
you are slapped down...stay down or i'll just slap you
again....
you are out of your depth....get back into the shallow end
or you'll just keep drowning....
i can eat you alive in this area....drop it....
Robert Henderson
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
Do change his faulty valves, someone. RH
>web site at www.abelard.org - docs on power, ethics, inflation
> ..also education, logic and more....~1/3 million doc requests yearly
>-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
> all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
> the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
> good people do nothing I trust actions not words
> only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
>
>>I.e. you need to prove that a black kid from the slums isn't as smart as a
>>white kid living next door, that a white professor of Mathematics is smarter
>>than his black collegue etc. I'm not sure you would end up with the sort of
>>'clear cut' results implied in the studies mentioned.
>
>just so...i'm impressed.
mmmm...amusing the lack of computing power in ancient computers. RH
>..you can think....
>see other posts here to shade in some of the subtlety.....
>the burying of facts in averages is very important...
> because very few grasp it....
>
>regards.
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:45:51 +0000, Robert Henderson
><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>In article <2nps6uc43nlbm59sp...@4ax.com>, abelard
>><abe...@abelard.org> writes
>>>
>>>no...that should read 100
>>>
>>>iq measured in the uk and usa ~100 years ago would likely show
>>> an even lower mean....
>>>the data is meaningless....lynn is one of those funded by the pioneer
>>> fund i believe....the pioneer fund only funds those who have a
>>> racist agenda....
>>>as usual hatstand is out of his depth.....
>>>
>>>iq can be taught...it is being taught.....
>>>
>>>understanding the stats is a highly subtle skill....
>>> quite beyond the capabilities of hatstand.....
>>
>>Oh dear, his valves need replacing again. RH
>
>ignorant coward....
>admit you are wrong wrong wrong....stop posturing
> ...stop attempting to cover up....
>you are slapped down...stay down or i'll just slap you
> again....
>
>you are out of your depth....get back into the shallow end
> or you'll just keep drowning....
>i can eat you alive in this area....drop it....
>
Interesting, as more and more of the Bonkers 9000's valves go, the
output becomes steadily more incoherent. RH
>web site at www.abelard.org - docs on power, ethics, inflation
> ..also education, logic and more....~1/3 million doc requests yearly
>-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
> all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
> the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
> good people do nothing I trust actions not words
> only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
Robert Henderson
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
"Mummy, mummy.....pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze look at my
painting. RH
>>A perfectly sound Darwinian argument could be advanced for the rises in
>>IQ which comprise the Flynn effect (that is assuming they are not
>>explained simply by changes in testing technique). The argument is this:
>>as society becomes more orientated to towards intellectual function, as
>>ours undoubtedly is, then those with higher IQs are selected
>>differentially to survive. This causes the group IQ to rise. RH
>
>don't be so damned thik...you have a theory!! pah....
>1)the better off, are breeding (overall), at a lower rate than the
> incompetent...
You are making the common error of imagining that it is only at the
upper end of IQ that such a trait would be found. If the hypothesis is
true, it will operate throughout the IQ distribution. For example, those
with IQs if 105 will have more children on average than those with IQs
of 100. Whether it is true remains to be tested. It is a perfectly
respectable Darwinian explanation. RH
>2)the factory system substitutes for intelligence....
>
>you know nothing....
>every time you post on this you make yourself look thikker....
>
>quit while you are behind hatstand....
>
>regards...sort of...you dull ukp mascot you....
>stik to things you know sommat about....
>
>web site at www.abelard.org - docs on power, ethics, inflation
> ..also education, logic and more....~1/3 million doc requests yearly
>-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
> all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
> the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
> good people do nothing I trust actions not words
> only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
Robert Henderson
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
>
>>Er...that has been done extensively in the States. Moreover, the most
>>telling statistic of all is the fact that people of the same racial type
>>in different societies score broadly the same, eg Japanese Americans
>>score the same as Japanese. RH
>
>no it isn't moron....
>the japanese value education more and they are more conformist....
>
The same applies to all racial groups. RH
>tears copious hair out....
Er...shouldn't that be wiring out? RH
--
Robert Henderson
coinc...@perhapsnot.com
[Is this you, the same Mr Henderson?]
13 xii 01
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
c/o The Independent
Dear Miss Alibhai-Brown,
I have read your piece in the Independent (10/12/01) entitled
"Mr Blunkett has insulted us all". It would be more aptly
entitled "Yasmin Alibhai-Brown insults the British once
again" or, perhaps more accurately, "Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
insults the English once again."
You obviously do not realise it, but your article is deeply
racist, both in general tone and in its particular content.
