Support NeoGAF

[JordanN]

I think you should be very careful in your thought process here.. because it's leading you down the wrong road..
I really hope you're not fishing what it seems like you're fishing for..
Because you are so really really wrong..
But I'll give you an answer.
What makes poor neighbourhoods have more crime than rest of society is... wait for it... drumroll pts pts pts... poverty and desperation!! Tada!
But I know you are a libertarian..

Poverty doesn't just magically show up. It's always the result of human interaction.
Same with poor neighborhoods. Again, America was never founded with "bad neighborhoods" littered across the continent.
Violence would have to take root in these cities and eventually become normalized to stay that way.

 

[Dr. Claus]

If it walks like a duck...

Agree to disagree then.

Just the racists ones. Some of my best friends are white.

Understandable. Your wording just leads to a bit of confusion as you seem to refer to it as a general group encompassing all - not specifically the racists. This leads to the question: Why not refer to them as just "racists"? Why specifically state the colour of their skin? I have met plenty of racist folk from all other races as well that push the same ideology. Unless you mean to suggest that the "majority" of racists are white and therefore only they should be called out on it? Curious to know your thoughts.

 

[JordanN]

I have, as well as a number you did not post when I did a cursory look into my university's library and interlibrary loan. I stand by what I stated.

Then I need to see this research that debunks 100 years of observed racial gaps in intelligence or prove why it's biased.

Did you also see the news article I posted where it was determined in court, that IQ differences between blacks and white exist? What do you make of this?
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/17/...q-test-is-no-gauge-for-retarded-students.html

Agreeing with the plaintiffs, Judge Peckham cited statistics showing that in 80 percent of the state's schools black children represented only 27.5 percent of the student population but 62 percent of students in classes for the mentally retarded.

The judge noted that black children on the average scored 15 points below white children on standard intelligence tests such as the Wechsler intelligence scale and the Stanford‐Binet scale. The average on such tests is 100.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Just the racists ones. Some of my best friends are white.

Is this a version of, "I have black friends."?

 

[N21]

Someone/A group has to be at the bottom, it's just life. However, with the current social climate, I don't think it can be race based.

EDIT: Also, psychical superiority is also another thing that is BS and has never been proven.

 

[JordanN]

Someone has to be at the bottom, but as everyday that goes by, I'm certain that it's not a race based thing.

EDIT: Also, psychical superiority is another thing that is BS and has never been proven.

So women are just as strong as men? Why not if no genetics?

. However, with the current social climate, I don't think it can be race based.

Russians were starved by the Soviets. Korea went through a huge civil war and dictatorships. Germany was bombed to the stone age and divided in two. Some countries like Liberia were never colonized.
Every country went through massive societal shifts. But the IQ's of all of them tell a story that is closer to ethnicity than wealth/social status.

 

[N21]

So women are just as strong as men? Why not if no genetics?

Wow, you're really comparing sex to race. That's not even a "gotcha" moment, how sad.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Then I need to see this research that debunks 100 years of observed racial gaps in intelligence or prove why it's biased.

Did you also see the news article I posted where it was determined in court, that IQ differences between blacks and white exist? What do you make of this?
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/17/...q-test-is-no-gauge-for-retarded-students.html

There is nothing to debunk as nothing as been proven. The data obtained all have numerous other variables that have been called out in this thread as well as by other authors, writers, and researchers over the years. None of the theories are universally accepted, nor has there been a consensus against the fact - as I had stated. This is still a field that has a lot more work ahead of it before we can come close to talking in absolutes, like you have been doing.

As for IQ Tests (and testing intelligence in general), they are still debated to this day. A cursory glance at any interlibrary loan search or even google scholar will show as much:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED164662
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X013003015
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...nsen-New-York-Free-Press-1980-786-pp-2995.pdf

Those three are just a few examples of over a hundred articles that are readily available for perusal using the latter option (with many more with the former option, due to the nature of certain journals not having updated or digital versions of research papers).

This is not such a "shut and closed" case as you seem to make it out to be. However, that is as much as I will talk on this subject for now. If you wish to debate further, I suggest you talk with someone else as I am bowing out of this thread. Have a good day, JordanN.