From beginning to end you carp about Britain and its native
people. You come up with abusive racial stereotyping such as
"I feel no obligation to bring my daughter and son up to
drink themselves to death in a pub for a laugh", you show
your visceral anti-white racist mentality with "I will
not...go into turmoil every time a white Briton is shown in
some foreign prison" (a non-racist would simply have said
Briton) and you yearn for people to be cabinet ministers,
ambassadors and EU commissioners simply because they are
black or Asian.
What would you say if a white journalist wrote "I feel no
obligation to bring up my daughter and son as a crack dealer
or pimp"? How would you respond to a white journalist saying
he would not go into a turmoil every time a black Briton is
shown in some foreign prison"? What would you think of a
white journalist who wanted people in jobs simply because
they were white? Well, I think we all know the answer to
those questions: you would be screaming "racist" for all you
are worth.
But those type of casual insults are not the end of it. You
speak of Britain's "destructive historical role" without any
justification of the statement. Well, exactly what was that
destructive role, Miss A-B? The industrial revolution? The
development of parliamentary government? The development of
the idea of personal freedom? The originator of all the
values which are the basis of the "human rights" you
supposedly hold dear?
Or is it that your view of Britain is simply coloured by the
Empire? Well, I am not one of Nature's imperialists, but I
will say that if you had to be an unwilling member of an
Empire, you would have been a fool to have chosen any other
than the British, which, particularly in its last 100 years,
was driven by public policy which increasingly put the
interests of the indigenous populations of the Empire before
those of the imperial power. Nor is the
imperial/non-imperial state a neat dichotomy. Most peoples at
most times have been ruled by elites who have had nothing but
contempt for the masses. That being so, it really does not
make much difference if a ruler is an imperial power or a
local warlord, except that the imperial power may often be
more reasonable in its general behaviour.
Your most telling passage is " If this is my country, and it
is, I will criticise what I believe to be wrong, reject
"norms" that I find abhorrent, take what I admire, and spend
my life helping to make a more inclusive and dynamic new
nation, instead of making do with the decayed remnants of a
long gone past". That displays a childlike egotism. You are
saying "I will do what ever I want and the world will be made
in my image." You wish in short to destroy the native culture
and history and substitute your own. Well, it may come as a
surprise to you, Miss A-B, but the English rather object to
that.
You say in your article that you get abuse from white
indigenous people (hint: we are called the English) every day
of your life. Well, I doubt whether many ordinary blacks or
Asians would claim that. Does it ever vaguely cross your mind
that you receive such frequent abuse because you
incessantly incontinently insult and abuse the English? If
not, I suggest you let it do so.
It is not that you do not wish to be English, you do not
even wish to be British really, viz: "What's more, seven
years ago, I finally decided that this place was my place,
and that was because I had a daughter whose father was of
these islands. This did not make me less black, Asian or
Muslims - those identities are in my blood, thick an
forever." You see, you want to have your racial cake and eat.
You want to enjoy all the benefits of living in a rich, safe
tolerant country such as Britain, whilst standing aside from
the society.
You celebrate the fact that your identities as a black, Asian
or Muslim are so strong. Does not occur to you that the
Englishman's identity is just as set as yours? It is, I do
assure you. You will doubtless be scoffing in your mind at
the idea of Englishness because you have been brainwashed to
believe it either does not exist or is rapidly declining. To
disabuse yourself of that view, I suggest you read "What is
Albion" which I send by separate email.
You claim that blacks and Asians are at disadvantage
generally in Britain. Well, in terms of public policy the
reverse is true. Blacks and Asians are frequently put in a
privileged position. For example, there are more than 80
Housing Associations which will accept only non-white tenants
(see separate email) and no non-white has been prosecuted
under the 1976 RRA (despite the persistent incitement to
violence offered by Muslims). Moreover, where Asians are
over-represented (in proportion to their numbers in the
general population) in prestige jobs, eg the legal and
medical professions, you happily accept that without any
complaint. Why do you never point out instances of white
disadvantage Miss A-B?
Both the way you behave and the reaction you provoke from
the English is easily explicable as biological phenomena.
Any organism will attempt to conquer new territory. Any
organism already in the territory will resist the conquest.
As someone who see herself as an alien intrusion into Britain
(because that whether you know it or not is what you think)
you naturally wish to weaken the native culture and weaken
its people. To do that you both support and promote the
immigration of as many others from your own racial/cultural
group as possible into Britain, whilst denigrating the
native culture with the view to replacing it with a new
non-Native cultural melange. The native population, quite
naturally, resists this attempt to severely disadvantage them
at best and destroy them as a dominant group at worst.