 

[JordanN]

Wow, you're really comparing sex to race. That's not even a "gotcha" moment, how sad.

Dude. You just said "Also, psychical superiority is also another thing that is BS and has never been proven."

I didn't edit anything. This is 100% copy pasted from your post.

By saying this, you're admitting women and men have equal physical strength. Is gender no longer biological?

 

[N21]

Dude. You just said "Also, psychical superiority is also another thing that is BS and has never been proven."

I didn't edit anything This is 100% copy pasted from your post.

By saying this, you're admitting women and men have equal physical strength. Is gender no longer biological?

First, I never accused you of editing, why bring it up?

We're talking about IQ among race and I included psychical superiority among race as you spoked about it. If the part about "psychical superiority" was too vague for you, then I apologize.

 

[JordanN]

First, I never accused you of editing, why bring it up?

We're talking about IQ among race and I included psychical superiority among race as you spoked about it. If the part about "psychical superiority" was too vague for you, then I apologize.

I didn't say races were stronger. Lets re-read my post togther.

Science isn't centered on emotions. It's centered on finding the truth. It's actually incredibly bizarre that of everything that can be studied in the universe, the concept of race is off limits for some reason.
If someone said being physically stronger is biological, no one complains. If someone says being really tall is biological, no one complains. If someone says having a certain eye color is biological, no one complains.

But the moment someone says human intelligence is biological, "OH MY GOD. RACIST. KEEL HIM!"

I put "being" before each statement. It was a general statement. Anyone can be stronger. Anyone can have different eye color. Anyone can be really tall.
Now, do you accept that all these things are genetic? That there are people who happen to be stronger than other people? Is someone who is really tall a result of having more money, or because he/she was born like that?
That was my initial point about people being physically stronger. Do we considered all those things to be genetic as opposed to being about wealth? Absolutely. We see it as genes.

Now, the point I made afterwards. Why can't we accept intelligence has a biological basis? Why is the brain of all body parts deemed "off limits"? Is the brain biological, or is it based around wealth?

 

[Gander]

There's actually another field of research that goes into understanding creativity.

However, if your point is trying to say does painting/singing have to do with intelligence. Does the best painter also make the best doctor? Does the best singer make the best CEO?
No.

The brain is a muscle and what your saying the ability to use it all resides in our generics and ours genetics is our parents. Just to skip to the end your point is educating black people is a waste of time because they lack higher level intelligence passed down by their parents.

So using that same line of thinking white people tend to be inferior athletes so there shouldn't be any white athletes anymore they are wasting their time is that correct?

 

[DeepEnigma]

The brain is an organ, not a muscle.

 

[TheMikado]

So I'm headed to a pool party to enjoy friends, family, and life and really don't have the time or will necessary to devote to my typical task of finding links and such, but that doesn't even matter.

1) IQ and the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect details the rapid change in IQ over a short period of time due to industrialization. It's an incredibly common phenomena
Take the US for example where prior to 1950 the average IQ was that of Sub Saharan Africans even in a predominantly white country. The US and most developed nations only recently gained 100+ point IQ thus the comparison between developed and underdeveloped countries make little sense.

2) What drives IQ, prenatal environment. It's be found the biggest differences in cognitive abilities stems from the prenatal environment. With about 5 point differences in all other factors including genetics. Again the Flynn effect show this in detail, as countries converge in development and health care/conditions, their IQs converge.

Now, like I said I don't have the time and effort to take care of this wholesale but I want to address the topic of JordanN and this forum as a whole.


Firstly, there is a difference between open discussion and propaganda.

JordanN, does not engage in discussion. Many of the claims are ones that have been previously been debunked against him in other threads. The arguments being levied are not in good faith and the point is never to engage in open and productive discussion.

JordanN Repeats the same talking points in every thread even though these same points have been disproven. This is not the work of something engaging in open discussion. This is someone engaging in the work of propaganda. The truth in this context doesn't matter because the only important thing it to continually repeat the same information for exposure, not discussion.

That being said, if this is to be a place of open discussion, then true discussions and not propaganda must occur. Debunking the same points every single thread shuts down discussion because one party isn't attempting to discuss, merely promote. Discussion is the key to this exchange and having to retread these same point over and over again does not help. Even on unrelated topics.

Next, this forum. If this place is to be a medium for propagandist them so be it. I find myself less engaged in OP and this forum in general due to the lack of true and genuine open discussion. Having to fight off troll and propagandist in the midst of attempting to have a discussion make the experience more frustrating than its worth.

Ultimately, no want want to try to engage in a walking advertisement for individuals personal views. This is not to say you cannot have differing opinon, but rather than true discussion must be a priority. Again an individual who is continually repeating the same false points over and over in unrelated threads isn't looking to actually discuss them. Just looking to advertise these views every chance they get. So I repeat what I said before.

There is a difference between open discussion and propaganda.

edit: I'm not going to reply because I'm out enjoying things that actually matter and I suggest you do the same.

 

[Gander]

The brain is an organ, not a muscle.

In a sense it functions as a muscle because it can be trained to improve.

 

[JordanN]

The brain is a muscle and what your saying the ability to use it all resides in our generics and ours genetics is our parents. Just to skip to the end your point is educating black people is a waste of time because they lack higher level intelligence passed down by their parents.

No.

So using that same line of thinking white people tend to be inferior athletes so there shouldn't be any white athletes anymore they are wasting their time is that correct?

No.

IQ doesn't say you can't go to school.

 

[DeepEnigma]

In a sense it functions as a muscle because it can be trained to improve.

It still is not a muscle though. Yes it improves (the only trait similar), but how they improve are completely different on the physical level.

It is still and organ. But no big deal, not wanting to derail what it an interesting dialogue in here.

 

[JordanN]

So I'm headed to a pool party to enjoy friends, family, and life and really don't have the time or will necessary to devote to my typical task of finding links and such, but that doesn't even matter.

1) IQ and the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect details the rapid change in IQ over a short period of time due to industrialization. It's an incredibly common phenomena
Take the US for example where prior to 1950 the average IQ was that of Sub Saharan Africans even in a predominantly white country. The US and most developed nations only recently gained 100+ point IQ thus the comparison between developed and underdeveloped countries make little sense.

This quote is worthless.

You can find the scores of WW1 testing here. Whites, 100 years ago, had an average IQ of 100. Black people, 100 years ago, had an average IQ of 83.

The rest of your post is just crying about feelings. Again, I don't care you call me. Some people hate evolution and think it's fake. Some people say Earth is flat and NASA is faking the entire space program.
None of that contradicts actual evidence that has been rigorously tested for years.

 

[Gander]

No.



No.

IQ doesn't say you can't go to school.

Ok so maybe what you are really saying is if you apply yourself and are given opportunity and resources any race can achieve higher level intelligence.

 

[Marshmallow]

But social media has not, and his point was that the combination of the two is toxic.

Also, I was in my late teens when San Andreas came out and literally no one I knew had a problem with the black lead. In fact, we thought it was awesome because we were teenage boys and loved anything gangster related. We didn't even think of race.

I think the Gaf thread about San Andreas' announcement with people complaining that they "can't relate to a black protagonist" still exist. Should I try to find it? And this is without bring up less moderate places. Good thing gamefaqs archive was scrubbed down.

How people saw Space Jam in the 90s

Nice, but two people can play this game:

How people would see Space Jam back then:

"Oh cool. It's Michael Jordan and Bugs Bunny teaming up to beat some aliens in basketball. Can't wait!"



How people would see Space Jam today.
"It's SJW infiltrating another great franchise and forcing identity politics down our throat. #Whitegenocide. Also I'm not racist."

It's both. People raging for diversity and others are reacting to it.

Can you give me some examples of "people raging for diversity" launching a mass-media smear campaign full of harassment? The only example I can think of is KGD which I agree was awful, but also not something I'd call "major" like, I don't know, people getting mad at black character casting in Star Wars.