You, Miss A-B, have been lulled into a false sense of
security by living too long amongst white liberals who have
allowed you to behave as you want and praised your abusive
behaviour towards their own people and society. You have
never really had to argue your case. You simply repeat, in
the manner of a preacher, a set of assertions which are
rarely if ever challenged publicly because white liberals
ensure through their control of the media and politics that
those who would offer the challenge are excluded. (The
quality of your "argument" is exemplified by your boast
that you speak good English, better than that of your English
husband you say, or rather claim he says. You must be very
naive if you honestly imagine that a husband is a reliable
guide to a wife's qualities in such circumstances. Do you
imagine that he would tell you that you were inarticulate or
clumsy in your speech if that was the case?)
You claim to be an eloquent and graceful speaker (hint: such
boasting is thought to be rather bad form here). Well, having
heard you on a few occasions on BBC Radio, I certainly would
not describe you as either. Indeed, far from being graceful,
you have been invariably shrill. You may think you are
articulate, but all I hear when you speak is the fluent
recitation of received opinion and well rehearsed statements.
When you are asked to think on your feet, you fail miserably.
Fluency in such circumstances is not true articulacy, any
more than an actor saying his lines is. Articulacy requires
intelligent thought before utterance, not the mere recitation
of familiar words and thoughts.
Perhaps the scales are beginning to fall from your eyes as
far as our white liberal friends are concerned. The mistake
you have made is to assume that they actually believed in the
values they espoused. In fact, elites only have one settled
principle, Miss A-B - the maintenance of their power and
privilege. Have you never wondered why all these people who
extolled multiculturalism took such care to avoid the
consequences of mass immigration themselves by living in very
white areas or white enclaves within immigrant areas?
Remember how Blair overturned one of the scared cows of
Labour policy, comprehensive education, simply to avoid
sending his children to Islington schools? These people
would not even inconvenience themselves, let alone go to the
stake for blacks and Asians.
Some final thoughts. In 1920 the census of the Indian Empire
(which included latterday Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) was
some 400 million. The white population was a mere 150,000,
0.0375% of the population. An equivalent percentage of blacks
and Asians in present day Britain would mean that their total
population would be less than 25,000. In fact, the black and
Asian population of Britain is probably around 8% (it was
officially 5.5% at the last census in 1991). If an equivalent
percentage of whites were resident in India they would form a
group of 80 million. That gives you some idea of the
magnitude of the immigration which the British (and primarily
the English) have had to accommodate. What do you think would
be the response in India if 80 million whites attempted to
settle there? Tolerance? Acceptance? An elite dedicated to
their interests? I rather think not.
Any minority anywhere, Miss A-B, must expect to suffer the
hostility of the majority. The wise thing for any minority is
to be quiescent.
Yours sincerely, Robert Henderson.
Steve Smith
news:OoAb8.47883$YA2.6...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Whoever wrote it I like it a lot.
Steve
JonC
> In article <a4gj79$4hl7$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de>, athomik
> <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
> >In the US in particular, it must be very difficult to establish clear racial
> >divisions based on ancestry, rather than the superficial appearance of the
> >last generation or two. This, in turn would make any meaningful study into a
> >link between race and IQ, and the elimination of environment as a
> >significant factor virtually impossible.
>
> The interesting thing about US blacks is that they score exactly as one
> would expect. With their high admixture of white blood, one would expect
> them to score above black Africans who have little white blood in the
> population. That is what happens. The average US black score is 85 as
> opposed to 70 for Africans. RH .
I don't think that quite works when you think about it. Studies of the
Duffy gene (a gene present in all whites but virtually no pure african
blacks) have shown that US blacks are on average approximately 25%
genetically caucasian.
Assuming a linear interpolation between an african black (IQ 70) and a
european white (IQ 100) would yield an IQ of 78 for a 75%/25% hybrid.
OK, it's an assumption to assume a linear relationship, but even so
there is a big difference between 78 and the actual US black IQ
average of 85. So something else seems to be at work here, most likely
environmental conditions, diet, lack of education etc. depressing the
african scores.
Personally I find the african average of 70 rather implausible anyway.
70 is borderline retarded and for anyone who has ever met or worked
with people with similar IQs to that it is very hard to believe that
the average sub-saharan african has the same mental capacity as those
people. Although I have never personally been to africa, if it were
true that africans have an average IQ of 70 it would be VERY noticable
that they were VERY stupid and I don't get the impression that that is
peoples' experience.