I meant GTA: San Andreas sold in spite of there being a black protagonist. Dragon's Crown sold like how a niche game always sold.

So... Am I right? Those articles are useless? Why are we even paying them attention? Heck, if anything I bet DG sold more copies because of them. "This game features how women with big breasts" isn't exactly negative press, even if they try to sell it as such.

The difference is that nobody would have cared or written articles about it had it came out during the PS2 days.

Harry Potter is satanic... Pokemon is evil... GTA makes you shoot people...

But the use of "Sexism" "racism" is trying to shut these games down. For example, Sony's Playstation President admitted that the cultural climate has changed that makes localizing certain games in the U.S difficult.

OK, I'm sorry, but this is flat out wrong. Nowadays localizing games is factually easier. Many games Japanese games straight up didn't make it during the PS1 days in Europe and the USA, because they had religious themes, gay characters or certain types of violence. Go try to play Xenogears as an European or Persona 2 as an english speaker. Oh wait, you can't!

Nowadays? We even get Visual Novels! Even the ones with porn!

See above. It's people reacting to what they see as agenda's being pushed.

So... are these people right? Is there an agenda being pushed when two people of the same sex kiss? "These people" don't see very different wrong the people at Kotaku you hate.

 

[Ulysses 31]

snip

Maybe you can show some of these debunkings because at best I've seen people calling into question the results.

 

[JordanN]

Ok so maybe what you are really saying is if you apply yourself and are given opportunity and resources any race can achieve higher level intelligence.

No. IQ has a threshold. Just as how White people, despite having more wealth and better universities, still can't match the IQ levels of Asians.
But none of that says why White people can't go to school and become a doctor or a scientist. IQ doesn't care what your life choices are.

 

[TheMikado]

This quote is worthless.

You can find the scores of WW1 testing here. Whites, 100 years ago, had an IQ of 100. Black people, 100 years ago, had an IQ of 83.

The rest of your post is just crying about feelings. Again, I don't care you call me. Some people hate evolution and think it's fake. Some people say Earth is flat and NASA is faking the entire space program.
None of that contradicts actual evidence that has been rigorously tested for years.

I know I said I wasn't going to respond but this misinformation needs to be corrected.

That's the point of he Flynn effect and why you don't take complex sociological and psychological concepts and pull random crap out your butt.

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that was measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century.[1] When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

Thus a 100 back then is like a 70 today. It's a CURRENT average rather than a static measurement. It's why your entire arguments about IQ are so idiotic because you don't even know what IQ is or what it measures or how it works.

 

[TheMikado]

Maybe you can show some of these debunkings because at best I've seen people calling into question the results.

I have a very long message history, if you're so interested feel free to do the work yourself.

 

[TheMikado]

No. IQ has a threshold. Just as how White people, despite having more wealth and better universities, still can't match the IQ levels of Asians.
But none of that says why White people can't go to school and become a doctor or a scientist. IQ doesn't care what your life choices are.

Again that's not how IQ works so we can't even have that discussion.

 

[Ulysses 31]

I'm hoping that poster realizes that the group average is meaningless at the individual level.

Of course no individual should be judged on his/her group identity but by individual performance.

 

[JordanN]

I know I said I wasn't going to respond but this misinformation needs to be corrected.

That's the point of he Flynn effect and why you don't take complex sociological and psychological concepts and pull random crap out your butt.

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that was measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century.[1] When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

Thus a 100 back then is like a 70 today. It's a CURRENT average rather than a static measurement. It's why your entire arguments about IQ are so idiotic because you don't even know what IQ is or what it measures or how it works.

They were not sub-Sahara level at all. Again, look at the gap between black and white scores.

 

[Gander]

No. IQ has a threshold. Just as how White people, despite having more wealth and better universities, still can't match the IQ levels of Asians.
But none of that says why White people can't go to school and become a doctor or a scientist. IQ doesn't care what your life choices are.

You are trying to put forth a cause and effect and you are not doing a very good job.

You are saying because black people have lower IQs as an insult but your not finishing off the statement. To what end? Are you trying to say people should not listen to blacks or the PhD for a black person doesn't matter as much as someone else's. If you going to make broad statement like that you have to finish it off.