Hans Eysenck at one point put forward the idea that mixed race
children tended to have higher IQ's than the average of their
non-mixed race parents and he called this "heterosis". I think that
the evidence put forward were from studies of the children of
white/asian parents rather than white/black parents and I'm not sure
what further work was done on this (if any).
JonC
> "Unferth" <Unf...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:a4gl7u$4e05$1...@ID-103389.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Tom Whipple" <tp...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:a4ghn0$68j$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > > >
> > > > Very interesting argument, but I thought the Normal approximation
> could
> only
> > > > be used for the middle regions, and it is quite likely that the actual
> > > > distribution differs significantly in the tails, ie they are much
> fatter
> > > > than Normal. Hence your arguments aren't really valid.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, I'm afraid they are. I wasn't fitting a normal distribution on the
> > > results, I was fitting the same distribution as the general population
> > > distribution on the results - try it, you'll reach the same conclusions.
> > >
> >
> > Where did you get this distribution from? I would be interested in having
> a
> > play. I'm not a statistician but I thought with any type of "bell" type
> > distribution it was dangerous to make inferences in the tails due to the
> > sparsity of data and difficulty determining exactly what the distribution
> > was at that point.
>
> Quite right - which is why taking it to the extreme of looking at the very
> top (as I admittedly did) is silly. But it is essentially true that 2% of
> the general population has an IQ higher than 148, and proportionally
> extrapolating that curve exactly (which is dodgy, see below) leads us to
> conclude that that implies that only 2% of the black population has an IQ
> higher than 115. Which I find difficult to believe.
>
> >
> > I also don't understand why you feel you can translate the distribution
> for
> > the general population onto the black population?
>
> There are, I would guess, 4 possibilities:
>
> 1) The curve for the black population follows an entirely different
> distribution. If it does, this is both very significant and very
> interesting. I however find it unlikely, for two reasons. Firstly I've never
> heard it been even mooted. Secondly, the general population curve is a
> composition of continuous distributions. It is likely to be skewed if one of
> those distributions is of a different form to the others, particularly if it
> comprises a large proportion of the population. It is also a fact that the
> sum of normal-type distributions is a normal-type distribution.
>
> 2) The variance and distribution can be translated exactly - in which case
> my conclusions are correct.
>
> 3) The variance is smaller - in which case my conclusions are even more
> extreme.
This has been proposed in relation to east asians. Evidence has been
put forward that whereas whites have a mean of 100 and standard
deviation of 15, east asians have a mean of about 105 and a standard
deviation closer to 12. It has not been conclusively shown however. If
true it would mean that even though the average asian is higher, a
caucasian is more likely to be at the very high end than an asian (as
well as being more likely to be retarded than an asian).
>
> 4) The variance is larger - in which case there should be a large proportion
> of black people wondering around barely able to talk (have you ever looked
> up what an IQ of 70 means? It means you are close to being classed as
> borderline disabled).
>
> Possibility (1) could just about occur if the distribution was more like a
> skewed normal (I believe it's called a gamma distribution), but any
> significant skewing would, I would have thought, show up quite clearly.
Income levels are not normally distributed, they show a skewed
distribution as you describe. If IQ is partially caused by income (as
well as income being caused to some extent by it) perhaps IQ will also
become somewhat skewed in it's distribution.
>
> But I could be wrong - my knowledge of statistics is restricted to a couple
> of undergrad courses, and I'm sure there's still a lot I don't know or may
> have overlooked.
>
>
> >The very fact that you
> > got the results you did proves something is wrong somewhere.
>
> Yep, you're quite right - my contention though is that the thing that is
> wrong is the initial premise that the mean is 70 (at least amongst black
> people in the UK).
I don't think anyone proposes that the black mean is anywhere near as
low as 70 in the UK.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <19ct6ucs2clcpnb90...@4ax.com>, abelard
>>1)the better off, are breeding (overall), at a lower rate than the
>> incompetent...