 

[TheMikado]

They were not sub-Sahara level at all. Again, look at the gap between black and white scores.

Yes they were, current average in US 98.
The shift was almost 30 points since 1950s meaning based on today's average, the average US citizen pre 1950 would have scored around a 68,70 on today's IQ scale. The same as many sub Saharan countries.

It sounds like you don't actually understand how IQ is measured or works.

 

[JordanN]

You are trying to put forth a cause and effect and you are not doing a very good job.

You are saying because black people have lower IQs as an insult but your not finishing off the statement. To what end? Are you trying to say people should not listen to blacks or the PhD for a black person doesn't matter as much as someone else's. If you going to make broad statement like that you have to finish it off.

I'm not sure where you're pulling all these quotes from.
When did I say don't listen to black people? When did I say black people don't matter?

Yes they were,

Goodbye!!!

 

[TheMikado]

Goodbye!!!

I assume his head exploded.
Someone post the Dave Chapelle exploding head gif lol.

Also this is an example of propaganda and not open discussion.

 

[Gander]

I'm not sure where you're pulling all these quotes from.
When did I say don't listen to black people? When did I say black people don't matter?





Goodbye!!!

Exactly your full of shit and so are your polls. You're gonna insult the intelligence of an entire race and then start backtracking when someone asks you to complete the thought. You're exposed.

 

[JordanN]

Exactly your full of shit and so are your polls. You're gonna insult the intelligence of an entire race and then start backtracking when someone asks you to complete the thought. You're exposed.

I posted a metric ton of sources, TheMikado trying to falsify this information is why I rightfully ignore him.

Don't tell me about insulting any person's intelligence. I said, I only post facts made from research, not feelings.

You're the one making stuff up like saying I shouldn't let black people be doctors, when I don't see a study here that says that.
I only posted IQ scores, not life choices or advice.

 

[TheMikado]

I posted a metric ton of sources, TheMikado trying to falsify this information is why I rightfully ignore him.

Don't tell me about insulting any person's intelligence. I said, I only post scientific facts, not feelings.

Again an example where JordanN is only concerned with propaganda and not actual discussion. Are we going to continue to let this be his personal propaganda board under the guise of "open discussion" but then shutting down and discussion which actual engages in discussion? Again this isn't about discussion it's about enabling propaganda and using this forum as the medium.

 

[JordanN]

Again an example where JordanN is only concerned with propaganda and not actual discussion. Are we going to continue to let this be his personal propaganda board under the guise of "open discussion" but then shutting down and discussion which actual engages in discussion? Again this isn't about discussion it's about enabling propaganda and using this forum as the medium.

I told you to look at the gap and you went "oh no, it didn't happen".

Disregarding facts to push your own agenda = moving on.

 

[TheMikado]

I told you to look at the gap and you went "oh no, it didn't happen".

Disregarding facts to push your own agenda = moving on.

You don't understand how IQ works that's the point I'm making. I never claimed the gap doesn't exist but you don't understand what the very thing you are talking actually is.!!!!!

Pre 1950s Americans would have had IQ results comparable to current sub Saharan scores because that's FACTUALLY how the test works. It's not a constant score!

 

[JordanN]

You don't understand how IQ works that's the point I'm making. I never claimed the gap doesn't exist but you don't understand what the very you are talking actually is.!!!!!

Pre 1950s Americans would have had IQ results comparable to current sub Saharan scores because that's FACTUALLY how the test works. It's not a constant score!

But the genes are. Which is what the research shows there has been a gap between black and white for decades.

 

[TheMikado]

But the genes are. Which is what the point of the research shows.
Whites are not comparable to sub-saraha level because the gap in IQ still persists.

While a gap may exist, the actual genetic gap from all scientific estimates are no more than 5 points if at all.

Again, because of how IQ testing works it is deeply dependent on the mean of a population. In this case whites and sub Saharan had similar levels of IQ rating prior to industrialization and modernization of developed countries.

Basically the Flynn effect.

http://www.uva.nl/en/content/news/n...rican-iq-levels-proven-to-be-substandard.html
"The scientists point out that the average African IQ is currently comparable to the average level in the Netherlands around 1950. However, IQ scores in Western countries have risen sharply over the course of the 20th century. In view of this trend, Wicherts and his colleagues claim there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that sub-Saharan countries are poor due to the lower IQ scores of their populations. As it turns out, the average IQ of African adults is seeing a similar rising trend, which is expected to continue if living conditions in Africa improve in future."

Again, white iQs have risen sharply in the last 50 years, but prior to modernization all nations had pretty comparable IQs. That's just how it worked. This gap is a modern phenomena NOT and inherently and specifically genetic one over thousands of years but over only the past 50-100 years.

 

[Grey Specter]

Are all of them are criminals? Maybe not. But why would I assume this to be only true for black people, and not incarcerated whites, asians, hispanics, etc?
And why make these special exceptions when crime data shows, homicide rates are disproportionately higher in blacks than whites? You can't fake a dead body.



If we look at South Africa's incarceration, should I expect to see a high amount of white prisoners? Even after taking into account the real discrimination white people face there?
Again, I can't take seriously that the only reason black people are going to jail is because of racism. Especially when incarceration has gone up since the end of Jim Crow, not down. Was America somehow less racist in the 1960s?

What's more shocking is that blacks who are aged 40-49 are still imprisoned at a higher rate than whites. These are people who were born right after the civil rights act passed, and yet the incarceration rate still persists.

There are many other factors that need to be considered. If you look at the Wikipedia page, you'll realise many of the reasons why there is likely a disparity (failure to post bail makes one more likely to plead guilty, black people using marijuana three times more likely to be incarcerated, etc.), and as I've said already, lingering effects of racial discrimination can carry through generations, not simply end at those that experienced it.

WIth regards to the civil rights act, that is irrelevant; racism is continual. Does the civil rights act prevent it? No, it will always be an issue.

 

[Tumle]

But the genes are. Which is what the research shows there has been a gap between black and white for decades.

What's the gap today and not 40 years ago? I'm actually curious now

Even then it's identity politics and I thought we frowned upon that?

 

[JordanN]

Again, white iQs have risen sharply in the last 50 years, but prior to modernization all nations had pretty comparable IQs. That's just how it worked. This gap is a modern phenomena NOT and inherently and specifically genetic one over thousands of years but over only the past 50-100 years.

100 years ago, the black and white gap existed. Today, this gap still exists.
It's possible there has been better nutrition all around, but that means everyone's scores got higher, not remove the gap. We don't see genes responsible for this go away.

There are many other factors that need to be considered. If you look at the Wikipedia page, you'll realise many of the reasons why there is likely a disparity (failure to post bail makes one more likely to plead guilty, black people using marijuana three times more likely to be incarcerated, etc.), and as I've said already, lingering effects of racial discrimination can carry through generations, not simply end at those that experienced it.

WIth regards to the civil rights act, that is irrelevant; racism is continual. Does the civil rights act prevent it? No, it will always be an issue.

So did white people just get more racist after Jim Crow? Incarceration is higher now than in the 1960s.

What's the gap today and not 40 years ago? I'm actually curious now

Black IQ has always hovered around 83 ~ 85. So it basically only went up 2 points in a 100 years. Whites score 1 Standard Deviation (or 15 points) higher in each test.

Even then it's identity politics and I thought we frowned upon that?

Says who?

 

[Grey Specter]

While a gap may exist, the actual genetic gap from all scientific estimates are no more than 5 points if at all.

Again, because of how IQ testing works it is deeply dependent on the mean of a population. In this case whites and sub Saharan had similar levels of IQ rating prior to industrialization and modernization of developed countries.

Basically the Flynn effect.

http://www.uva.nl/en/content/news/n...rican-iq-levels-proven-to-be-substandard.html
"The scientists point out that the average African IQ is currently comparable to the average level in the Netherlands around 1950. However, IQ scores in Western countries have risen sharply over the course of the 20th century. In view of this trend, Wicherts and his colleagues claim there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that sub-Saharan countries are poor due to the lower IQ scores of their populations. As it turns out, the average IQ of African adults is seeing a similar rising trend, which is expected to continue if living conditions in Africa improve in future."