>
>You are making the common error of imagining that it is only at the
>upper end of IQ that such a trait would be found. If the hypothesis is
>true, it will operate throughout the IQ distribution. For example, those
>with IQs if 105 will have more children on average than those with IQs
>of 100. Whether it is true remains to be tested. It is a perfectly
>respectable Darwinian explanation. RH
it isn't...you know nothing on nothing on nothing....
layer on layer on layer of ignorance.....
you hatstand are an incredible moron....
read it again....you still probably won't understand....
but it may be good for you...
i can stand you being a dogged idiot....
i can stand you being an ordinary moron....
you can't help it after years toeing the line in some dull
government office....but....
the cowardice begins to irritate....
the cowardice to refuse to face facts and admit you are simply
both ignorant and wrong in your assertions....
i cannot respect your cowardice...
your bigotry is part of your poor breeding.....
your stupidity is not entirely your own fault.....
your arrogant refusal to learn is common among the dull.....
your irrational fears are common to your background.....
but no....the cowardice is beyond a joke....even after decades
of being cowed in a government office....
even after years of attempting to bully your betters......
find in yourself the moral fibre to admit your errors
or you will never be a man to be reckoned with......
wrapping yourself in the flag will not be enuf....
taking on easy targets will not be enuf.....
the beginning of knowledge is knowing what you don't know....
on this matter you know nothing....
stop pontificating like a village idiot....
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <p6dt6uggi8fd95k6h...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abe...@abelard.org> writes
>>
>>>Er...that has been done extensively in the States. Moreover, the most
>>>telling statistic of all is the fact that people of the same racial type
>>>in different societies score broadly the same, eg Japanese Americans
>>>score the same as Japanese. RH
>>
>>no it isn't moron....
>>the japanese value education more and they are more conformist....
>Innately or by nurture? RH
>>you continue to expostulate through your lower orifice....
>The same applies to all racial groups. RH
and moron...?
try thinking even though it hurts so....
(yet another ignorant use of the term 'race'...)
stop using words you don't understand in context....
get back in the shallow end where you belong as
i told you before...
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>Interesting, as more and more of the Bonkers 9000's valves go, the
>output becomes steadily more incoherent. RH
coward.
abelard
typed:
>
>"Paul Hyett" <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Lex0TNLI...@activist.demon.co.uk...
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Unferth <Unf...@nomail.com> stated this considered
>> view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>
>> >A good deal of work has been done on this recently and their is still a
>> >great deal of ambiguity about the meaning of the results. It has been
>shown
>> >that white American IQ results have improved by ~10% in the last 25
>years.
>> >Obviously this brings into doubt a purely racial interpretation of the
>> >results.
>>
>> Quite. It implies that lack of education, rather than inherent
>> inferiority is the issue.
>>
>
>No its not that simple. I believe they have developed test which are
>supposedly insensitive to/adjust for education, as tested on identical twins
>with different educational backgrounds. No answers I'm afraid just
>questions :-(.
education in any society is fairly homogenous...even from
the parasite down the mall to the mining village.....
attitudes are i am convinced....very much more relevant
that is recognised....
look at hatstand....he is thik in part because he has thik
making mental sets....old dogs and new tricks also....
there is no immediate evidence that his neurons are mis-firing.....
>Its best not to be prejudiced on this one way or the other. Some people have
>even mooted different types of intelligence across races, for instance
>aboriginal Australians are supposed to have much stronger visual recognition
>skills that whites.
they are *educated* from very young in an environment where
such skills are valued and important.....
a major error in much work is inattention to the *very* young...
much that is taught is almost designed to make people stupid....
how can you expect a person who has spent their lives following
orders to think for themselves?
look at the way vast numbers of the young have been taught
*obedience'....rule following....lack of initiative....
or alternatively no criticism....impulsiveness....
both these opposites lead to mal-function....many have both
problems at once.....
you cannot teach a person to think by teaching on/off logic....
but it is very widespread in western culture....
(and it is heavily weighted in most 'iq' testing)
the on/off logic is not so pervasive in eastern culture...
note some japanese results after they are educated in a
western on/off logic culture....
http://www.abelard.org/category/category.htm
regards....
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <a4gj79$4hl7$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de>, athomik
><ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
>>In the US in particular, it must be very difficult to establish clear racial
>>divisions based on ancestry, rather than the superficial appearance of the
>>last generation or two. This, in turn would make any meaningful study into a
>>link between race and IQ, and the elimination of environment as a
>>significant factor virtually impossible.
>
>The interesting thing about US blacks is that they score exactly as one
>would expect. With their high admixture of white blood, one would expect
>them to score above black Africans who have little white blood in the
>population. That is what happens. The average US black score is 85 as
>opposed to 70 for Africans. RH .
moron.....
take 100 people weighing 30 stone....
and 100 weighing 10 stone.....average....20 stone....
take 200 people weighing 20 stone....average weight 20 stone....
take an elephant and 10 mice....average weight....
why bother to teach you....
6 weeks time you'll be right back attempting to find another
way to sell your drivel.....
you are not an intelligent investigator....
you are an ignorant bigot attempting to justify your bigotry....
you daren't stand still long enuf to learn facts....
you are too much of a coward....