Again, white iQs have risen sharply in the last 50 years, but prior to modernization all nations had pretty comparable IQs. That's just how it worked. This gap is a modern phenomena NOT and inherently and specifically genetic one over thousands of years but over only the past 50-100 years.

Don't even discuss this. It's already known that many of the tests conducted to prove that caucasians are superior to Africans were skewed. If we conducted this test today, there's no doubt in my mind that the statistics would be vastly different.

How did we even get to this point anyway? I feel like we're skirting dangerously close to the racism line assuming we haven't crossed it already.

 

[JordanN]

Don't even discuss this. It's already known that many of the tests conducted to prove that caucasians are superior to Africans were skewed.

Asians do better than Whites on IQ tests. So who is skewing who?
And these tests require no education. It's all pattern recognition test.

There's no doubt in my mind that the statistics would be vastly different.

Why would it? IQ is hereditary. It's not down to wealth or social standing.

Chinese faced mass starvation and executions by the communist government in the 1950s. Germany had been destroyed by 2 world wars. Liberia and Ethiopia were never colonized.
History was wildly different and treated many people harshly and yet, IQ scores still greatly differ by each ethnic group.

 

[Grey Specter]

100 years ago, the black and white gap existed. Today, this gap still exists.
It's possible there has been better nutrition all around, but that means everyone's scores got higher, not remove the gap. We don't see genes responsible for this go away.



So did white people just get more racist after Jim Crow? Incarceration is higher now than in the 1960s.



Black IQ has always hovered around 83 ~ 85. So it basically only went up 2 points in a 100 years. Whites score 1 Standard Deviation (or 15 points) higher in each test.


Says who?

Asians do better than Whites on IQ tests. So who is skewing who?
And these tests require no education. It's all pattern recognition test.


Why would it? IQ is hereditary. It's not down to wealth or social standing.

Chinese faced mass starvations and executions the communist government in the 1950s. Germany had been destroyed by 2 world wars. Liberia and Ethiopia were never colonized.
History was wildly different and treated many people harshly and yet, IQ scores still greatly differ by each ethnic group.

The 1920's studies were racially skewed. Your beliefs are unfounded. The genetics aspect is still very much debated, unless you're aware of reputable modern day researchers who happen to agree with this consensus. Until then, it's merely your own speculation.

WIth regards to Jim Crow, you should probably check the statistics before and after the acts, not just after.

 

[JordanN]

The 1920's studies were racially skewed.

Based on what? I'm curious to see where you got this information from.

Your beliefs are unfounded.

Tons of tons of sources going into 2012. I even posted a news article where a court judge agreed there was a 15 point IQ difference between black and white children.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jord...white-privilege.1464114/page-7#post-253360667
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/17/...q-test-is-no-gauge-for-retarded-students.html

The genetics aspect is still very much debated, unless you're aware of reputable modern day researchers who happen to agree with this consensus. Until then, it's merely your own speculation.

Not for long. Scientists are indeed coming close to tracking genes that are associated with intelligence.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf

 

[SatansReverence]

Thus a 100 back then is like a 70 today. It's a CURRENT average rather than a static measurement. It's why your entire arguments about IQ are so idiotic because you don't even know what IQ is or what it measures or how it works.

So if a 100 then is a 70 now, what does that make an 83 then and now? Does this flynn effect of yours only affect white people?

 

[DragoonKain]

I would have easily tolerated the term "white privilege" if it didn't turn into something that was so far extreme. If someone wants to define white privilege as "white people are generally more privileged in America than minorities" and end it there I'd say that's fine and true. But the left has gone way out of control with it. It basically has turned into a term used to discredit white people from having opinions on sensitive, political, social, or controversial issues because of the color of their skin. Which actually makes the usage of the term quite racist, which is ironic because the people who generally use the term ad nauseum are the people who pride themselves as coming across as "I'm SO not racist!"

A while back I was with a friend of mine and some other people who I didn't know that well and we were having a discussion about something and my friend made a point and one of the other people said "Yeah, but your opinion doesn't really count because you have white privilege." My friend grew up dirt fucking poor, his mom died when he was young and his dad was a dead beat. He got alopecia at the age of 25 and lost all of his fucking hair on his face and had trouble finding women because of it. He had a tough life, he was the opposite of privileged. I wanted to punch that guy in the face, because my friend worked his way up through poverty to get where he is today and it pissed me off that someone so callously can just go "Nah, you're white, you don't get to talk." And it was just a casual conversation about social topics. Most of the time when people use it, they use it against people they don't even know which makes it all the more ignorant. You have no idea who that person is, what their plights are, how they grew up, yet you just label them as privileged because of their skin color. Text book racism, and it's just flat out fucking ride and mean-spirited.

Some people will argue that examples like my friend still make him white privileged because "Just for the fact that he's white, he's born with more privileges than minorities so even though he had it really hard growing up, that doesn't matter. He's white, so..... PRIVILEGED!" Each person is unique and each example is unique unto itself. Anyone who grows up with adversity and struggles shouldn't have any term of "privileged" hung over their heads, I don't care who you are. It's all part of this whole "White straight men suck!" culture that is being promoted lately, and it's stupid. People are people, man. I hate this whole tribal mentality of grouping people into obscure categories, it's how you divide people.

I think this would be such a less touchy subject if people would stop going to the extremes and to discredit someone simply for the color of their skin.

 

[I_D]

I'm cracking up at the mis-reading of "psychical" and "physical" at the top of this page; especially since it's in reference to causes of intelligence.


To play devil's-advocate for a second:
Hypothetically, it could be possible that a dumb-species and a smart-species of humans could be bred with extremely selective-breeding over the course of many many many many generations (eugenics, basically), but it hasn't happened naturally.
And even if it was happening naturally, humans haven't been out of Africa long enough for evolution to have provided any meaningful differences, unless there's some weird lab out there somewhere which has been breeding people for thousands of years.

A more effective way to create a species of dumb-humans would be to malnourish them for many thousands of years, but that hasn't happened naturally either.

An even more effective way to create a species of dumb-humans would be to create Pavlovian responses to mental stimulation, which could potentially make people fear learning. But again, that hasn't happened either.


The most obvious reason (and the true reason) certain races perform better in schools is rooted in flawed measuring standards, biased queries, and environmental hindrances. There's also confirmation-bias involved, because we rarely ever hear about geniuses unless they've managed to also become successful in some other way (usually financially) and have made it to the spotlight.


I wonder if the most successful countries, educationally, are successful because they have the most resources, a massive history of placing importance on education, a government which rewards education, and a belief that work-ethic leads to positive results.

Nah, it's probably just because of a tiny chemical difference which changes the color of skin; that would be the most logical reason.

 

[BrettWeir]

I may be ignorant, but as a white male, I honestly don't recall anything being given to me. I graduated High School with a less than stellar GPA. Worked retail for years (didnt get a single job because of being white) until I decided to get off my ass and do something, so I joined the Air Force.......which required a LOT of testing, none of which had to do with me being white. I was smart enough to invest in the GI Bill, and when I got out of the Air Force, I applied to a college and had to prove by taking several tests, that I could be admitted. My first year of college, not a single class qualified for college credit due to being out of school for so long and having to re-learn everything to actually take accredited classes. I used that GI Bill to attend college and obtain a Bachelors Degree. I've applied to hundreds of jobs, none of which decided to hire me because I was white, but because of my military background, college GPA, and degree. I am now living comfortably due to my achievements.........not my ethnicity.

Amazing how putting an effort into it, versus being white, has made my life better.

Know what's even more cool? I have Black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian, etc friends who have all been in similar circumstances, and are now doing extremely well for themselves. Strange how that happens.

 

[waxer]

I just got back from holiday in china. Jordan guess how long they go to school for each day even at primary school. If you claim genetics for the reason ,their example more likely actually proves trying harder or longer hours yeilds better results lol